Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 77657 

1 ‘‘Improvements to Stewardship and Oversight 

Agreements Are Needed to Enhance Federal-aid 

Highway Program Management,’’ OIG, DOT, Report 

Number MH–2013–001 (October 1, 2012), available 

at: https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/28742. 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan M. Jay, Ph.D. by email at: 

susan.m.jay@faa.gov; phone: (405) 954– 

5500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–XXXX. 

Title: Computerized Neurocognitive 

Tests for Aeromedical Safety. 

Form Numbers: n/a. 

Type of Review: New information 

collection. 

Background: The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collection of information was published 

on December 16, 2021 (86 FR 239). The 

FAA received no comments. The FAA’s 

mission and vision is to provide the 

safest, most efficient aerospace system 

in the world as new users and 

technologies integrate into the system. 

Computerized neurocognitive tests are a 

non-invasive way to measure cognitive 

function (e.g., attention, working 

memory, information processing speed, 

reaction time). Neurocognitive tests are 

used as part of the FAA’s overall 

aeromedical physical exam process to 

determine if a pilot is safe to operate an 

aircraft within the NAS. Neurocognitive 

tests are required only for pilots and 

with certain medical conditions 

associated with aeromedically 

significant cognitive impairments (i.e., 

not all pilots). The FAA needs to ensure 

that the tests and data used to maintain 

the safety of the NAS based on the most 

current scientific knowledge. The 

purpose of this IC effort is to obtain 

updated pilot normative data for the 

current test and alternative 

neurocognitive tests under 

consideration. The IC effort will be used 

to potentially revise the FAA’s AME 

Guide, update clinical practices, and 

assure aeromedical safety. 

Respondents: 1,000 respondents. 

Frequency: One-time collection. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 4 hours burden per 

respondent-response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

4,000 hours total burden. 

Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 

November 7, 2023. 

Susan M. Jay, 

Research Physiologist, Aviation Safety, Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24938 Filed 11–9–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[Docket No. FHWA–2022–0013] 

Revision of Stewardship and Oversight 

Agreement Template 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This final notice announces 

the availability of a revised Stewardship 

and Oversight (S&O) Agreement 

template. The S&O Agreement defines 

the roles and responsibilities of FHWA 

and each State department of 

transportation (State DOT) with respect 

to project approvals and related 

responsibilities under title 23, United 

States Code (U.S.C.), and title 23, Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR), and 

documents methods that will be used 

for Federal-aid Highway Program 

(FAHP) oversight activities. This 

template will be used by each of the 52 

FHWA Division Offices and their 

respective State DOTs to develop and 

execute a new S&O Agreement within 1 

year of the date this notice is published 

in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this notice, please 

contact Mr. Steve Mills, Office of 

Infrastructure, (502) 682–3534, or via 

email at Steve.Mills@dot.gov. For legal 

questions, please contact Mr. David 

Serody, FHWA Office of Chief Counsel, 

(202) 366–4241, or via email at 

David.Serody@dot.gov. Office hours for 

FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

ET, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as 

amended, Congress established 

authority for States to enter into 

agreements with FHWA under which 

the States carry out certain project 

responsibilities traditionally handled by 

FHWA. Congress also recognized the 

importance of a risk-based approach to 

FHWA oversight of the FAHP by 

establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 

106(g). The S&O Agreement is a key 

element of FHWA’s risk-based S&O 

approach. The S&O Agreements are 

formal instruments executed between 

each FHWA Division Office and its 

corresponding State DOT. The S&O 

Agreement defines the roles and 

responsibilities of FHWA and the State 

DOT with respect to title 23, U.S.C. 

project approvals and related 

responsibilities, and documents 

methods that will be used for FAHP 

oversight activities. 

In response to DOT Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) recommendations,1

FHWA revised its national S&O 

procedures to require use of a uniform 

template for developing an S&O 

Agreement. In 2015, FHWA issued the 

template currently in use. Each of the 52 

FHWA Division Offices and their 

respective State DOTs executed a new 

S&O Agreement based on the 2015 S&O 

Agreement template. 

The FHWA began initiating updates 

to the 2015 S&O Agreement template 

due to changes to applicable statutes 

and regulations and after identifying 

improvements to the template. In 

addition, section 11307 of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117– 

58) directed the Secretary of 

Transportation to publish a template 

created by the Secretary for FederalState S&O Agreements in the Federal 

Register along with a notice requesting 

public comment on ways to improve the 

template. In accordance with this 

requirement, FHWA published a notice 

and request for comments regarding 

FHWA’s revised S&O Agreement 

template on December 21, 2022, at 87 

FR 78193. 

Section 11307(c)(1) of BIL requires 

FHWA to consider comments received 

in response to the Federal Register 

notice and publish a notice in the 

Federal Register that (A) describes any 

proposed changes to be made to the 

template, and any alternatives to such 

changes; (B) addresses comments in 

response to which changes were not 

made to the template; and (C) prescribes 

a schedule and a plan to execute a 

process for implementing the changes to 

the template. In accordance with section 

11307(c)(3) of BIL, FHWA will modify 

the template as stated in this notice and 

will update existing agreements with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
77658 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 

2The ODOT’s comment refers to ‘‘Section 

11306(c)(3)(e)’’ of BIL. ODOT, Comment Letter on 

Notice of Revision of Stewardship and Oversight 

Template (Feb. 21, 2023), at 3, https://

downloads.regulations.gov/FHWA-2022-0013-0010/ 

attachment_1.pdf. Because BIL does not contain a 

section 11306(c)(3)(e) and the statutory language 

ODOT quotes is from BIL section 11307(e)(1), 

FHWA assumes that ODOT intended to cite section 

11307(e)(1) in its comment. 

State DOTs according to this template 

by no later than November 12, 2024. 

Discussion of Comments 

I. Summary 

The FHWA received 10 comments in 

response to the notice and request for 

comments from the American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 7 

separate comments from 7 State DOTs; 

Georgia (GDOT), New York (NYSDOT), 

Oklahoma (ODOT), South Carolina 

(SCDOT), Maryland (MDOT), Texas 

(TxDOT), and Pennsylvania (PennDOT); 

1 joint comment from 5 State DOTs 

(Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Wyoming) (‘‘Joint States’’); 

and 3 comments from 1 individual. The 

FHWA considered each comment in 

publishing this notice. The following 

discussion describes changes made to 

the proposed template and addresses 

comments that did not lead to changes, 

in accordance with BIL, section 

11307(c)(1)(A)–(B). 

II. Analysis and Response to Comments 

Comments and responses are listed by 

section of the proposed template. 

General comments are listed after the 

section comments. 

Section I. Background and Information 

Comment: The SCDOT commented on 

a proposed change to the first sentence 

of section I. In the 2015 template, the 

FAHP was described as ‘‘a federallyassisted program of Stateselected 

projects.’’ The FHWA proposed 

changing this language to read: ‘‘The 

Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) 

provides for a Federally-assisted State 

program.’’ The SCDOT commented that 

the proposed revision could be 

misconstrued and recommended that 

the language used in the 2015 template 

be restored. 

The FHWA Response: The language in 

the 2015 template did not account for 

other entities that are involved in the 

selection of projects, such as 

metropolitan planning organizations, 

and FHWA does not believe that 

defining the FAHP as a ‘‘federallyassisted program of State-selected 

projects,’’ as stated in the 2015 template, 

is completely accurate. The FHWA, 

however, agrees with SCDOT that the 

proposed language could still be 

misconstrued and is deleting the 

sentence ‘‘The Federal-aid Highway 

Program (FAHP) provides for a 

Federally-assisted State program’’ from 

the proposed template entirely. A 

general description of the FAHP is not 

necessary for S&O agreements. 

Section II. Intent and Purpose of 

Agreement 

No comments were received related to 

section II. 

Section III. Permissible Areas of 

Assumption Under 23 U.S.C. 106(c) 

Comment: The MDOT recommended 

revising the description of ‘‘design’’ 

used in section III.A of the template to 

be consistent with what MDOT claimed 

was the latest guidance from FHWA on 

design. Instead of stating that design 

‘‘includes preliminary engineering, 

engineering, and design-related services 

directly relating to the construction of a 

FAHP-funded project, including 

engineering, design, project 

development and management, 

construction project management and 

inspection, surveying, mapping 

(including the establishment of 

temporary and permanent geodetic 

control in accordance with 

specifications of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration), and 

architectural-related services,’’ MDOT 

suggested that the template state that 

design ‘‘includes preliminary design, 

final design, and design-related services 

directly relating to the construction of a 

FAHP-funded project, including design, 

project development and management, 

construction project management and 

inspection, surveying, mapping 

(including the establishment of 

temporary and permanent geodetic 

control in accordance with 

specifications of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration), and 

architectural/engineering-related 

services.’’ 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

does not agree with this comment. The 

description of design used in section 

III.A of the proposed template closely 

matches the description of activities 

under the definition of ‘‘construction’’ 

in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(4)(A). The FHWA 

notes that some changes are needed to 

align the definition of ‘‘design’’ in 

section III.A of the template with the 

definition used in 23 U.S.C. 

101(a)(4)(A), which was revised by BIL, 

section 11103(1)(A) to include 

‘‘assessing resilience.’’ Accordingly, 

FHWA has modified section III.A of the 

proposed template to add the phrase 

‘‘assessing resilience’’ to the list of 

design activities. 

Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, 

and ODOT commented on the statement 

in the last paragraph of section III of the 

proposed template: ‘‘The [State DOT] is 

to exercise any and all assumptions of 

the FHWA’s responsibilities in 

accordance with the Federal laws, 

regulations, policies, Executive Orders, 

and procedures that would apply if the 

responsibilities were carried out by 

FHWA. For all projects and programs 

carried out under Title 23, the [State 

DOT] will comply with Title 23 and all 

applicable non-Title 23 Federal-aid 

program requirements.’’ These 

commenters objected to State DOTs 

being required to follow Executive 

Orders, claiming that before FHWA 

implements an Executive Order, FHWA 

must implement the Executive Order 

through a directive or policy; that some 

Executive Orders require further 

analysis before implementation; and 

that specifically including mention of 

Executive Orders is unnecessary 

because these Orders will be covered by 

FHWA policies. The ODOT commented 

that including ‘‘procedures’’ was 

unnecessary because it claimed that 

FHWA policies are already covered by 

the template’s mention of ‘‘regulations’’ 

and ‘‘policies.’’ The ODOT further 

claimed that requiring the assumption 

of responsibilities in accordance with 

FHWA internal procedures is 

inconsistent with the requirement in 

section 11307(e)(1) of BIL that FHWA 

‘‘shall not enforce or otherwise require 

a State to comply with approval 

requirements that are not required by 

Federal law (including regulations) in a 

Federal-State stewardship and oversight 

agreement.’’ 2 Finally, AASHTO 

suggested removing mention that a State 

DOT is to exercise assumed 

responsibilities in accordance with all 

applicable non-Title 23 Federal-aid 

program requirements, as AASHTO 

claimed that S&O Agreements are only 

executed under Title 23, U.S.C. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

does not agree with these comments. 

When a State DOT performs an assumed 

FHWA responsibility, they perform the 

responsibility as though it was 

performed by FHWA. This includes 

following applicable Executive Orders 

(E.O.), FHWA procedures, and non-Title 

23 Federal-aid program requirements. 

An alternative interpretation would 

mean that different requirements would 

apply to projects based on whether a 

State DOT assumes a responsibility from 

FHWA or whether FHWA takes on that 

responsibility itself, which FHWA does 

not believe is the intent of 23 U.S.C. 

106(c). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 77659 

In addition, FHWA disagrees with 

several assumptions made by these 

commenters. In terms of EOs, FHWA is 

not always required to issue a directive 

or policy to implement an E.O. The EOs 

may, in certain cases, have the force of 

law, with agencies then implementing 

those EOs. See Ass’n for Women in 

Science v. Califano, 566 F.2d 339, 344 

(D.C. Cir. 1977). In addition, FHWA 

does not believe it is accurate to assume 

that all future EOs will inherently be 

covered by other FHWA policies. The 

FHWA also disagrees with ODOT’s 

comment that including a requirement 

to comply with ‘‘procedures’’ in 

addition to Federal regulations and 

policies in section III is unnecessary. 

This comment relies on specific, legally 

significant definitions that ODOT 

ascribes to the words ‘‘policies’’ and 

‘‘procedures,’’ but these definitions do 

not have a basis in Federal law. The 

language at issue reflects FHWA’s intent 

that when a State DOT assumes an 

FHWA responsibility that is described 

in an FHWA policy, procedure, or 

regulation, the same requirements that 

would apply if FHWA maintained that 

responsibility will apply to the State 

DOT. Finally, FHWA disagrees with 

ODOT that requiring the assumption of 

responsibilities in accordance with 

FHWA procedures is inconsistent with 

section 11307(e)(1) of BIL. That section 

refers to ‘‘approval requirements,’’ and 

carrying out assumptions of FHWA 

responsibilities in accordance with 

FHWA policies does not necessarily 

involve FHWA approvals. 

Section IV. Assumption of 

Responsibilities for Federal-Aid Projects 

on the NHS 

Comment: The AASHTO and ODOT 

commented that stewardship and 

oversight plans for specific projects, 

which are mentioned in sections IV, V, 

and VI, are not well defined in the 

template and the template does not 

provide any limits on the scope, 

content, or frequency with which these 

plans might be used. These commenters 

stated that these plans could allow the 

relevant FHWA Division Office, at its 

sole discretion, to supersede the 

delegation of responsibilities to the 

State for specific projects or even entire 

programs. Commenters recommended 

that more detail be provided on these 

plans, including why and how often a 

FHWA Division Office would supersede 

the delegation of responsibilities to the 

State, the scope of these plans, and their 

content. These commenters further 

argued that the State DOT should have 

input into the development of these 

plans. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that clarification is needed on 

when these plans may be used, their 

scope, and content. To address concerns 

around why and how often these plans 

might be implemented, FHWA is adding 

a statement to section VI stating that 

projects will be selected for risk-based 

FHWA project involvement and S&O 

activities ‘‘based on a risk assessment 

and the responses to identified threats 

and opportunities.’’ In response to 

concerns over the ambiguous scope of 

these S&O plans, FHWA is including 

language in section VI.D that these plans 

may, in some instances such as 

responses to elevated risks, supersede 

responsibilities a State DOT would 

otherwise assume from FHWA on a 

project-by-project basis. In terms of 

content, as now described in section 

VI.D, the plan will include documented 

actions that the FHWA Division Office 

will undertake to respond to identified 

risks. 

In addition, in terms of allowing 

States to have input into the 

development of these project specific 

S&O plans, FHWA agrees that good 

communication between FHWA and 

State DOTs is important, and FHWA 

Division Offices will continue to seek 

and consider State DOT input in the 

process. However, FHWA does not 

believe that adding language to the 

template that requires State DOT input 

in the development of these plans 

would be appropriate. The FHWA 

intends for project specific S&O plans to 

apply an additional layer of oversight 

over State DOTs when needed. The 

FHWA does not believe it appropriate to 

have the State DOTs, who are the 

subject of such oversight, to play a 

substantial role in determining how 

FHWA exercises its oversight duties. To 

make this point clear, FHWA is revising 

language in sections IV.B and V.B to 

state that S&O plans are ‘‘developed by’’ 

the FHWA rather than merely being 

‘‘adopted by’’ the FHWA, as was stated 

in the proposed template. 

Comment: The Joint States suggested 

that FHWA clarify that a State’s 

assumption of FHWA responsibilities is 

superseded ‘‘when and only to the 

extent’’ that it is superseded by 

provisions of a stewardship and 

oversight plan. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that clarification is needed. The 

FHWA modified sections IV, V, and VI 

to clarify that program wide 

assumptions are superseded by S&O 

plans for specific projects only on a 

‘‘project-by-project basis’’ by provisions 

contained in the S&O plan. 

Comment: The Joint States also 

commented that the proposed provision 

regarding high-risk categories that are 

designated in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

106(c)(4) should be revised to clarify the 

applicability of such a designation and 

that FHWA should better define the 

extent that a high-risk designation 

supersedes a State’s general assumption 

of FHWA’s responsibilities. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that clarification is needed. The 

FHWA modified section IV.C to clarify 

the applicability of high-risk categories. 

A State DOT may not assume 

responsibilities for Interstate projects in 

a designated high-risk category, as laid 

out in 23 U.S.C. 106(c)(4). While FHWA 

has not designated any high-risk 

categories to date, if FHWA makes a 

future high-risk designation that applies 

to a State, that designation will 

immediately supersede the assumptions 

of responsibilities in that State’s S&O 

Agreement only to the extent of that 

high-risk designation. 

Section V. Assumption of 

Responsibilities for Federal-Aid Projects 

Off the NHS 

Comment: As stated above when 

discussing comments made regarding 

section IV, several commenters raised 

concerns related to the stewardship and 

oversight plans mentioned in sections 

IV, V, and VI. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

repeats the response made above when 

discussing comments made regarding 

section IV. As section IV and section V 

contain the same language, FHWA is 

making the same changes described 

above in section IV to section V.B. 

Comment: The MDOT noted that the 

proposed template stated that State 

DOTs would be required to exercise any 

and all assumptions of the FHWA’s 

responsibilities in accordance with the 

Federal laws, regulations, policies, 

Executive Orders, and procedures that 

would apply if the responsibilities were 

carried out by FHWA, and asked if 

FHWA would provide the State DOTs a 

list of the most current Federal laws, 

regulations, policies, Executive Orders, 

and procedures that FHWA is 

responsible to carry out. 

The FHWA Response: To clarify, 

FHWA intended this statement to mean 

that when a State DOT assumes an 

FHWA responsibility, the same 

requirements that would apply if FHWA 

maintained that responsibility apply to 

the State DOT. This statement only 

reflects that applicable laws will apply 

when a State DOT assumes 

responsibility. The FHWA does not 

intend to provide a list of the current 

Federal laws, regulations, policies, EOs, 

and procedures that may apply, which 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
77660 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 

may be different for different projects 

and may change from time to time. 

Section VI. FHWA Oversight Program 

Under 23 U.S.C. 106(g) 

Comment: As stated above when 

discussing comments made regarding 

section IV, several commenters raised 

concerns related to the stewardship and 

oversight plans mentioned in sections 

IV, V, and VI. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

repeats the response made above when 

discussing comments regarding section 

IV. In section VI, FHWA is clarifying 

that FHWA Division Offices select 

projects for a S&O plan based on a risk 

assessment and the responses to 

identified threats and opportunities. 

The FHWA Division Office then 

documents actions that it will undertake 

to respond to the risks in the S&O plan. 

In section VI.D FHWA is also clarifying 

that for the selected projects, the plan 

supersedes the assumption of project 

approval actions under Attachment A. 

Comment: The AASHTO, MDOT, 

ODOT, an individual, and the Joint 

States commented on Attachment B and 

the description of Attachment B 

included in section VI.B. Commenters 

recommended that a list of documents 

required by regulation or statute be 

provided and that clarification is 

needed regarding: (a) the documents 

that are intended for inclusion in 

Attachment B; (b) FHWA approval of 

documents included in Attachment B; 

and (c) how to handle updating 

documents included in Attachment B. 

The FHWA Response: Attachment B is 

intended to list manuals, agreements 

and other control, monitoring, and 

reporting documents the State DOT uses 

on Federal-aid projects. The FHWA 

intends to provide a listing of 

documents that are required to be 

submitted to or approved by FHWA 

based on statute or regulation, with 

instructions to aid State DOTs and 

FHWA Divisions in developing 

Attachment B. Each Attachment B must 

include, at a minimum, the list of 

documents identified by FHWA that are 

required to be submitted to or approved 

by FHWA based on statute or regulation, 

and, based upon an agreement between 

the State DOT and FHWA Division 

Office, any other documents used on 

Federal-aid projects. The FHWA is 

adding language to this effect in section 

VI.B and to the instructions in 

Attachment B. 

Finally, with respect to updating 

documents included in Attachment B, 

the format of Attachment B is optional 

and there are several acceptable ways of 

handling updated documents. 

Attachment B can be updated as a 

‘‘minor revision’’ in accordance with 

section VIII.B.2 to indicate an updated 

document. Alternatively, the documents 

can be listed as ‘‘current version’’ 

without indicating an approval date or 

version. The format should be agreed to 

by the State DOT and its respective 

FHWA Division Office. 

Comment: The PennDOT commented 

that the language describing the two 

options related to Stewardship and 

Oversight Indicators in section VI.C is 

unclear and questioned the need for 

Stewardship and Oversight Indicators. 

The FHWA Response: Individual 

States and their respective FHWA 

Division Offices have the option of 

establishing S&O Indicators to help 

monitor performance of responsibilities 

assumed under this S&O Agreement. 

These indicators are not required, as 

Option 2 demonstrates; however, if the 

FHWA Division Office and the State 

wish to use them to monitor 

performance, Option 1 gives them that 

ability. 

Section VII. State DOT Oversight 

Responsibilities 

Comment: The AASHTO, MDOT, 

NYSDOT, ODOT, and the Joint States all 

raised concerns over the proposed 

template’s statement that the State DOT 

‘‘will provide information’’ to the 

FHWA Division Office ‘‘upon request.’’ 

These commenters expressed concern 

that this language could lead to a large 

volume of requests, the request of 

irrelevant information, and that this 

language did not specify any timeframe 

for the State DOT to provide the 

information. Commenters suggested 

placing boundaries to frame the 

potential extent of information requests 

and that the template state that the 

timeframe for the State DOT to provide 

the information will be agreed to by the 

State DOT and FHWA Division Office. 

The FHWA Response: By requiring 

States to provide information upon 

request, FHWA is not instituting any 

new requirements. The FHWA has the 

authority to request any and all 

information deemed desirable in 

administering the FAHP program 

pursuant to 23 CFR 1.5. The FHWA will 

continue to take into consideration the 

burden and workload associated with 

requests for information and the time 

required to fulfill requests, but FHWA 

will not add language to the template 

limiting requests for information that it 

deems necessary for the S&O of the 

FAHP or to stipulate that timeframes for 

requests will be agreed to by the 

respective State DOT. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concerns over the paragraph 

in section VII titled ‘‘Subrecipient 

Oversight.’’ The AASHTO, NYSDOT, 

and ODOT commented that the 

paragraph describing State DOT 

responsibility for oversight of 

subrecipients does not provide for a 

State DOT to use a risk-based approach 

in monitoring subrecipients. In 

addition, an individual commenter 

stated that the proposed language, 

unlike language from the 2015 template 

which stated that a State DOT is 

responsible and accountable for local 

public agency compliance with all 

applicable Federal laws and 

requirements, would encourage State 

DOTs to shirk their responsibilities 

under the S&O Agreement. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees with the commenters suggesting 

that State DOTs should be allowed to 

use a risk-based approach to monitor 

subrecipients, and FHWA modified the 

paragraph describing SDOT 

responsibility for oversight of 

subrecipients to clarify that, consistent 

with the uniform administrative 

requirements for Federal awards in 2 

CFR part 200, State DOTs are able to use 

a risk-based approach in monitoring 

subrecipients, so long as the State DOT 

ensures that its subrecipients meet all 

applicable Federal requirements. As this 

paragraph makes clear that a State DOT 

remains responsible for ensuring that 

subrecipients meet all applicable 

Federal requirements, FHWA disagrees 

with the individual commenter that this 

language should be further modified. 

Comment: The GDOT commented that 

a Stewardship and Oversight Indicators 

sub-section like that included in section 

VI with similar options should also be 

included in section VII. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

disagrees with this suggestion. The 

description of S&O Indicators in section 

VI is sufficient and does not need to be 

repeated in section VII. 

For readability, FHWA is also 

modifying the organization of section 

VII to better mirror that of other 

sections. The FHWA is also refining the 

citations in section VII.C to better 

convey the precise source of the 

information. 

Section VIII. Agreement Execution and 

Modifications 

Comment: The AASHTO, the Joint 

States, and NYSDOT all stated that 

future updates to the S&O Agreement 

template should be prohibited without 

notice and comment to be consistent 

with section 11307 of BIL. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

acknowledges that BIL, section 11307 

requires that an update to the S&O 

Agreement template be published in the 

Federal Register, for FHWA to provide 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 77661 

for a comment period, and for FHWA to 

publish a notice laying out a final 

template after consideration of these 

comments. The FHWA complied with 

this requirement by issuing a notice, 

along with the proposed S&O 

Agreement template, for public 

comments on December 21, 2022 (87 FR 

78193), and by publishing this notice. 

The FHWA does not agree, however, 

that the intent of Congress in passing 

section 11307 was to require any future 

change to the S&O Agreement template 

to go through that same process. The 

notice and comment process in section 

11307(b)–(c) describes singular events 

that are tied to specific dates after the 

enactment of BIL. The FHWA does not 

believe that the carefully crafted process 

in section 11307(b)–(c) describing how 

the template should be updated after the 

enactment of BIL reflects Congress’s 

intent that all future updates to the 

template follow this same procedure. 

The FHWA will seek notice and 

comment through the Federal Register, 

as well as through other methods as 

appropriate, to seek input and 

communicate any potential future 

changes. The FHWA appreciates the 

feedback received from AASHTO, 

SDOTs, and other transportation 

stakeholders and intends to continue 

good communication. 

Comment: The AASHTO further 

commented that section VIII provides 

processes for making amendments and 

modifications to individual S&O 

Agreements, which can be used to 

address incremental changes in Federal 

requirements, rather than requiring 

FHWA to introduce a new template. The 

AASHTO and NYSDOT stated that the 

template should only be updated when 

there are significant, substantive 

changes in Federal regulations or 

requirements. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that going through the 

amendment process, rather than issuing 

a new template, may be more 

appropriate for incorporating 

incremental changes in Federal 

requirements into S&O Agreements. The 

FHWA anticipates that the issuance of 

future revisions to the template will be 

based on substantive changes in Federal 

regulations or requirements, such as 

after the adoption of a new Federal 

transportation bill. There may be other 

times, however, where FHWA may find 

it more appropriate to issue a new 

template rather than to have FHWA 

Division Offices and State DOTs agree to 

amendments and then have FHWA 

process each amendment in accordance 

with section VIII.B.2. 

Comment: The Joint States 

commented that section VIII.B.2 should 

be titled ‘‘Amendments that would not 

change the substance of the template’’ 

instead of just ‘‘Amendments’’ and 

further commented that this section 

should be revised to state that 

Amendments ‘‘would not change the 

substance of the template.’’ 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

does not find these changes necessary. 

To start, amendments are between the 

State DOT and FHWA Division Office. 

While they may change the content of 

that specific S&O Agreement, they 

would not affect the S&O Agreement 

template. In addition, FHWA believes 

that it is appropriate for amendments to 

make substantive changes to an 

individual S&O Agreement. Without 

this ability, it is unclear how individual 

S&O Agreements could be changed to 

account for the circumstances of 

specific States. The FHWA observes that 

section VIII.B.1 provides an opportunity 

for a State DOT and its division office 

to make minor, non-substantive changes 

to the S&O Agreement. 

Comment: The AASHTO, the Joint 

States, and NYSDOT also objected to 

language in proposed section VIII.C 

which would have required an S&O 

Agreement be replaced in its entirety at 

the request of the FHWA Office of 

Infrastructure. The commenters stated 

that this provision allows FHWA too 

much authority to unilaterally make 

changes without notice or comment and 

is inconsistent with the intent of section 

11307 of BIL. 

The FHWA Response: As previously 

stated, FHWA does not believe that 

section 11307 of BIL requires that 

additional future revisions to the S&O 

Agreement template go through the 

procedure laid out in that section. The 

FHWA, however, does agree that 

allowing the Office of Infrastructure to 

unilaterally replace an S&O Agreement 

for any reason may not be appropriate, 

as this could disrupt the delivery of the 

FAHP. The FHWA has modified the 

proposed language to clarify the reasons 

a new S&O Agreement would be 

required, which are changes to 

regulations or statutes or upon issuance 

of a revised template. 

Section IX. Agreement Term and 

Termination 

Comment: The AASHTO, ODOT, 

SCDOT, and TxDOT all opposed the 

proposed change to section IX stating 

that an S&O Agreement would have a 

term of no greater than 6 years and that 

a new S&O Agreement must be executed 

before the expiration of the current S&O 

Agreement, claiming that there would 

be consequences if an S&O Agreement 

expires before a new S&O Agreement is 

executed. Commenters suggested 

modifying this provision to allow 

existing S&O Agreements to remain 

effective until a new superseding S&O 

Agreement is executed. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees with the commenters that a 

situation in which an S&O Agreement 

expires could disrupt the administration 

of the FAHP and should be avoided. 

The intent of the proposed term was to 

ensure S&O Agreements are updated on 

a regular basis, such as every 6 years. 

After reviewing the comments received, 

FHWA now expects that future changes 

to statute and regulation will prompt 

updates to S&O Agreements without the 

need for a set term. The FHWA therefore 

agrees with commenters that this 

provision should be removed. 

Comment: The FHWA also proposed 

in section IX to allow the FHWA 

Division Office to terminate an S&O 

Agreement at any time if the FHWA 

Division Office determines that the S&O 

Agreement is no longer in the public 

interest. The AASHTO, the Joint States, 

ODOT, and TxDOT all opposed this 

provision. Commenters stated that a 

termination of an S&O Agreement 

would be catastrophic to the delivery of 

Federal-aid projects and programs, that 

the language used was vague, and that 

this provision indicates a level of 

mistrust that does not serve to foster a 

cooperative relationship needed to 

ensure a successful joint agreement. 

These commenters argued that decisions 

on the termination or replacement of an 

agreement should be made jointly 

between the State DOT and FHWA. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees with the commenters that the 

termination of an S&O Agreement 

would have a negative impact on the 

delivery of the FAHP and should be 

avoided. The intent of this provision 

was to provide FHWA a means to 

expediently address an unforeseen 

extraordinary circumstance that could 

impair the ability of a State DOT to 

effectively carry out the project 

approvals and related responsibilities 

pursuant to an S&O Agreement. Upon 

careful reconsideration of the intent of 

this provision, FHWA acknowledges 

that should such circumstances ever 

arise, there are other statutory and 

regulatory actions FHWA may take on a 

project or programmatic basis to protect 

the Federal interest in the S&O of the 

FAHP. The FHWA therefore agrees with 

commenters that this provision should 

be removed. 

Lastly, FHWA proposed section IX 

with a final provision that stated that 

expiration or termination of an S&O 

Agreement would mean that the 

assumption of project approvals by a 

State DOT would be automatically 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
77662 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 

revoked. Because FHWA is removing all 

provisions related to the expiration or 

termination of an S&O Agreement, this 

language is unnecessary and will be 

removed, which fully deletes proposed 

section IX. 

Attachment A. Project Responsibility 

Matrix 

Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, 

and ODOT commented that a 

distinction has been historically made 

in Attachment A between the 

assumptions of responsibilities on 

Interstate facilities and those on other 

National Highway System (NHS) 

facilities. 

The FHWA Response: The flexibility 

for FHWA to retain selected approvals 

on the Interstate System while the State 

DOT assumes those approvals on nonInterstate NHS projects has traditionally 

been exercised, and FHWA is not 

proposing to change or limit this 

flexibility. The FHWA agrees that this 

flexibility is not made clear in the 

template and intends to clarify this 

flexibility in instructions for developing 

revised S&O Agreements based on the 

revised template. 

Comment: The AASHTO and ODOT 

commented that Attachment A should 

include all responsibilities that must be 

retained by FHWA as well as those that 

can be delegated per law or regulation. 

The FHWA Response: The primary 

purpose of Attachment A is to describe 

the responsibilities that the State 

assumes from FHWA pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 106(c) and other legal authorities. 

To meet that purpose, Attachment A 

includes all FHWA project approvals 

that can be assumed by the State. In 

addition, FHWA included some actions 

that cannot be assumed to clarify a 

distinction with an action that can be 

assumed, clarify that a specific action 

cannot be assumed, or to otherwise 

avoid ambiguity. The purpose of the 

S&O Agreement is not to provide a 

comprehensive list of every FHWA 

project approval. 

Comment: The NYSDOT commented 

that a statement should be added to 

Attachment A stating that projects 

selected by the FHWA for risk-based 

FHWA project involvement are not 

covered by the Attachment A matrix. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that this is an important point to 

make and has added language in section 

VI.D to clarify this. Project-specific S&O 

plans will distinguish which 

Attachment A assumptions are 

superseded by the project-specific plan. 

Attachment A assumptions that are not 

superseded by the project plan remain 

in effect. 

Comment: The Joint States suggested 

that the third sentence of the 

introductory text to Attachment A 

should be modified to clarify that ‘‘all’’ 

elements of a FAHP project do not need 

to be eligible for FAHP funding. The 

commenter suggested language be added 

to clarify that only elements of the 

project that are to be supported by 

FAHP funding must be eligible for 

FAHP funding. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that a clarification is needed and 

modified this sentence to state that the 

State is responsible for ensuring that all 

applicable, rather than individual, 

elements of a project need to be eligible 

for FAHP funding. The FHWA disagreed 

with the suggested language as in 

certain situations, such as advance 

construction, the eligibility of elements 

not supported by FAHP funds is 

significant. 

Comment: The FHWA proposed 

action 18 in table 3 as reading: 

‘‘Approve any betterment to be 

incorporated into the project and for 

which emergency relief funding is 

requested.’’ The PennDOT commented 

that the ‘‘and’’ in this statement should 

be deleted. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees and has modified Attachment A 

accordingly. 

Comment: The GDOT commented on 

action 23 in table 4, which FHWA 

proposed would read: ‘‘Determine use of 

more costly signing, pavement marking 

and signal materials (or equipment) is in 

the public interest.’’ The GDOT stated 

that 23 CFR 655.606 uses the term 

‘‘approved’’ instead of ‘‘determined’’. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees and replaced the term 

‘‘determined’’ with ‘‘approved’’ to 

match 23 CFR 655.606. 

Comment: The PennDOT commented 

that action 25 in table 4, which FHWA 

proposed to read, ‘‘Determination that a 

United States Coast Guard Permit is not 

required for bridge construction,’’ 

should be modified to limit this 

approval to when the bridge 

construction is over navigable water. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

disagrees with this suggested revision. 

To prevent conflicts with other 

documents, actions listed in Attachment 

A are clearly and concisely described 

without providing additional 

information or additional guidance on 

the action. 

Additional Changes to Attachment A: 

In the process of reviewing comments 

and drafting a revised template, FHWA 

made several revisions to the language 

for actions 28, 29, 30 and 31 in Table 

5. These changes were made to better 

align the language with language used 

in other actions in Attachment A and 

the associated regulations. 

Major Projects: The major projects 

action in the proposed template 

‘‘Review and accept initial financial 

plan and annual updates for Federal 

major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]’’ 

(proposed action 1) was split into two 

actions, ‘‘Review and accept initial 

financial plan for Federal major projects 

[23 U.S.C. 106(h)]’’ and ‘‘Review and 

accept financial plan annual updates for 

Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 

106(h)]’’ for clarity. The major projects 

action in the proposed template 

‘‘Review cost estimates for Federal 

major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]’’ 

(proposed action 2) was deleted as 

FHWA determined that this action was 

intrinsically part of the review of the 

initial financial plan and financial plan 

annual updates and therefore 

duplicitous of other actions in 

Attachment A. 

Further, in response to comments 

urging FHWA to maintain maximum 

flexibility in terms of allowing State 

DOTs to assume actions, FHWA 

undertook a review of proposed 

Attachment A to determine whether 

there were any actions that could be 

assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA 

determined that actions related to major 

projects, ‘‘Review and accept initial 

financial plan for Federal major projects 

[23 U.S.C. 106(h)]’’, ‘‘Review and accept 

financial plan annual updates for 

Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 

106(h)]’’, and ‘‘Approve project 

management plan for Federal major 

projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]’’ could be 

assumed by States and modified 

Attachment A accordingly. 

Attachment B. Manuals, Agreements, 

Control, Monitoring, and Reporting 

Documents 

Comment: Several commenters 

provided suggestions on Attachment B, 

which FHWA has reviewed and 

responded to in section VI above. In 

addition, an individual commenter 

suggested that FHWA should retain its 

approval authority for all manuals, 

policies, and procedures used by a State 

DOT, regardless of whether such 

approval is contemplated by specific 

statute or regulation. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

cannot require State DOTs to submit 

manuals, policies, and procedures for 

approval by FHWA if such approval is 

not required by statute or regulation, in 

accordance with section 11307(e)(1) of 

BIL. Further, in line with section 

1316(a) of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114– 

94), FHWA believes it appropriate to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 77663 

allow a State to assume responsibilities 

‘‘to the maximum extent practicable.’’ 

Attachment C. Stewardship and 

Oversight Indicators 

Comment: The GDOT commented that 

language should be added to the 

Attachment C heading paragraph that 

explains how to document when 

indicators are not included in the S&O 

Agreement. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA has 

clarified in Attachment C that 

establishing S&O Indicators is optional 

and that Attachment C should be used 

only when they are established. If a 

State DOT and FHWA Division Office 

have not established S&O Indicators, 

FHWA expects Attachment C to not be 

included in any S&O Agreement 

between them. 

Comment: The PennDOT commented 

that the example Stewardship and 

Oversight Indicators in Attachment C do 

not seem directly related to how well a 

State DOT’s assumption of 

responsibilities is functioning. 

The FHWA Response: The 

Attachment C included in the proposed 

template is a drafting example, which is 

provided to demonstrate acceptable 

methods of showing S&O Indicators and 

examples of the type of information to 

include. Regarding the Indicator 

examples included, some are directly 

related to an assumable action, such as 

the example Indicator ‘‘Number of 

projects with conditional ROW,’’ which 

is directly related to the conditional 

ROW actions in Attachment A. Other 

examples are indirectly related to an 

assumable action, such as the example 

Indicator ‘‘Percent of DBE goal 

achieved,’’ which is indirectly related to 

project award actions in Attachment A. 

General Comments 

Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, 

and ODOT commented that individual 

FHWA Division Offices and State DOTs 

should have the flexibility to modify 

their S&O Agreement and add Statespecific attachments to address such 

aspects as specific State responsibilities, 

delegation of State assumed 

responsibilities on subrecipient projects, 

or the oversight of subrecipients. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

disagrees with allowing flexibility to 

modify the template body or 

Attachment A. The template body 

includes provisions that apply to all 

States and modification in individual 

S&O Agreements would defeat the 

purpose of a single template that applies 

to all 52 FHWA Division Offices and 

State DOTs. 

Similarly, FHWA does not believe 

that States should have the flexibility to 

modify Attachment A beyond allowing 

States to assume responsibilities where 

allowed per Attachment A. Attachment 

A describes actions that FHWA has 

determined are assumable based on the 

language of 23 U.S.C. 106(c), and FHWA 

does not believe that allowing for 

additional assumable actions would be 

appropriate. 

Additional attachments to individual 

S&O Agreements are allowable. 

Additional attachments, however, 

cannot conflict with provisions in the 

template and must meet FHWA 

guidelines for public posting, including 

compliance with section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Comment: The PennDOT commented 

that if funds are not being ‘‘passed’’ 

through the State DOT, the State DOT 

does not have a responsibility because 

the recipient would be executing an 

agreement directly with the FHWA. 

The FHWA Response: The S&O 

Agreements are not applicable to nonState DOT recipients and issues 

associated with non-State DOT 

recipients are not discussed here. The 

template and resulting S&O Agreements 

are not intended to provide programspecific guidance beyond what is 

necessary to establish the roles and 

responsibilities of the FHWA Division 

Office and the State DOT with respect 

to certain project approvals, related 

responsibilities, and FAHP oversight 

activities. 

Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, 

ODOT, and PennDOT commented that 

the template does not specifically 

address the wider range of potential 

subrecipients anticipated in various 

programs within the BIL. These 

commenters stated that the template 

should allow for means of addressing 

the delegation to and oversight of nonState DOT subrecipients. The PennDOT 

added that it was concerned over the 

impact to the agency regarding 

responsibility over such recipients. The 

NYSDOT commented that the template 

should provide greater guidance and 

flexibility in administering new 

programs. 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that the template does not 

specifically address the range of 

potential subrecipients involved in 

specific programs. The template and 

resulting S&O Agreements are not 

intended to provide program specific 

guidance beyond what is necessary to 

establish the roles and responsibilities 

of the FHWA Division Office and the 

State DOT with respect to certain 

project approvals, related 

responsibilities, and FAHP oversight 

activities pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 106. To 

the extent that such entities are 

subrecipients of a State DOT, section VII 

of the template addresses the State 

DOT’s responsibility for overseeing its 

subrecipients. The FHWA does not find 

it necessary to lay out specific means of 

addressing the delegation to and 

oversight of such subrecipients, as that 

is the responsibility of the State DOT. 

Part of this responsibility is to evaluate 

each subrecipient’s risk of ensuring 

compliance and determining the 

appropriate oversight and monitoring in 

accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(b). The 

FHWA acknowledges that new 

programs under BIL may involve a 

wider range of potential subrecipients 

and that risks will be different from 

traditional subrecipients who possess 

more experience administering FAHP 

projects. 

Comment: An individual commenter 

expressed concern with State DOTs 

misapplying provisions of S&O 

Agreements under the current template 

and provided what he stated was an 

example of this occurring. This 

commenter argued that FHWA should 

provide a more detailed description of 

State DOT responsibilities in any 

revised template, particularly with 

respect to State DOT responsibilities for 

projects on the NHS that do not utilize 

Federal funds. This commenter also 

stated that FHWA should take extra care 

to ensure that entrenched commitment 

to erroneous views of the law and the 

duties imposed by Title 23, U.S.C. and 

the S&O Agreement is corrected, 

contained, and not adopted by other 

public officials or contractors, and that 

FHWA should include additional 

language to reflect the need for State 

DOTs to perform or directly supervise 

construction projects on the NHS, 

including those undertaken by its 

subrecipients, such as Local Public 

Agencies (LPA). 

The FHWA Response: The FHWA 

agrees that it is important for State 

DOTs to recognize responsibilities on 

the NHS for projects that may not use 

Federal funds. The S&O Agreements, 

however, are not meant to lay out every 

responsibility a State DOT has that 

might be related to the FAHP; instead, 

they are meant to define the roles and 

responsibilities of FHWA and each State 

DOT regarding project approvals and 

related responsibilities under Title 23, 

U.S.C., and document methods of 

oversight. For example, S&O 

Agreements are not the place to discuss 

the relationship between State DOTs 

and LPAs, apart from the relationship 

that might exist when a State DOT 

provides a subaward to the LPA. The 

FHWA therefore disagrees with the 

commenter that S&O Agreements are 

appropriate places to define State DOT 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
77664 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Notices 

responsibilities in detail, such as State 

DOT responsibilities for projects that do 

not use Federal funds, which are not 

related to the purpose of an S&O 

Agreement. 

The FHWA also agrees that it is 

important for State DOTs to supervise 

construction projects on the NHS, 

including those undertaken by its 

subrecipients. The FHWA does not, 

however, believe that the S&O 

Agreement needs to include additional 

language to reflect this need. Section VII 

of the template includes language 

stating that the State DOT is responsible 

for ensuring that its subrecipients meet 

applicable Federal requirements. The 

FHWA does not believe it appropriate or 

necessary to explicitly state that this 

oversight must be done by directly 

supervising construction of projects on 

the NHS. 

Schedule To Implement Changes 

In accordance with section 

11307(c)(1) of BIL, FHWA has 

considered all comments received on its 

proposed S&O Agreement template. 

Through this notice, FHWA is 

describing the proposed changes to be 

made to that proposed template and is 

addressing comments in response to 

which changes were not made to the 

template. In accordance with sections 

11307(c)(1)(C) and 11307(c)(3)(A) of 

BIL, FHWA is updating its S&O 

Agreement template, which can be 

found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

federalaid/stewardship/. Pursuant to 

section 11307(c)(3)(B) of BIL, FHWA 

will ensure that this revised template is 

used to update existing S&O 

Agreements not later than November 12, 

2024. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106(c); section 

11307, Pub. L. 117–58, 135 Stat. 532; 49 

CFR 1.85. 

Shailen P. Bhatt, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24960 Filed 11–9–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2010–0029] 

Amtrak’s Request To Amend Its 

Positive Train Control Safety Plan and 

Type Approval 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

public with notice that, on October 31 

and November 3, 2023, the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) submitted a request for 

amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved 

Positive Train Control Safety Plan 

(PTCSP). As this RFA may involve a 

request for FRA’s approval of proposed 

material modifications to an FRAcertified positive train control (PTC) 

system, FRA is publishing this notice 

and inviting public comment on the 

railroad’s RFA to its PTCSP. 

DATES: FRA will consider comments 

received by December 4, 2023. FRA may 

consider comments received after that 

date to the extent practicable and 

without delaying implementation of 

valuable or necessary modifications to a 

PTC system. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments may be 

submitted by going to https://

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and the 

applicable docket number. The relevant 

PTC docket number for this host 

railroad is Docket No. FRA–2010–0029. 

For convenience, all active PTC dockets 

are hyperlinked on FRA’s website at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/researchdevelopment/program-areas/traincontrol/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov; this includes any 

personal information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train 

Control, and Crossings Division, 

telephone: 816–516–7168, email: 

Gabe.Neal@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, 

title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify 

that a host railroad’s PTC system 

complies with title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, 

before the technology may be operated 

in revenue service. Before making 

certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC 

system or the associated FRA-approved 

PTCSP, a host railroad must submit, and 

obtain FRA’s approval of, an RFA to its 

PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021. 

Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA’s 

regulations provide that FRA will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

and invite public comment in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an 

RFA includes a request for approval of 

a material modification of a signal or 

train control system. Accordingly, this 

notice informs the public that, on 

October 31 and November 3, 2023, 

Amtrak submitted an RFA to its PTCSP 

for its Advanced Civil Speed 

Enforcement System II (ACSES II), 

which seeks FRA’s approval of a new 

variance, regarding the Secure Positive 

Train Stop Release, to FRA’s current 

Type Approval and PTC System 

Certification of Amtrak’s ACSES II. That 

RFA is available in Docket No. FRA– 

2010–0029. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on Amtrak’s RFA to its PTCSP 

by submitting written comments or data. 

During FRA’s review of this railroad’s 

RFA, FRA will consider any comments 

or data submitted within the timeline 

specified in this notice and to the extent 

practicable, without delaying 

implementation of valuable or necessary 

modifications to a PTC system. See 49 

CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 

236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, 

FRA maintains the authority to approve, 

approve with conditions, or deny a 

railroad’s RFA to its PTCSP at FRA’s 

sole discretion. 

Privacy Act Notice 

In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, 

FRA solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its decisions. DOT posts 

these comments, without edit, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to https://

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

See https://www.regulations.gov/ 

privacy-notice for the privacy notice of 

regulations.gov. To facilitate comment 

tracking, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. If you 

wish to provide comments containing 

proprietary or confidential information, 

please contact FRA for alternate 

submission instructions. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams, 

Director, Office of Railroad Systems and 

Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24972 Filed 11–9–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES