Notices. Notice and request for comments

11,296 words·~51 min read·/register/2007/09/11/07-4426

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28850] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Driver Qualification Files AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request

(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This collection, entitled “Driver Qualification Files,” accounts for the information that motor carriers must obtain and maintain on the qualifications of the commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)drivers they employ. On May 23, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. No comments were received. DATES: Please send your comments by October 11, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28850. You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division. Telephone: 202-366-4235; e-mail *MCPSD@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Driver Qualification Files. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0004. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Motor carriers; drivers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7 million. *Estimated Time per Response:* An average of 28 minutes. *Expiration Date:* September 30, 2007. *Frequency of Response:* The principal obligations of these rules are imposed on motor carriers when considering a driver for employment, and on CMV drivers, when applying for employment. These obligations arise irregularly because they are associated with the hiring process. This collection also imposes certain annual obligations on motor carriers and employee-drivers. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 3,254,580 hours. FMCSA arrives at this estimate through calculation of the time involved with each of the requirements of the driver qualification rules including those pertaining to the hiring of a CMV driver by a motor carrier and the safety performance history of the applicant-driver. Background The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2834 (October 30, 1984)) requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations pertaining to CMV safety. These regulations, also issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, and 31502, require motor carriers to maintain a driver qualification file on each of their CMV drivers. The rules require a motor carrier to obtain and maintain specified information concerning the qualifications of each driver to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. The CMV driver is often required to produce the required information. The majority of the information is collected during the process of hiring the CMV driver and during annual reviews. This information is available to FMCSA investigators to substantiate the qualifications of drivers to operate a CMV safely in interstate commerce. A qualified driver means fewer crashes. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:

(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and

(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for its review and approval and invites public comment. The proposed ICR will be used to collect information on commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)and passenger car drivers' awareness of the Share the Road Safely

(STRS)safety messages and activities. This information collection will aid FMCSA in developing future Share the Road Safely initiatives by surveying and examining driver awareness of sharing the road safely by using safety messages and activities. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by any of the following methods. Please identify your comments by the FMCSA Docket Number FMCSA-2007-28630. • *Web site:* *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow instructions for submitting comments to the Docket. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the Docket Management System

(DMS)to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The DMS is available electronically 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want notification of receipt of your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope, or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Ronk, Office of Outreach and Development, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202)366-1072, or e-mail *brian.ronk@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The purpose of this study is to assess the awareness of licensed drivers regarding Share the Road Safely messages. The study will assist FMCSA in developing future STRS campaign messages and identifying target audiences and distribution strategies. The data will be collected through a telephone survey. Results of the study will not be published, but used for internal research purposes by FMCSA to assess its outreach activities and identify opportunities to help raise the public's awareness of driving safely in, or around, large trucks and vehicles. A follow-up survey will be conducted two years after the initial data collection and compared against the results from the baseline assessment. *Title:* Share the Road Safely Outreach Program Assessment. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-XXXX. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Respondents:* Public/licensed drivers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,500. *Estimated Time per Response:* The estimated average burden per response is 10 minutes. *Expiration Date:* N/A. *Frequency of Response:* Other. The information will be collected during the first year of approval and again two years following the initial data collection. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 250 hours [1,500 responses × 10 minutes/60 minutes per response = 250]. *Public Comments Invited:* Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including but not limited to:

(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/ or included in the request for OMB's clearance for this information collection. Issued on: August 31, 2007. Michael S. Griffith, Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-17806 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-27393] Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comments; Notice of Intent To Survey Motor Carriers Operating Small Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is reopening the comment period on its April 6, 2007, notice and request for comments concerning a proposed survey of motor carriers operating small-passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles to obtain additional feedback from motor carriers and interested parties. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 11, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date to act quickly on the request. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Chandler, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Commercial Passenger Carrier Safety Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone

(202)366-5763, fax

(202)366-3621, e-mail *peter.chandler@dot.gov.* Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 6, 2007, FMCSA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17218), to announce that its Information Collection Request

(ICR)for collecting data about motor carriers who operate small passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. In the April 6th notice, the agency imposed a 30-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the survey. The comment period ended on May 7, 2007. Purpose of Reopening the Comment Period The comment period is being reopened to allow more time for the public to comment on this proposed survey. FMCSA is committed to obtaining information that will provide insight into the common safety and regulatory compliance challenges facing motor carriers with small passenger-carrying CMV operations. Such information provided in the comments will also be utilized by FMCSA to develop educational outreach initiatives for the affected industry segment. It is appropriate that FMCSA connect with and inform this segment of the motor carrier industry of its regulatory compliance responsibilities before implementing an enforcement program. Any information obtained will help identify specific areas of regulatory compliance that are problematic for this industry segment. The survey will also obtain needed insight about how to best provide and distribute information to the affected industry segment. Issued on: September 4, 2007. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-17808 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28523] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Request for Revocation of Authority Granted AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request

(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This information collection notifies the FMCSA of a voluntary request by a motor carrier, freight forwarder, or property broker to amend or revoke its registration of authority granted. On April 3, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. No comments were received by the agency. DATES: Please send your comments by October 11, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Haller, Supervisory Transportation Specialist, Commercial Enforcement Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-385-2362; e-mail *stephanie.haller@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Request for Revocation of Authority. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0018. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently-approved information collection. *Form Number:* OCE-46. *Respondents:* Motor carriers, freight forwarders and property brokers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,250. *Estimated Time per Response:* 15 minutes. *Expiration Date:* September 30, 2007. *Form:* OCE-46. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 813 hours [3,250 annual Form OCE-46 filers × 15 minutes/60 minutes per filing = 812.5 hours, rounded to 813 hours]. *Background:* Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to promulgate regulations governing the registration of for-hire motor carriers of regulated commodities (49 U.S.C. 13902), surface transportation freight forwarders (49 U.S.C. 13903), and property brokers (49 U.S.C. 13904). The FMCSA carries out this registration program under authority delegated by the Secretary. Under 49 U.S.C. 13905, each registration is effective from the date specified and remains in effect for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate by regulation. Section 13905(c) of title 49, U.S.C., grants the Secretary the authority to amend or revoke a registration at the registrant's request. On complaint, or on the Secretary's own initiative, the Secretary may also suspend, amend, or revoke any part of the registration of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder for willful failure to comply with the regulations, an order of the Secretary, or a condition of its registration. Form OCE-46 is used by transportation entities to voluntarily apply for revocation of their registration authority in whole or in part. FMCSA uses the form to seek information concerning the registrant's docket number, name and address, and the reasons for the revocation request. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:

(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for performance of FMCSA's functions;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: August 31, 2007. Michael S. Griffith, Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-17812 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27389] Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice of Request for Comments on a New Information Collection: FMCSA COMPASS Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for information; Correction. SUMMARY: The FMCSA published a notice in the **Federal Register** on April 19, 2007, requesting comments on the renewal of a currently approved information collection. The subject line in the notice contained an incorrect type of information collection request for which comments were received. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Coleman, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone:

(202)366-4440; fax:

(202)493-0679; e-mail: *bill.coleman@dot.gov.* Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Correction In the information collection document under Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27389, in the April 19, 2007, **Federal Register** [72 FR 19753], correct the SUBJECT section, text to read: Notice of Request for Comments on a New Information Collection: * * * Issued on: August 31, 2007. Michael S. Griffith, Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-17813 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for Comments AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements

(ICRs)abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and comment. The ICRs describes the nature of the information collection and their expected burden. The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36750). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6292), or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163

(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On July 5, 2007, FRA published a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB approval. 72 FR 36750. FRA received one comment in response to this notice. The letter came from Mr. John P. Tolman, Vice President and National Legislative Director of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET). BLET, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, is the duly designated and recognized collective bargaining representative for the craft or class of Locomotive Engineer employed on all Class I railroads. BLET also represents operating and other employees on numerous Class II and Class III railroads. In his comments, Mr. Tolman noted the following: * * * the proposed information collection activity would have a significant impact on our members. For the reasons set forth below, BLET strongly supports and urges OMB to approve the request. Recognizing the potential safety benefit of C 3 RS—as evidenced by successes in similar programs in the aviation and health care industries—the BLET was a founding member of the C 3 RS National Planning Committee, and is a member of the successor C 3 RS National Steering Committee. We have participated in C 3 RS activities at all levels in the industry, and have supported implementation of C 3 RS in several areas. See, *e.g.* , 71 FR 56217-56219. The breath of voluntary acceptance of the C 3 RS process throughout the railroad industry will depend upon the extent of demonstrable evidence that the process improves railroad safety. Accordingly, a thorough and independent evaluation of C 3 RS is an essential element of the process. The evaluation, as proposed, is both necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, and properly structured so as to achieve its stated purpose. We wholeheartedly urge OMB to approve the request, and look forward to participating in this element of the C 3 RS process. Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); *see also* 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. The summary below describes the nature of the information collection requirements

(ICRs)and the expected burden, and are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA. *Title:* Confidential Close Call Reporting System Evaluation-Related Interview Data Collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-NEW. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Rail employees and key non-railroad stakeholders. *Abstract:* In the U.S. railroad industry, injury rates have been declining over the last 25 years. Indeed, the industry incident rate fell from a high of 12.1 incidents per 100 workers per year in 1978 to 3.66 in 1996. As the number of incidents has decreased, the mix of causes has also changed toward a higher proportion of incidents that can be attributed to human and organizational factors. This combination of trends—decrease in overall rates but increasing proportion of human factors-related incidents—has left safety managers with a need to shift tactics in reducing injuries to even lower rates than they are now. In recognition of the need for new approaches to improving safety, FRA has instituted the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C 3 RS). The operating assumption behind C 3 RS is that by assuring confidentiality, employees will report events which, if dealt with, will decrease the likelihood of accidents. C 3 RS, therefore, has both a confidential reporting component, and a problem analysis/solution component. C 3 RS is expected to affect safety in two ways. First, it will lead to problem solving concerning specific safety conditions. Second, it will engender an organizational culture and climate that supports greater awareness of safety and a greater cooperative willingness to improve safety. If C 3 RS works as intended, it could have an important impact on improving safety and safety culture in the railroad industry. While C 3 RS has been developed and implemented with the participation of FRA, railroad labor, and railroad management, there are legitimate questions about whether it is being implemented in the most beneficial way, and whether it will have its intended effect. Further, even if C 3 RS is successful, it will be necessary to know if it is successful enough to implement on a wide scale. To address these important questions, FRA is implementing a formative evaluation to guide program development, a summative evaluation to assess impact, and a sustainability evaluation to determine how C 3 RS can continue after the test period is over. The evaluation is needed to provide FRA with guidance as to how it can improve the program, and how it might be scaled up throughout the railroad industry. Program evaluation is an inherently data driven activity. Its basic tenet is that as change is implemented, data can be collected to track the course and consequences of the change. Because of the setting in which C 3 RS is being implemented, that data must come from the railroad employees (labor and management) who may be affected. Critical data include beliefs about safety and issues related to safety, and opinions/observations about the operation of C 3 RS. The proposed study is a five-year demonstration project to improve rail safety, and is designed to identify safety issues and propose corrective action based on voluntary reports of close calls submitted to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Because of the innovative nature of this program, FRA is implementing an evaluation to determine whether the program is succeeding, how it can be improved and, if successful, what is needed to spread the program throughout the railroad industry. Interviews to evaluate the close call reporting system will be conducted with two groups:

(1)Key stakeholders to the process ( *e.g.* , FRA officials, industry labor, and carrier management within participating railroads); and

(2)Employees in participating railroads who are eligible to submit close call reports to the Confidential Close Call Reporting System. Different questions will be addressed to each of these two groups. Interviews will be semi-structured, with follow-up questions asked as appropriate depending on the respondent's initial answer. The confidentiality of the interview data is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. FRA fully complies with all laws pertaining to confidentiality, including the Privacy Act. Thus, information obtained by or acquired by FRA's contractor, the Volpe Center, from key stakeholders and railroad employees will be used strictly for evaluation purposes. None of the information that might be identifying will be disseminated or disclosed in any way. In addition, the participating railroad sites involved will require Volpe to establish a non-disclosure agreement that prohibits disclosure of company confidential information without the carrier's authorization. Also, the information is protected under the Department of Transportation regulation Title 49 CFR Part 9,which is in part concerned with the Department involvement in proceedings between private litigants. According to this statute, if data are subpoenaed, Volpe and Volpe contractors can not “provide testimony or produce any material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's official duties or because of that employee's official duty status” unless authorized by agency counsel after determining that, in legal proceedings between private litigants, such testimony would be in the best interests of the Department or that of the United States Government if disclosed. Finally, the name of those interviewed will not be requested. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 267 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments regarding this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on the following:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC on September 5, 2007. D. J. Stadtler, Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17809 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Electronic Remote Authority Delivery Systems AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of interpretation. SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice of interpretation to inform interested parties of its position regarding the implementation of digital electronic remote authority delivery systems that permit authorized users to electronically request, obtain, and release authorities to occupy controlled tracks. These activities are classified as safety-critical functions, and may interact with the functions of train control systems and dispatching procedures. Depending on the functionality and complexity of these systems, railroads seeking to implement digital electronic remote authority systems may be required to comply with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 236, Subpart H (Subpart H). This notice classifies digital electronic authority delivery systems based on their functionality and identifies categories of systems that are subject to compliance with the requirements of Subpart H. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to Thomas McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and Train Control Division, or Olga Cataldi, Senior Electronic Engineer, FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, by facsimile (202-493-6216) or e-mail ( *thomas.mcfarlin@dot.gov* ) or ( *olga.cataldi@dot.gov* ). Comments may also be submitted to Kathy Shelton, FRA Office of Chief Counsel, by facsimile (202-493-6068) or e-mail ( *kathryn.shelton@dot.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and Train Control Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6203), e-mail ( *thomas.mcfarlin@dot.gov* ); Olga Cataldi, Senior Electronic Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6321), e-mail ( *olga.cataldi@dot.gov* ); or Kathy Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6063), e-mail ( *kathryn.shelton@dot.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background With technical advances and the wide availability of wireless communication technology, a number of Class I and short line railroads have been developing and, for the past several years, implementing a variety of software-based applications for the electronic delivery of digital track authorities to roadway workers. Software-based digital communication between railroad workers and the dispatch center has proven to be an effective alternative to voice communication with the dispatcher via radio. Digital communications may potentially result in significant increases in safety by eliminating delivery or read back errors associated with voice communications. Digital communications may also increase the effectiveness of railroad operations and track maintenance resources utilization by significantly decreasing the time associated with obtaining and releasing track authorities. These potential operational and safety benefits are prompting railroads to extend the use of wireless data communication to digital transmission of track warrants to trains. Further, railroads are seeking to extend the functionalities associated with the digital communication of authorities to roadway workers and train crews to include the auto-generation and issuance of authorities, excluding any involvement of the dispatcher. The regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, which currently govern the delivery of authorities for exclusive track occupancy to roadway workers, do not specifically address digital communication between the dispatcher and the employee in charge. Currently, 49 CFR 214.321(a)(1) requires that all authorities issued to a roadway worker in charge be given by the dispatcher or control operator who controls train movement on that track. The digital delivery of movement authorities to train crews is addressed in 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart H. This set of regulations prescribes the minimum safety standards for the development and operation of processor-based signal and train control systems. As stated in the preamble to Subpart H, FRA purposely left the term “train control” undefined, as advances in technology supporting these systems would make any definition of the term “train control”, or any list of train control systems and associated features, “undoubtedly outdated” in a relatively short period of time. *See* 70 FR 11052, 11066. Therefore, the requirements contained in Subpart H apply to “safety-critical products”, which include systems that provide safety-relevant information on which crews are expected to rely. *See* 49 CFR 236.901. However, FRA emphasized in the preamble to the rule that “[o]ther systems providing safety-relevant information on which crews are expected to rely will also fall within this term”. *See* 70 FR 11052, 11066. In regard to dispatching systems, a centralized computer-aided train dispatching system being a part of an “office system” may also be subject to Subpart H compliance, if “it performs safety-critical functions within, or affects the safety performance of, a new or next generation train control system.” *See* 49 CFR 236.911(c). FRA recognizes that its current regulations do not clearly address the auto-generation and digital communication of authorities to roadway workers and locomotive engineers. FRA is currently taking measures to augment existing regulations to more clearly address these functionalities. For example, FRA, with the participation of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, has explored appropriate conditions for the digital transmission of authority to a roadway worker in charge. In light of these discussions, FRA expects to include specific concepts in a notice of proposed rulemaking for revision of 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C. Further, FRA has been in discussion with the Association of American Railroads regarding the need for general standards to ensure the effectiveness and security of wireless communications particularly in the field of train control. Pending the issuance of regulations and other actions in this area, FRA believes that it is both necessary and appropriate to clarify the existing regulatory requirements applicable to the auto-generation and digital delivery of authorities. The following discussion is intended to provide that clarification. Classification of Digital Electronic Remote Authority Delivery Systems Software-based digital electronic remote authority delivery systems can be classified based on their purpose, and the level of dispatcher involvement as follows: *By purpose:* • Roadway Worker Protection

(RWP)systems (deliver track occupancy authorities to a roadway worker in charge). • Remote Authority systems (deliver track occupancy authorities to a roadway worker in charge and movement authorities to a train crew). *By dispatcher's role:* • Dispatcher generated (or dispatcher confirmed) authorities • Automatically generated authorities (these authorities may be generated by the system itself, by a computer-aided train dispatching system (CAD), or as part of a positive train control system). Remote Authority and Roadway Worker Protection systems can both be used in signaled and non-signaled

(dark)territories. These systems can operate as either an autonomous dispatching-type system or as an overlay to an existing method of operation. Based on the classification given above, FRA has identified four distinct categories of digital electronic remote authority delivery system functionalities: 1. Electronic transmission of authorities to roadway workers with dispatcher's electronic confirmation; 2. Electronic transmission of authorities to train crews with dispatcher's electronic confirmation; 3. Automatic generation and electronic transmission of the authorities to roadway workers without dispatcher's involvement; or, 4. Automatic generation and electronic transmission of the authorities to train crews without dispatcher's involvement. While FRA fully supports the railroad industry's desire to implement digital electronic remote authority delivery systems, FRA also believes that to the extent such systems execute the necessary logic to generate valid mandatory directives or roadway work authorities, they are functionally forms of train control subject to Subpart H. Further, digital pathways embedded in conventional signal and train control systems, including communication-based train control systems, are relevant subsystems deserving of consideration within the context of Subpart H review. In the event of malfunction of any of these types of systems, FRA would expect each employing railroad to have operating rules in place that address reversion to voice or written delivery of authorities by the dispatcher, consistent with any applicable existing regulations. The following discussion provides clarification on the applicability of FRA regulatory requirements to each category of digital electronic remote authority delivery systems. Systems Performing Electronic Transmission of Authorities to Roadway Workers With Dispatcher's Electronic Confirmation The software-based application (or processor-based system) belongs to this category if: 1. It serves as an autonomous office (dispatching) system in the absence of a CAD system, or as an auxiliary system interfaced with an existing CAD system, and is used exclusively for issuing authorities to roadway workers to occupy controlled tracks; 2. It allows the employee in charge to request, obtain, and release the authority to occupy a controlled track through wireless digital communication with the dispatcher or control operator in charge of the track; 3. Upon receipt of an electronically transmitted request from a roadway worker to occupy track, the authority is generated by the dispatcher or automatically by the application system (or by CAD) and is electronically transmitted by the application system accompanied by electronic confirmation of the dispatcher; 4. The dispatcher holds ultimate responsibility for the proper issuance of authority to roadway workers and for maintaining proper records of track occupancy by other authorized users; and, 5. The system server retains electronic records of roadway workers' requests for authority and dispatcher's entries of all authority granted by the dispatcher, including those issued to trains. Such systems perform functions described in 49 CFR Part 214, although that part currently does not address means of authority delivery. These systems are not, however, subject to Subpart H because they only provide electronic transmission of track occupancy authority. The generation and release of the authority remains the responsibility of the dispatcher, as currently required by 49 CFR 214.321(a). Once the revision of Part 214 is completed, these systems may be subject to new requirements regarding electronic delivery of authorities to roadway workers in charge (related to security and authentication of the digital transmission). Systems Performing Electronic Transmission of Authorities to Trains With Dispatcher's Electronic Confirmation The definition of this category of processor-based applications (or computer-based systems) coincides with the definition given above for RWP systems, except the delivery of authority is extended to trains. FRA has determined that the electronic delivery of movement authority to trains is a safety-critical function pertaining to train control systems. If the dispatcher is involved in the process of generating the authority or is confirming the CAD system-generated authority, and the closed-loop communication occurs between the dispatcher and train crew, FRA recognizes that the regulatory requirements for systems delivering authorities to trains should be the same as for those delivering authorities to roadway workers. FRA further recognizes that, if the system includes functions related to commanding or warning crews based on changing field conditions (e.g., in the same way a cab signal would “drop” if a circuit were deenergized by equipment rolling out on the main line), then the system is a train control application. FRA utilizes the following criteria in determining the applicability of Subpart H to systems of this category: 1. If the content of electronic messages transmitted to a train crew are limited exclusively to movement authorities and other mandatory directives, the application system is exempt from compliance with Subpart H. 2. If the content of electronic messages transmitted to a train crew, in addition to movement authorities and other mandatory directives, contain warning or other enforcement commands impacting train handling, the application system must comply with Subpart H. 3. If the communication subsystem embedded in any new train control system is an integral part of that system, it is subject to Subpart H requirements. FRA encourages railroads to arrange digital systems which communicate safety-critical information so that security of the messages is maintained and authentication of those issuing and acknowledging mandatory directives is established. Although use of digital transmission has the advantage of accuracy (avoidance of misunderstandings) and efficiency, insecure transmissions and lack of proper authentication could introduce new risks. FRA expects that, as this technology fully matures, industry standards will address these needs even more suitably than at present within an interoperable framework. If Subpart H is applicable, the railroad shall submit an RSPP and PSP required by 49 CFR 236.905 and 236.907. Systems Performing Automatic Generation and Electronic Transmission of the Authorities to Roadway Workers Without Dispatcher's Involvement The processor-based application (or computer-based system) belongs to this category if: 1. It serves as an autonomous office (dispatching) system, in the absence of a CAD system, or as an auxiliary system interfaced or integrated with an existing CAD system, and is used exclusively for issuing authorities to roadway workers to occupy controlled tracks; 2. It allows the employee in charge to request, obtain, and release the authority to occupy a controlled track through wireless digital communication without the dispatcher's concurrence; 3. Upon receipt of an electronically transmitted request from a roadway worker to occupy track, the authority is generated automatically by the CAD system (or application system) and is electronically transmitted by the application system without the dispatcher's concurrence; and 4. The system server retains electronic records of roadway workers' requests for authority and all granted authorities, including those issued to trains. Such systems are subject to compliance with Subpart H. The delivery of track occupancy authority to roadway workers without the dispatcher's involvement is considered a safety-critical function in the same way that control of train movements is safety-critical. This constitutes a basis for these systems to comply with Subpart H requirements. Railroads shall submit an RSPP and PSP in accordance with 49 CFR 236.905 and 236.907 prior to implementing any such system. Relief is also required from the requirements of Part 214, Subpart C, related to dispatcher involvement in the issuance of roadway work authorities. Systems Performing Automatic Generation and Digital Transmission of Authorities to Trains Without Dispatcher's Involvement The definition of this category of processor-based applications (or computer-based systems) coincides with the definition given in a previous section for RWP systems, except that the delivery of authorities is extended to trains. Systems of this category are subject to compliance with Subpart H because the delivery of track occupancy authority to roadway workers and trains without dispatcher involvement is considered a safety-critical function of a train control system. Therefore, railroads shall submit an RSPP and PSP in accordance with 49 CFR 236.905 and 236.907 prior to implementing any such system. Those interested in implementing systems that automatically generate mandatory directives, roadway work authorities, or other instructions or commands (executed by persons or equipment) bearing directly on the safety of train operations, are respectfully referred to Appendix C of 49 CFR Part 236, which outlines safety assurance criteria and processes that are relevant to such an undertaking. FRA seeks comments on this notice from interested parties. Please refer to the Addresses section for additional information regarding the submission of comments. Issued in Washington, DC on September 4, 2007. Jo Strang, Associate Administrator for Safety. [FR Doc. E7-17800 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Safety Advisory 2007-03 AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory; Railroad Bridge Safety—Explanation and Amplification of FRA's “Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges.” SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2007-03 recommending that owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges adopt safety practices to prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges and reduce the risk of casualties from train derailments caused by structural failures of such bridges. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., RRS-15, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6320); or Sarah Grimmer, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., RCC-12, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6390). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA published its “Statement of Agency Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges” (“Policy”) on August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52667). The Policy Statement, included in the Federal Track Safety Standards (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 213) as Appendix C, includes non-regulatory guidelines based on good practices which were prevalent in the railroad industry at the time the Policy was issued. FRA has examined reports from January 1, 1982 through December 31, 2006 of 52 train accidents caused by the catastrophic structural failure of railroad bridges, an average of two per year. During that twenty-five year period, two people were injured and no fatalities were attributed to structural bridge failure. In addition, since the examination of those reports in April of 2006, FRA has learned of four instances where lack of adherence to the guidelines in the Bridge Safety Policy resulted in trains operating over structural deficiencies in steel bridges that could very easily have resulted in serious train accidents. It should be noted that FRA uses the term “catastrophic failure” to describe an incident in which a bridge collapses or directly causes a train accident. A simple “bridge failure” is a situation in which a bridge is no longer capable of safely performing its intended function. During the past sixteen months, three train accidents occurred due to catastrophic structural failures of bridges, all of which were timber trestles. The most recent bridge-related train accident occurred on the M&B Railroad near Myrtlewood, Alabama, where a train of solid-fuel rocket motors derailed when a timber trestle railroad bridge collapsed under the train. Several cars, including one car carrying a rocket motor, rolled onto their sides and six persons were injured. FRA has also recently evaluated the bridge management practices of several small railroads, and found that some had no bridge management or inspection programs whatsoever. FRA therefore issues this non-regulatory Safety Advisory to supplement and re-emphasize the provisions of the Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges. FRA recognizes the potential impact of regulations related to structural integrity of railroad bridges. However, should these serious incidents and failures continue and FRA determines that the responsible track owners are not conforming to accepted engineering principles and procedures, including those outlined herein and in the Bridge Safety Policy, FRA might have to change course and develop a regulatory approach. FRA Bridge Safety Evaluations FRA has been evaluating bridge management practices on a representative sampling of the Nation's railroads, including class I, II and III freight railroads, and passenger carriers. The evaluations generally compare a railroad's program with the guidelines in the FRA Bridge Safety Policy, and include observations of individual bridges to determine their general condition, as well as the accuracy of the railroad's inspection reports. Most large railroads generally conform to the FRA guidelines, but FRA has discovered instances where management had not adequately evaluated or addressed critical items delineated in railroad bridge inspection reports before they developed into critical failures or near-failures. Many of the smaller railroads evaluated also conformed generally to the guidelines, but a considerable number either fell short by a large degree, or showed absolutely no evidence of bridge inspection, management or maintenance. This Safety Advisory As serious gaps exist between the FRA Bridge Safety Guidelines and the actual practices on many railroads, and because FRA has discovered some extremely serious hazards as a result, FRA is issuing this Safety Advisory. Its purpose is to explain and amplify the provisions of the Bridge Safety Guidelines, and to discuss and make recommendations concerning some points in addition to the guidelines that FRA has determined are critical to bridge safety. Conformance with the FRA Bridge Safety Guidelines Certain provisions of the FRA Bridge Safety Guidelines are critical from the standpoint of immediate safety to the development and implementation of a railroad's bridge management program. These points are reiterated and expanded below. Responsibility for the Safety of Railroad Bridges FRA has specified that the owner of the track carried by a bridge is responsible for the safety of trains that operate over that track, and therefore the track owner must know that the track is being adequately supported by the bridge. Even though the Guidelines are published as an appendix in the Federal Track Safety Standards for convenience, that does not imply that the track owner need only assure compliance with the minimum requirements of the Track Standards. Track conditions that are well within the limits of the Track Standards might also be valid indications of imminent bridge failure. The owner of the track supported by a bridge is fully responsible for the safety of trains that operate over that bridge, regardless of any agreements, or division of ownership or maintenance expense, to the contrary. The track owner must be able to control, and restrict if necessary, the movement of trains on any segment of its track, including the track on a bridge. Capacity of Railroad Bridges, and Bridge Loads The capacity of a bridge, and the actual loads that it carries, are so interrelated that they must be considered together. The load a bridge carries directly affects its serviceable life and safety. These loads, and various external influences, impose forces on the various components of the bridge. These components, in turn, are each capable of carrying a certain level of forces without failing or rapidly deteriorating. Every properly designed railroad bridge is configured and proportioned so that it will safely handle the forces developed by a certain train load, together with effects associated with that load. That load, termed the “design load,” is the general basis for determining the safe capacity of a bridge. The design load is, most typically, a series of wheel loads of defined weight, with spacings between every pair of wheels of a defined distance. The bridge must also be capable of carrying its own weight, the weight of other objects permanently attached to the bridge, such as signals and pipes, and other external forces, such as wind and stream flow. An engineer determining the capacity of a bridge, a process termed “rating,” is fortunate if the original design documents of the bridge are available, together with documentation of repairs, modifications and inspections. In that case, the design load can be compared with the original dimensions of the bridge and its components, including inspection records that indicate the actual condition of the components, and the bridge can be given a rating in terms of a common standard series of train loads. Absent the design documents for a bridge, an engineer should make a detailed inspection of every member of the bridge to record its actual dimensions, material, and condition. Every train moving over a bridge causes forces to be developed in the components of the bridge. The magnitude of those forces in each component are determined by the weight carried on each wheel, the spacing of the wheels within the train, and associated effects, such as impact, rocking, and lateral forces. The effect of the actual load on a bridge can be associated with the effect of the rated load, and an engineer can determine if the proposed or actual loads are within the limits of the rated load, given any operating conditions placed on an actual load. Several critical points are associated with making a proper determination of bridge capacities and loads. At a minimum, each track owner should take the following actions: 1. Ensure that a professional engineer competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering, or someone under his or her supervision, determines bridge capacity; 2. Maintain a record of the safe capacity of every bridge which carries its track; 3. Enforce a procedure that will ensure that its bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities; and 4. Ensure that regular comprehensive inspections are conducted. Bridge ratings will change with time, and will seldom improve. Regular comprehensive inspections are vital to maintaining valid bridge ratings and to performing timely bridge maintenance and repairs. The rating of timber trestles is a less exact process than the rating of steel and concrete bridges. Timber bridge components can vary widely in their composition, quality and condition. The inherent redundancy in timber trestles will partly compensate for a single sub-standard component, but the good parts which pick up more than their share of load from the weak member will degrade at a more rapid rate. It is essential that a weak timber member be repaired or replaced in a reasonable time; however, while it is still in place in the bridge, it and its surrounding members should be given extra attention with more frequent, detailed inspections. Bridge Inspection Railroad bridges are subjected to train loads and associated effects, as noted above. In addition, they are subjected to both natural and non-natural effects. Natural effects include decay, corrosion, deterioration of concrete and masonry, thermal expansion and contraction, freezing and thawing of water, floods, and growth of vegetation. Non-natural effects include impacts from vehicles and vessels, train derailments, vandalism and fires. All of these effects can severely and rapidly degrade the capacity of a bridge to safely carry its railroad traffic. Railroad bridges also support much heavier loads in relation to their own weight (ratio of live load to dead load) than do highway bridges. All of these factors have led to a standard practice in the railroad industry to inspect each bridge carrying railroad tracks at a frequency of not less than once per year. Bridge inspection, unlike the inspection of track, equipment and other railroad property, is a multi-level process. The inspector is a technician who should be able to reach all parts of the bridge to be inspected, detect indications of deterioration or other problems on the bridge, and accurately record and report them. Most railroad bridge inspection programs employ inspectors with these qualifications, but those inspectors are not expected to be able to perform the engineering calculations necessary to determine the safe capacity of a bridge. That function is performed by a competent engineer, working from basic design and historical records of the bridge and the reports of the inspector-technicians. While the engineer needs complete and accurate information on the condition of the bridge from the inspector, the inspector can provide a much more comprehensive inspection if the engineer provides information back regarding any critical points or components on the bridge that might call for more intensive investigation or specialized inspection techniques. These items might be discovered in the bridge design documents, especially the so-called “stress sheets,” or by review of certain types of connections that have been prone to trouble on other bridges. This type of two-way communication can prove invaluable. Protection of Train Operations FRA did not address the issue of protection of train operations from potentially hazardous bridge conditions in the guidelines because FRA did not find it to be a problem at the time. Since then, however, FRA has discovered several instances where a person who was not fully qualified to determine the safety of a bridge was dispatched to resolve a report of trouble, and that person approved the bridge for continued service based on the criteria in the Federal Track Safety Standards, rather than a structural evaluation of the bridge. In a typical case, a track owner would have a railroad track inspector investigate a report from a train crew of rough track on a bridge. It is possible that during such an investigation, even a diligent track inspector would fail to find a deviation from the requirements of the Track Safety Standards for the class of track on the bridge, or, in the alternative, would find that the track could be brought into compliance with a temporary speed restriction. In this situation, it is likely that, after possibly placing a speed restriction, he would have returned the bridge to service while the structural condition that caused the track anomaly still existed. Without further attention, the anomaly would continue to deteriorate, until the bridge actually failed under load. *Recommended Action:* FRA makes the following specific recommendations to owners of railroad track carried on one or more bridges, in order to prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage and disruption to the Nation's transportation system that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure.

(1)Inventory of Railroad Bridges. Every owner of track carried on one or more bridges should maintain an accurate inventory of those bridges. The inventory, or “bridge list,” should identify the location of the bridge, its configuration, type of construction, number of spans, span lengths, and all other information necessary to provide for management of the bridges.

(2)Regular Comprehensive Inspections. Every owner of track carried on a bridge should ensure that regular comprehensive inspections are conducted, as these are vital to maintaining valid bridge ratings and to performing timely bridge maintenance and repairs.

(3)Determination of Railroad Bridge Capacities and Loads. Several critical points are associated with making a proper determination of bridge capacities and loads. At a minimum, each track owner should take the following actions:

(a)Ensure that a professional engineer competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering, or someone under his or her supervision, determines bridge capacity;

(b)Maintain a record of the safe capacity of every bridge which carries its track; and

(c)Enforce a procedure that will ensure that its bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities.

(4)Railroad Bridge Inspection Procedures and Recordkeeping.

(a)*Inspection frequency.* Every bridge which carries railroad traffic should be inspected at least once per year. The level of detail and the inspection procedure should be appropriate to the configuration of the bridge, conditions found during previous inspections, and the nature of the railroad traffic moved over the bridge (car weights, train frequency and length, levels of passenger and hazardous materials traffic, and vulnerability of the bridge to damage).

(b)*Inspection records.* Every bridge inspection should be recorded, and the record of the inspection be available to the engineer who is responsible for the integrity of the bridge. The inspection record should show the date on which the inspection was actually performed, the precise identification of the bridge inspected, the items inspected and the condition of those items. Any inspection item that is found by the inspector to be a potential problem should be described in a narrative. Many different systems are used to ascribe condition values to bridges and their components, but care should be taken that the inspection reports do not simply generate a number but, instead, an accurate description of the condition of the bridge components. It is appropriate to use a valuation system that serves to identify individual inspection reports that should be reviewed by the engineer or other engineering managers.

(c)*Prescribing inspection procedures.* The engineer responsible for the safety of a group of railroad bridges should prescribe the inspection procedures for those bridges. Bridges of a common configuration and no exceptional conditions may be considered as a group for a common procedure, but uncommon bridges, those with critical components and bridges which indicate possible deterioration that could affect their continued safety should be noted to the inspector. The inspector should be advised of any particular items of concern on the bridge, and any specific inspection procedure (frequency, detail and method) that is necessary to maintain the safety of the bridge.

(d)*Review of inspection reports by a competent engineer.* Bridge inspection reports should be reviewed by an engineer who is competent in the field of railroad bridge engineering. The engineer should determine whether the bridges are being inspected according to the applicable procedure and frequency, and will review any items noted by the inspector as exceptions. Often, the individual exceptions would not indicate a serious problem with a bridge, but when considered together by an engineer, they would show a more serious problem developing on the bridge.

(5)Protection of Train Operations. A bridge owner should designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage or indications of potential structural problems. Only a qualified person should be permitted to authorize train operation after such an occurrence. Implementation of the FRA Bridge Safety Program FRA has been conducting evaluations of railroad bridge management programs since the 1980's, before the Bridge Safety Policy was first issued. The Policy indicates that its guidelines will be the basis for FRA's evaluation of bridge management. This Safety Advisory essentially amplifies and clarifies the criteria included in the Policy guidelines. The recommendations included in this Safety Advisory will be reviewed by FRA personnel when conducting evaluations of railroad bridge management. The same criteria, together with other risk factors, will be considered by FRA when selecting small railroads for further evaluation. FRA will maintain on-going evaluations on the larger railroads and passenger carriers. FRA has been able to adhere to its policy of not issuing specific regulations governing bridge management, bridge conditions and bridge capacities. If the continuing evaluations show that the railroad industry is essentially adhering to the principles of good engineering and the provisions of this Safety Advisory, and also provided that no significant train accidents are caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge, FRA intends to continue with this non-regulatory policy. Owners of track carried on one or more railroad bridges are encouraged to voluntarily take action in accordance with these recommendations. If circumstances so warrant, FRA reserves the authority to take other corrective action, including: issuing an emergency order to restrict operations over a railroad bridge if necessary to protect public safety, modifying this Safety Advisory 2007-03, issuing additional safety advisories, taking regulatory action, or taking other appropriate action necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2007. Jo Strang, Associate Administrator for Safety. [FR Doc. E7-17811 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket: PHMSA-1998-4957] Request for Public Comments and Office of Management and Budget Approval of an Existing Information Collection (2137-0618) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice requests public participation in the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval process for the renewal and extension of an information collection: “Pipeline Safety: Periodic Underwater Inspections.” PHMSA invites the public to submit comments over the next 60 days on whether the existing information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOT. DATES: Submit comments on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Reference Docket PHMSA-1998-4957 and submit comments in the following ways: • *Electronic Submissions:* Through September 27, 2007, comments may be submitted electronically on the e-Gov Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov* or on the DOT electronic docket site, *http://dms.dot.gov.* To submit comments on the DOT electronic docket, click “Comment/Submissions,” click “Continue,” fill in the requested information, click “Continue,” enter your comment, then click “Submit.” Beginning on September 27, 2007, electronic comment submissions may only be made on the E-Gov Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov.* • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* DOT Docket Management System; 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Identify the docket number, PHMSA-1998-4957, at the beginning of your comments. If you mail your comments, send two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Through September 27, 2007, internet users may access all comments received by DOT at *http://dms.dot.gov* by performing a simple search for the docket number. Beginning September 30, 2007, internet users may access all comments received by DOT at *http://www.regulations.gov.* (Please note that comments may not be accessible on either Web site on September 28-29, 2007, during system migration). All comments are posted electronically without changes or edits, including any personal information provided. Privacy Act—Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), and is on the Web at *http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Little at

(202)366-4569, or by e-mail at roger.little@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice concerns Periodic Underwater Inspections, an existing information collection in 49 CFR 192.612 and 195.413 of the pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA requires each operator of a natural gas or hazardous liquid pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets to periodically inspect its pipelines in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep as measured from mean low water that are at risk of being an exposed underwater pipeline or a hazard to navigation. If an operator discovers that its pipeline is an exposed underwater pipeline or poses a hazard to navigation, the operator must promptly report the location and, if available, the geographic coordinates of that pipeline to the National Response Center. PHMSA is now requesting that OMB grant a three-year term of approval for renewal of this information collection. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, PHMSA invites comments on whether the renewal is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOT. As used in this notice, the term “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this information collection requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information, and conducting telephone calls. Comments may include

(1)whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of DOT's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Type of Information Collection Request:* Renewal of existing collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Pipeline Safety: Periodic Underwater Inspections. *Respondents:* 82. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,350 hours. *Estimated Cost:* $6,475. Issued in Washington, DC on September 4, 2007. Florence L. Hamn, Director of Regulations, Office of Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. E7-17896 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; Public Meeting AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will conduct a public meeting in preparation for the twenty-first meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization's

(ICAO)Dangerous Goods Panel

(DGP)to be held November 5-16, 2007 in Montreal, Canada. DATES: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 1:30 p.m.-5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the new DOT Headquarters, West Building, Oklahoma City Conference Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Duane Pfund, Director, Office of International Standards, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;

(202)366-0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this public meeting will be to discuss draft U.S. positions on the proposals that will be considered during the 21st Meeting of the ICAO DGP. Agenda items include: *Agenda Item 1:* Development of proposals, if necessary, for amendments to Annex 18—Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. *Agenda Item 2:* Development of recommendations for amendments to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) for incorporation in the 2009-2010 Edition. *Agenda Item 3:* Development of recommendations or amendments to the Supplement to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) for incorporation in the 2009-2010 Edition. *Agenda Item 4:* Amendments to the Emergency Response Guidance for Aircraft Incidents involving Dangerous Goods (Doc 9481) for incorporation in the 2009-2010 Edition. *Agenda Item 5:* Resolution, where possible, of the non-recurrent work items identified by the Air Navigation Commission or the panel. 5.1: Principles governing the transport of dangerous goods on cargo only aircraft. 5.2: Reformatting of the packing instructions. 5.3: Review of provisions for dangerous goods carried by passengers and crew. 5.4: Review of provisions for dangerous goods relating to lithium batteries. 5.5: Review of amendment process for the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284). In addition, we are soliciting comments on PHMSA's international agenda as it relates to PHMSA's work with the ICAO DGP. In particular, input is requested on any air-mode specific harmonization issues regarding the requirements of the ICAO Technical Instructions (ICAO TI) and the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations (U.S. HMR). Discussion topics include but are not limited to: —How can PHMSA more closely align the limited quantity and consumer commodity provisions within the U.S. HMR and the ICAO TI? —What efforts should be undertaken to address differences between the U.S. HMR and the ICAO TI related to packaging requirements and inner packaging quantity limits; —What specific operational requirements differ between the U.S. HMR and the ICAO TI and how should those differences be addressed? —PHMSA is interested in partnering with the regulated industry to identify a comprehensive list of differences between the U.S. HMR and the ICAO TI, and determine the most appropriate manner in which to address these differences. —What aspects of the U.S. HMR could be better aligned with the ICAO TI, and conversely, are there any provisions within the U.S. HMR that could be considered by the ICAO DGP for inclusion in the ICAO TI? —PHMSA is soliciting input relative to the use of the U.S. HMR or ICAO TI (as an alternative to the U.S. HMR) for domestic air transportation and the necessity for specific U.S. HMR exceptions applicable only to domestic air transport. For more information on the ICAO DGP and to check for updates on information related to this public meeting visit PHMSA's International Standards Web site at *http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/intl/intstandards.htm* . To download papers which will be considered by the Panel visit the DGP Web site at *http://www.icao.int/anb/FLS/DangerousGoods/flsdg.cfm* . Robert A. Richard, Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. 07-4426 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code