Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3755

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Loren D. Thomas, District Engineer,

District 3, Idaho Transportation

Department (ITD), 8150 Chinden Blvd.,

Boise, Idaho 83707, Telephone (208)

334–8300,

or

Jack T. Coe, Division Administrator,

Federal Highway Administration, 3050

Lake Harbor Lane, Suite 126, Boise,

Idaho, 83703, Telephone: 208–334–

1843.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA in cooperation with the ITD will

prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) on a proposal to

improve State Highway 55 (SH–55) in

Valley County, Idaho. The proposed

improvements would involve seven

miles of existing SH–55 from

approximately 4 miles south of Smith’s

Ferry (Milepost 95) to Round Valley

(Milepost 102).

The improvements on State Highway

55 are considered necessary to improve

safety, increase capacity, accommodate

economic development, and correct

operational deficiencies in the roadway.

Alternatives under consideration

include: (1) taking no action; (2)

improving the existing two-lane

highway along the North Fork of the

Payette River; (3) constructing a two or

four lane rural highway on new

alignment. Incorporated into and

studied with the various build

alternatives will be design variations of

grade and alignment.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies and citizens who have

previously expressed interest in this

proposed project. Scoping will begin

with the publication of the Notice of

Intent. As part of the scoping process, a

series of public information meetings

will be held in Valley County beginning

in February 2000. In addition, a public

hearing will be held. Public notice will

be given of the time and place of any

public information meetings and the

public hearing. The draft EIS will be

made available for public and agency

review and comment.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues are

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning

this proposed action and the EIS should

be directed to the ITD or FHWA at the

addresses provided above.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123.

Issued on: January 13, 2000.

Pamela S. Cooksey,

Assistant Division Administrator, Federal

Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho.

[FR Doc. 00–1616 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Proposed Agency Information

Collection Activities

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 Requirement (ICR) abstracted

below has been forwarded to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and comment. The ICR describes

the nature of the information collection

and its expected burden. The Federal

Register Notice with a 60-day comment

period soliciting comments on the

following collection of information was

published on May 13, 1999 (64 FR

25952)

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Brogan, Office of Safety Analysis,

Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS–

21, Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA), 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail

Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone: (202) 493–6292) or Dian

Deal, Office of Information Technology

and Productivity Improvement, RAD–

20, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail

Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone: (202) 493–6133). (These

telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Pub. L. No. 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 May 13, 1999,

FRA published a 60-day notice in the

Federal Register soliciting comment on

ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB

approval. 64 FR 25952. FRA received

several comments after issuing this

notice. FRA has carefully evaluated

these comments and has responded to

them fully in the information collection

submission which it is presently

forwarding to OMB. A summary of the

comments and FRA responses are given

below. Accordingly, DOT announces

that these information collection

activities have been re-evaluated and

certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and

forwarded to OMB for review and

approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).

Interested members of the public may

obtain a free copy of this information

collection submission by contacting Mr.

Robert Brogan or Ms. Dian Deal at the

telephone numbers listed above.

Before OMB decides whether to

approve these proposed collections of

information, it must provide 30 days for

public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3607(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.

The summaries below describe the

nature of the ICRs and the expected

burden. The revised requirements are

being submitted for clearance by OMB

as required by the PRA.

Title: U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory

Form.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0017.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: 675 railroads and 50

States.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.71.

Abstract: Form FRA 6180.71 is a

voluntary form and is being revised to

include additional data elements at the

request of states and railroads. The form

is also being revised to fulfill National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

recommendations and to take advantage

of recent advances in information

technology. The form is used by states

and railroads to periodically update

certain cite specific highway-rail

crossing information which is then

transmitted to FRA for input into the

National Inventory File. This

information has been collected on the

U.S. DOT (formerly U.S. DOT–AAR)

Crossing Inventory Form since 1974 and

maintained in the National Inventory

File database since 1975. The primary

purpose of the National Inventory is to

provide for the existence of a uniform

database which can be merged with

accident data and used to analyze

information for planning and

implementation of crossing safety

improvement programs by public,

private, and governmental agencies

responsible for highway-rail crossing

safety. Following the official

establishment of the National Inventory

3756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

in 1975, FRA assumed the principal

responsibility as custodian for the

maintenance and continued

development of the U.S. DOT/AAR

National Highway-Rail Crossing

Inventory Program. The major goal of

the Program is to provide federal, state,

and local governments, as well as the

railroad industry, information for the

improvement of safety at highway-rail

crossings. Good management practices

necessitate maintaining the database

with current information. The data will

continue to be useful only if maintained

and updated as inventory changes

occur. FRA previously cleared the

reporting and recordkeeping burden for

this form under Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) clearance number

2130–0017. OMB approved the burden

in the original form through March 31,

2000. Based on the most recent

information available, FRA estimates

approximately 65,000 updates per year.

This is a substantial reduction in

updates from the previous estimate of

responses and represents a

corresponding reduction of 1,538 hours

in the reporting and recordkeeping

burden. The reduction in responses is

due to a lower response rate from states

and railroads over the past few years

and the expected continuation of this

trend. FRA is requesting a three-year

approval from OMB for this information

collection.

Summary of Comments: FRA received

a total of five written sets of comments

in response to its earlier notice. Most of

the comments pertained to the data

elements and layout of the form.

Michigan Department of Transportation

(MDOT) submitted a number of

comments. It stated that the reasonable

time for filling out the DOT Crossing

Inventory Form should be longer.

MDOT noted that it has one person to

perform many data conversions to

provide data to FRA in the format the

agency needs. After careful review, FRA

believes its estimate of the amount of

time required to gather the necessary

information and complete the form is

accurate. Thus, FRA is not changing the

burden time for this form. FRA’s

estimate is based on the types of

updates currently being provided and

on the average-time estimate provided

by one state which recently completed

a massive state-wide update of all their

crossings. MDOT requested a clearer

description of what constitutes a

crossing, especially in multiple crossing

situations and the appropriate way to

assign U.S. DOT–AAR numbers to the

crossings. FRA believes the term is clear

and notes in its response that a crossing

inventory number shall be assigned to a

crossing which is defined as ‘‘the tracks

between a pair of the same type of

warning devices.’’ See sections 1.5 and

2.3 of the 1996 Highway-Rail Crossing

Inventory Instructions and Procedures

Manual. While this may seem

inconsistent at times in multiple track

territory, it is required to properly

define the warning devices and the

character of the crossing. MDOT also

requested that FRA make the Crossing

Inventory Form available on its Website

along with the ability to fill-in the form

and transmit it to FRA. Upon approval

by OMB, FRA will make available a

blank form on its Website. The ability to

fill-in the form and transmit it to FRA

will not be available because the edit

checks to insure data accuracy and

quality would not be in place. The ‘‘GX

32’’ software is provided for this

purpose. MDOT further requested that

the railroad codes be made available on

the FRA Website and also that the States

and railroad be given the ability to

download updated data from the

Internet. FRA’s response is that the

railroad codes are already on the FRA

Website under ‘‘View or Download FRA

Auxiliary Tables.’’ With regard to the

second matter, the capability to

download the current data in the File is

already available on the FRA Website

under ‘‘Download Database Files.’’

Arrangements can also be made with

FRA’s data processing contractor to

obtain and download updated files for

the ‘‘GX 32’’ software. MDOT

commented that a mechanism is needed

to submit data that still has missing

fields of information, and that some data

is better than no data. FRA’s response is

that, if the agency allowed partial data

submittal, there would be gaps in

information, data accuracy and quality

would suffer, and the probability would

be high that missing data would not be

submitted to complete the update or the

addition to the new crossing. What is

suggested can already be performed.

The Crossing Inventory Form can be

submitted with temporary or estimated

information (for example, an estimate of

highway traffic volume) and then it can

be corrected or updated later. MDOT

wanted to know exactly how latitude

and longitude are determined and from

what point in the crossings. In response,

the new Instructions will define that

actual recording of latitude and

longitude be taken at the center of the

crossing, that is, the midpoint of a

diagonal line across the crossing

between the primary warning devices

facing the approach lanes of traffic.

MDOT thought that a glossary of terms

should be provided and that Item 5 of

Part III: ‘‘Is highway paved?’’ should

have the added designation of one-side

only. In response, FRA does not believe

a glossary of terms is needed. FRA

recognizes that some states have specific

and/or different procedures which they

follow. However, for the National

Inventory, the original Committee of

States and Railroads established

definitions that reflected the majority of

users. Regarding Item 5, the instructions

will indicate that if one side of the

roadway is paved and the other is

unpaved, it should be indicated as

unpaved. MDOT observed that the states

do not have the time/resources nor do

the railroads to go out and specifically

collect a special piece of data just

because FRA has it on this form. In

reply, FRA notes that the required

information and data elements were

defined by the states and railroads in

1973. In order to insure accuracy,

consistency, and quality, FRA can not

be flexible on allowing blank data fields.

Lastly, MDOT had comments on system

security and the integrity of data. FRA’s

response is to note that it accepts

Inventory update information only from

one designated contact person in each

state and on each railroad. In order to

insure the integrity and accuracy of the

data, FRA requires all data elements be

completed for new crossings before the

record is inputted into the National File.

The PCAPS (Personal Computer

Accident Prediction System) program

produces lists of the riskiest crossings

for a specifically defined entity (state,

county, city, railroad, or any

combination thereof). If the data is not

accurate, it is the responsibility of the

state and/or railroad to provide updated

information. It should be noted that the

PCAPS program is only updated,

produced, and distributed once per

year.

A second set of comments was

submitted by the Association of

American Railroads (AAR). AAR

recommended that the Crossing

Inventory Form clearly identify the data

elements which should be completed by

the railroad industry and those elements

which should be completed by the

highway authority. FRA agrees, and has

done this on the form (where possible),

and in the instructions and additional

materials which accompany the form

instructions. AAR had several

comments about the form itself. It

requested that AAR’s name be removed

from the title of the form. FRA agrees.

After consultation with the major Class

I railroads which indicated their

agreement, FRA has changed the title to

‘‘DOT Crossing Inventory Form.’’ AAR

suggested that time could be saved by

eliminating the second box in data items

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3757

which require a yes or no answer. FRA

agrees in principle. However, it was

determined that, in order to be

consistent with a choice for a response,

a ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ box be provided for

all elements for questions where such a

response was appropriate. This also

assures that the respondent addresses

the questions. Thus, two boxes remain

for these questions. AAR observed that

Part I of the form (May draft) contained

several categories which should be

included and identified under Part IV

‘‘Highway Department Information.’’ In

particular, he thought, data items 3, 13,

14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 24 should be

placed under Part IV. In response, FRA

has clearly identified which data

elements are to be completed by the

railroad and which elements are to be

completed by the highway authority in

the Instructions and on the Form (again

where possible). Part I ‘‘Location and

Classification’’ of the revised form

provides the critical information that is

required for all crossings, whether

public, private, or pedestrian, at-grade

or grade separated. Parts II, III, and IV

are only required to be completed if the

crossing is public, although information

in these parts will now be accepted and

inputted into the File if it is supplied for

private crossings. AAR suggested that

instructions for Item 3 should be

changed for crossings located on county

lines to reflect the county responsible

for maintenance at that crossing, and

that High Speed Rail (HSR) codes be

included in the instructions for Item 12.

FRA agrees, and has added words to the

instructions that the State/County that is

responsible for maintenance at the

crossing shall determine the location of

the crossing, or an agreement/decision

must be made between the jurisdictions

as to the location of the crossing. The

instructions will also reflect that HSR

codes will be supplied by FRA as

specific corridors are identified and that

this field will normally be maintained

by FRA’s data processing contractor.

AAR commented that Items 35, 36, and

37 of Part I, which FRA will have posted

on its Website under Inventory History

which identify contacts, do not add any

significant value to the inventory data.

FRA disagrees and notes that only

telephone numbers and not names are

required by these data elements.

However, consideration will be given to

not displaying this information on the

FRA Website. AAR suggested that Items

1A through 1D of Part II ‘‘Detailed

Railroad Information’’ need not be

included on the form. FRA has revised

and simplified these data elements in

light of this observation. AAR requested

that Item 1E of Part II which inquires

‘‘whether typical number of daily train

movements are actual or estimated’’ be

deleted. FRA agrees and has deleted this

data element. AAR remarked that Part II

Item 2B ‘‘Typical Speed Range Over

Crossing’’ should identify maximum

table speed (mph). FRA disagrees and

feels that this information is necessary

to identify if there are slow movements

over the crossing. This information also

helps planners to determine if Constant

Warning Time (CWT) for the warning

devices is needed. AAR stated that the

instructions for Part I Item 11 ‘‘Train

Detection’’ should only be provided for

crossings with active warning devices.

FRA agrees and has made the default

‘‘None’’ in the instructions. AAR noted

that Part II Item 14 ‘‘Whistle Bans’’ does

not make sense since FRA’s anticipated

proposed rule implementing the Swift

Rail Act of 1994 would prohibit whistle

bans. FRA agrees and has changed the

title of Item 14 from ‘‘Whistle Ban’’ to

‘‘Quiet Zone’’ (now Part I Item 16). AAR

observed that Item 16 of Part II should

be in Part IV ‘‘Highway Department

Information.’’ FRA agrees with this

categorization. FRA has moved this item

to Part III ‘‘Traffic Control Information’’

(Item 5) and has also re-named it

‘‘Channelization Devices with Gates’’ for

clarity. AAR suggested that Items 5 and

10 of Part III (‘‘Physical Data’’) should

be more appropriately categorized as

roadway instead of highway. FRA does

not agree. While it is true that several

states use ‘‘highway’’ as a term to

identify specific classifications of

roadways, FRA desires that terminology

on the form should be consistent such

as the usage of ‘‘highway-rail crossings.’’

This term is used to refer to all crossings

whether they are on an actual highway,

road, or street. AAR commented that the

draft instructions should identify the

appropriate authority. FRA agrees and

the final instructions will have a table

identifying the primary authority

responsible for providing each data

element and, if appropriate, the

secondary authority as well. Lastly,

AAR suggested the current method of

forwarding changes to FRA increases

administration duties for submitting

parties and for FRA. In response, FRA

notes that a facilitation process is

already available which allows a

railroad or States to use the ‘‘GX 32’’

program software to submit changes and

updates.

A third set of comments was

submitted by the Burlington NorthernSanta Fe Railway Company (BNSF).

BNSF had a number of comments

regarding the data elements of the form.

He suggested that data items 12, 13, 16,

18, 19, and 24 of Part I ‘‘Location and

Classification of All Crossings’’ be

moved to Part III (which should contain

items provided by the highway

authority). In response, FRA has revised

the form and also the instructions to

more clearly identify which data

elements are to be completed by the

railroad and which elements are to be

completed by the highway authority.

BNSF suggested removing Part I Item

25B ‘‘Public Access’’ since he believed

the answer to this item is always ‘‘no.’’

FRA disagrees and has retained this

item in the form. This field was

specifically requested by a Class I

railroad and is designed to cover those

situations where the general public

would use the crossing and not be aware

that it was a private crossing. BNSF

remarked that it did not wish to provide

the information requested regarding the

‘‘Railroad Contact’’ in Item 35 of Part I.

Again, this data element does not

request names of individuals but only

telephone numbers and is retained in

the form. BNSF remarked that Part II

‘‘Detailed Railroad Information’’ should

contain only data items that apply to

railroads. FRA agrees and has taken

steps in the revised form to separate Part

II into two parts by creating a fifth part

for the warning device information.

BNSF further remarked that Item 1

‘‘Typical Number of Daily Train

Movements’’ of Part II should be

dropped since it has never been able to

determine the train movements by day

or night. FRA disagrees and believes

that this information is useful,

particularly in the DOT Accident

Prediction Formulas. However, changes

have been effected in the revised form

to simplify the information to be

provided. BNSF advocated that Part II

Item 2B ‘‘Typical Speed Range Over

Crossing’’ be eliminated since

determining what is typical for each

crossing is not possible and can change

over time. FRA disagrees and has

retained this data element. In thru

territory, the normal typical speed over

the crossing would be constant, most

probably the timetable speed. BNSF

recommended that Part II Item 6E

‘‘Hump Crossing Sign W 10–5’’ be

moved to Part III since this is

information that the highway is

responsible for providing. FRA agrees.

FRA has created a new Part for Items 6

through 16 titled ‘‘Traffic Control

Device Information’’ and has specified

in the instructions that Item 6E is the

responsibility of the highway authority.

BNSF suggested that the part for ‘‘Other

Colored’’ in Part II Item 7A ‘‘Gates’’ be

removed. FRA has changed this data

element (now Part III Item 3A) so that

it will just count the number of gates

3758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

present at the crossing without

distinction to the type or color. BNSF

observed that the check box for ‘‘None’’

in Part II Item 11 ‘‘Train Detection’’ is

not necessary and should be removed.

The revised form retains this box since

Item 11 provides a category ‘‘None’’

which would be checked or indicated if

the crossing was not an active crossing.

The default category would be ‘‘None’’

if no other box is checked. BNSF also

advocated that Part II Item 14 ‘‘Whistle

Ban’’ be removed from the inventory. As

mentioned earlier, the revised form

changes the title of Item14 from

‘‘Whistle Ban’’ to ‘‘Quiet Zone’’ (now

Part I Item 16). BNSF commented that

Part II Item 16 ‘‘Median Barriers with

Gates’’ should be moved to Part III and

be a part of the highway authority

supplied data. Again, FRA notes that the

highway authority will have the primary

responsibility for supplying this data so

it is retaining this data element. Like

some other data elements, it is not

difficult for railroads to observe that

median barriers are present. Railroads

would have secondary responsibility for

submittal of this information. BNSF

observed that most of the items in Part

III ‘‘Physical Data’’ are data items

known by the road authority and should

be supplied by the road authority. In

response, FRA has revised the form and

instructions to clearly identify which

data elements should be completed by

the railroad and which data elements

should be completed by the highway

authority, and which can be completed

by either. Lastly, regarding the typical

number of daily train movements (Part

II Item 1E), BNSF commented that it

was not sure how indicating whether

the typical number of daily train

movements is an ‘‘actual’’ or

‘‘estimated’’ count will provide

meaningful information to anyone. FRA

agrees and Item 1E has been eliminated.

A fourth set of comments was

submitted by the Virginia Department of

Transportation (VDOT). VDOT noted

that there is no place on the Crossing

Inventory Form for independent cities.

It wanted to know if there is an edit list

of acceptable Counties/Cities in the FRA

database. In response, FRA has provided

an explanation in the Instruction

Manual to ensure that Federal

Information Processing Standards (FIPS)

Codes are used in the Inventory File.

FRA is evaluating placing the FIPS

Codes on its Website. VDOT suggested

that, regarding the instructions to Part I

Item 7, the RRID No. (Item 8) box be

used to enter the alpha component. In

response, FRA notes that an alpha

character can be entered in the

‘‘Milepost’’ field. However, because of

data retrieval and printout anomalies,

FRA strongly recommends that alpha

characters be avoided. Usually avoiding

the alpha character will not present a

serious identification problem. VDOT

suggested that the instructions to Item 3

of Part II be improved to clarify what are

the acceptable types of ‘‘other’’ tracks

and how they are defined. In response,

the Instruction Manual supplied by FRA

will provide examples of what to

specify.

A fifth set of comments was submitted

by unidentified individuals. One of

these commenters requested an item for

the ‘‘number of signal heads’’ be

included in the form. FRA concurs that

this is useful information and has added

a data element for the ‘‘number of

flashing light pairs’’ (now Part III item

3E). Another commenter suggested a

change to both the Instructions and to

Part II Item 6.C ‘‘Other Stop Signs.’’ This

commenter stated that there should not

be any other stop signs other than the

Standard Highway Stop Sign. FRA

agrees. It has deleted Item 6C and has

specified in the instructions that nonstandard stop signs should be reported

as ‘‘Other Signs,’’ now Part III Item 2F.

One commenter suggested that Part I

Item 7 ‘‘Mile Post’’ should be one word.

FRA agrees and has made the necessary

change. Another commenter suggested

that Part II Item 7A. ‘‘Gates’’ combine

‘‘red and white reflectorized ‘‘and

‘‘other colored’’ into one category. FRA

concurs and Item 3A of Part III will just

be a count of the number of gates

present a the crossing without

distinction to the type or color. There

was also a suggestion that Part II Item

6A ‘‘Crossbucks’’ combine

‘‘reflectorized’’ and ‘‘non-reflectorized’’

into one category. FRA agrees and Part

III Item 2A will just be a count of the

number of Crossbucks present at the

crossing without distinction to the type.

Another commenter requested that

FRA create an additional Part on the

form (there would be 5 Parts) and

change Part II ‘‘Detailed Railroad

Information’’ to ‘‘Highway Warning

Device Information.’’ FRA agrees and

has created a fifth Part (which becomes

Part III ‘‘Traffic Control Device

Information’’). One commenter

recommended moving Part II Item 10 ‘‘Is

Commercial Power Available?’’ to Part

III ‘‘Physical Data.’’ FRA concurs and

has moved this item to Part III ‘‘Physical

Data’(new Part IV). Two other form

changes were requested by commenters.

One was to change Part IV ‘‘Highway

Department Information’’ (new Part V)

to ‘‘Highway Information.’’ The other

was to change Part III ‘‘Physical Data’’

to ‘‘Physical Characteristics.’’ FRA

agrees and has made both changes.

Several other suggestions were

submitted. One concerned grouping

Items 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 together and

inserting the subtitle ‘‘State Supplied

Information’’ for this group. Another

regarded changing the title of Part II

from ‘‘Detailed Railroad Information’’ to

‘‘Detailed Information.’’ FRA has

implemented these last two suggestions

in the revised form. Also recommended

by commenters was to change the title

of Part I ‘‘Location and Classification of

All Crossings’’ to ‘‘Location and

Classification Information,’’ and to

move ‘‘Whistle Ban’’ (Part II Item 14) to

Part I and change the Item name to

‘‘Quiet Zone.’’ FRA agrees with both

suggestions and has revised the form

accordingly. FRA has also moved Part

III Item 6 ‘‘Pavement Marking’’ and Item

7 ‘‘Are Advanced Warning Signs

Present?’’ to the section ‘‘Traffic Control

Device Information’’ in response to

comments.

Annual Estimated Burden: 3,104

hours

Addressee: Send comments regarding

this ICR to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 Seventh

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503;

Attention: FRA Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: Whether

the proposed information collection 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 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, D.C.

Margaret B. Reid,

Acting Director, Office of Information

Technology and Support Systems, Federal

Railroad Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1506 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–U