Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42733

Dated: August 1, 1997.

Ward Penberthy,

Acting Director, Chemical Control Division,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–20981 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[FRA Docket No. RST–90–1, Notice No. 6]

RIN 2130–AA75

Track Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

date and location of public hearing.

SUMMARY: By notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published on July

3, 1997 (62 FR 36138), FRA proposed a

rule to revise the Federal track safety

standards. In that notice, FRA

announced that it would soon schedule

a public hearing to allow interested

parties the opportunity to comment on

issues addressed in the NPRM.

DATES: Public Hearings: The date of the

public hearing is Thursday, September

4, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C.

Any person wishing to participate in the

public hearing should notify the Docket

Clerk by telephone (202–632–3198) or

by mail at the address provided below

at least five working days prior to the

date of the hearing and submit three

copies of the oral statement that he or

she intends to make at the hearing. The

notification should identify who the

person represents and the particular

subject(s) the person plans to address.

The notification should also provide the

Docket Clerk with the participant’s

mailing address. FRA reserves the right

to limit participation in the hearings of

persons who fail to provide such

notification.

ADDRESSES: (1) Docket Clerk: Written

notification should identify the docket

number and must be submitted in

triplicate to the Docket Clerk, Office of

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad

Administration, RCC–10, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,

D.C. 20590.

(2) Public Hearings: The hearing will

be held in Room 2230 of U.S.

Department of Transportation

headquarters, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison H. MacDowell, Office of Safety

Assurance and Compliance, Federal

Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington,

D.C. 20590 (telephone number: 202–

632–3344), or Nancy Lummen Lewis,

Esq., Office of Chief Counsel, Federal

Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,

D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202–632–3174).

S. Mark Lindsey,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–21011 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 234

[FRA Docket No. RSGC–6; Notice No. 4]

RIN 2130–AA92

Selection and Installation of Grade

Crossing Warning Systems;

Termination of Rulemaking

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice terminates

rulemaking action in FRA Docket No.

FSGC–6. In its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), FRA proposed to

prohibit railroads from unilaterally

selecting and installing highway-rail

grade crossing warning systems at

public highway-rail crossings. FRA also

proposed to require that railroads

furnish state highway authorities with

information necessary for state grade

crossing project planning and

prioritization purposes. Termination of

this rulemaking is based on public

comments and FRA’s determination that

railroad safety will not be best served by

issuance of such a regulation at this

time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce F. George, Director, Highway-Rail

Crossing and Trespasser Programs

Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (telephone 202–632–3305), or

Mark Tessler, Trial Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

(telephone 202–632–3171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

2, 1995, FRA published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 11649) an NPRM which

was meant to clarify the respective

responsibilities of railroads and state

and local governments regarding the

selection and installation of highwayrail grade crossing warning systems.

Public hearings were held on the

proposal on June 6 and 7, 1995. The

public comment period closed on June

14, 1995. However, FRA continued to

receive comments and to date has

received in excess of 3,000 comments in

this rulemaking. All comments have

been considered by FRA, including

those received after June 14, 1995, in

accord with FRA’s policy to consider

late filed comments to the extent

possible. A wide range of views were

expressed in the public hearings and in

written comments submitted to the

public docket. A high proportion of the

comments were form letters and

preprinted postcards expressing

opposition to the proposal.

Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM,

a school bus stopped at a highway-rail

grade crossing in Fox River Grove,

Illinois, was struck by a commuter train.

Seven students died. Following the

accident the Secretary of Transportation

established a Grade Crossing Safety

Task Force (Task Force) to build upon

the Department’s 1994 Rail-Highway

Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Task

Force reported its findings to the

Secretary on March 1, 1996. The

Executive Summary of the report stated

in part:

[T]he report recommends 24 specific

follow-on actions to address both physical

and procedural deficiencies. In practice, the

responsibility for public grade crossings

resides with State and local governments,

railroads, and transit agencies. Recognizing

the constrained budgets that are available to

the private sector and State and local

authorities, the report emphasizes rethinking

existing practices—not requiring new ones

from a regulatory approach. This reliance on

existing opportunities is emphasized by

recommendations that encourage grade

crossing safety through coordinated

inspections, law enforcement, and driver

education.

As the Task Force Report states, ‘‘[t]his

* * * report should not be viewed as a

surrogate for the Action Plan, but as a

supplement which focuses on the

planning, construction, maintenance,

operation, and inspection activities

involving rail crossings. The Task Force

directed its attention to those grade

crossing issues for which there were no

well-defined standards, practices, or

information. It was in these five

problem areas outside the scope of the

Action Plan, that the Task Force felt

additional improvements in grade

crossing safety could be made.’’

FRA is continuing its implementation

of the Action Plan’s recommendations

while at the same time it works to

ensure that the recommendations of the

Safety Task Force are carried out.
42734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 ‘‘Region’’ is defined as ‘‘the States of Maine,

New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,

Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West

Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois; the

The NPRM

The impetus in proposing the NPRM

was the goal, as stated in the Action

Plan, to ‘‘review the allocation of

responsibilities for the selection and

installation of warning devices and the

potential for uniform nationwide

standards.’’ The NPRM, together with

the subsequent hearings and wide range

of comments stimulated extensive

discussion and debate on the issue. FRA

notes that certain groups generated

interest and comments by claiming that

the proposed rule ‘‘would shield

railroad companies from liability when

their negligence contributes to such

accidents.’’ This and similar claims

made in mass mailings to FRA are

clearly misleading statements. FRA

believes that there are valid policy

arguments on both sides of the issue in

this debate and that resorting to

misleading statements apparently in

order to increase the volume of

comments does not lead to helpful

public airing of legitimate concerns.

Spreading such obvious misinformation

can only take advantage of well meaning

individuals who have not had the

opportunity to read the proposed rule

themselves, but who rely on the

integrity and accuracy of those

providing the information. FRA is

disappointed that such groups

apparently felt that the strength of their

legitimate objections to the rule were

insufficient.

While some of the debate surrounding

the proposal was based on incorrect

information, much of the discussion

raised valid questions regarding what

should be the proper role of railroads,

state and local governments, and the

federal government in the selection and

installation of grade crossing warning

systems. The discussion remained on a

general and conceptual level however.

The overwhelming majority of

comments were conclusory in nature

and did not add hard data which could

be helpful to FRA in its decision

making. Opponents claimed that the

rule would effectively shift tort liability

from railroads to state and local

governments. Opponents of the rule also

stated that there was no evidence that

money saved by railroads would be

spent on grade crossing safety and that

the rule would remove any incentive a

railroad may have to participate in

crossing safety programs. Rule

proponents, on the other hand, claimed

that safety would be enhanced by more

rational grade crossing planning.

Absent from virtually all rule

comments and testimony, however,

were data supporting the conclusions

drawn from the rule. In the NPRM, FRA

stated that it ‘‘believes that railroads

have many powerful incentives to

continue their longstanding policy of

voluntarily providing matching funds

for federally funded grade crossing

projects, comment is sought concerning

whether this proposal will affect the

level of railroad participation in such

projects.’’ FRA again received only

conclusory comments rather than data

on past, present or projected levels of

participation.

Termination of rulemaking

FRA continues to believe that the

proper relationship between railroads

and state and local governments in

terms of selection and installation of

warning systems is as proposed in the

NPRM: railroad should furnish

governmental authorities with sufficient

information to enable those authorities

to make rational selection and

installation decisions. However, at this

time, in light of the lack of supporting

hard data in the record and the

magnitude of other regulatory and

program safety initiatives being

undertaken by FRA, this rulemaking is

being terminated.

We note that this rulemaking has been

a worthwhile first step in addressing the

issue of allocation of responsibility for

the selection and installation of warning

devices and the potential for uniform

nationwide standards in this area. We

are confident that further steps in

addressing these issues will build upon

the information and discussion

generated by this proceeding.

In light of the foregoing, FRA is

hereby terminating this rulemaking.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 5,

1997.

Jolene M. Molitoris,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20991 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1155

[STB Ex Parte No. 566]

Rail Service Continuation Subsidy

Standards

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is proposing to remove

regulations from the Code of Federal

Regulations that concern standards for

determining subsidies for the

continuation of rail service to govern

rail properties not transferred to

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)

under the Final System Plan pursuant to

the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of

1973.

DATES: Comments are due on September

8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. (TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective

January 1, 1996, the ICC Termination

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat.

803 (ICCTA), abolished the Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC or

Commission) and established the Board.

Section 204(a) of the ICCTA provides

that ‘‘[t]he Board shall promptly rescind

all regulations established by the (ICC)

that are based on provisions of law

repealed and not substantively

reenacted by this Act.’’

The regulations at 49 CFR part 1155

concern subsidy standards for certain

rail lines in the region encompassed by

the Final System Plan, described infra,

that otherwise are subject to

abandonment or discontinuance. They

are the forerunner to our current offer of

financial assistance (OFA) procedures

that are national in scope. These

regulations are based, at least partially,

on statutes that are still in effect. 45

U.S.C. 744 (c) and (d). Under the ICCTA,

however, the Rail Services Planning

Office (RSPO), the statutory body that

developed the regulations, has been

abolished. See repealed 49 U.S.C.

10361–64. Moreover, the Board has in

place analogous OFA regulations

providing national subsidy standards.

49 CFR 1152.27 and 1152 subpart D.

Finally, the regional subsidy regime at

45 U.S.C. 744, which applies to ‘‘rail

service on rail properties of a railroad in

reorganization,’’ may be outdated and

may apply only to a limited number of

situations. Accordingly, we are

instituting this proceeding to determine

whether these regulations may be

eliminated, or whether they have a

continuing vitality and should be

retained.

The 3R Act and Part 1155

The Regional Rail Reorganization Act

of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93–236, 87 Stat.

985, 45 U.S.C. 701 et seq. (3R Act)

created Conrail as a for-profit

corporation to reorganize the bankrupt

rail services in the Northeast and

Midwest region.1 The 3R Act provided