61162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Notices

the need for a national mapping

program and had several concerns with

the August 26, 1997 notice. One

operator agreed with RSPA’s estimate

for the burden hours per company. The

other commentors stated that the burden

hours were underestimated. One

commentor did not provide numbers on

the degree of the underestimate, while

the other suggested two days per

operator. RSPA’s burden hour estimate

was from an actual pre-pilot test of the

mapping program. Because RSPA has

actually pre-tested this program on

operators some of whom had electronic

maps and some who had only paper

maps, RSPA stands by its burden hour

estimates. The one dissenting

commentor also raised issues

concerning the need and value of

NPMS, the accuracy of the maps

required under the pilot program, the

costs of the regional repositories, and

the costs and benefits of a truly national

mapping program.

RSPA believes that access to a

complete and accurate NPMS is

necessary to ensure that RSPA has the

best information for its emergency

response, compliance and enforcement

responsibilities. RSPA further believes

that it is important that its state partners

also have this same information. It is

important to note that this mapping

program is a joint effort of the Federal

government, state agencies, and the

three major trade organizations

representing the natural gas and

hazardous liquid industries, the

American Petroleum Institute (API), the

American Gas Association (AGA), and

the Interstate Natural Gas Association

Of America (INGAA). The accuracy of

the information required of these maps

is to within 500 feet and the maps must

have a quality code describing the

quality of the data provided. The

Federal Government has provided $2.4

million for the NPMS system prior to

1997. It has budgeted $500,000.00 for

1997 with an estimated $400,000.00

needed annually thereafter to maintain

this repository system. While RSPA

does not have an estimate of the

potential costs and benefits of a national

mapping network it is hoping that

information provided by this pilot

program will help RSPA estimate the

net benefits of a national mapping

system in the future if that is required.

The question for now is to test a

volunteer mapping pilot program.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received on or before December 15,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Marvin Fell, (202) 366–6205 or write by

E-mail to Fellm@rspa.dot.gov., Research

and Special Programs Administration,

Room 8102, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA)

Title: Mapping Pilot Program.

OMB Control Number: 2137–NEW.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Affected Public: Gas transmission and

hazardous liquid operators.

Abstract: The Department of

Transportation (DOT) along with other

Federal and state agencies have been

working side by side with natural gas

and hazardous liquid operators to

develop a national pipeline mapping

system (NPMS). This system, when

complete, will depict and provide data

on the natural gas transmission and

larger liquid pipelines operating in the

United States. The DOT is beginning a

volunteer pilot program consisting of 36

pipeline operators (three from each of

12 states participating in the program).

These 36 pipeline operators will

provide electronic maps of 10–20 miles

of their pipeline to one state as well as

to one of six regional repositories for

their startup and operating costs.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 144

hours.

Number of Respondents: 48.

Send comments to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725–

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 5,

1997.

Vanester M. Williams,

Clearance Officer, United States Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–30024 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement,

Trumbull, Monroe and Newtown, CT

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

Notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement will

not be prepared for a proposed highway

project in Trumbull, Monroe, and

Newtown, Connecticut. A notice of

Intent to prepare an EIS was published

in the Federal Register on July 25, 1985.

Instead, an Environmental Assessment

will be prepared.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Donald J. West, Division Administrator,

Federal Highway Administration, 628–2

Hebron Ave., Suite 303, Glastonbury,

CT 06033–5007, Telephone: (860) 659–

6703 extension 3009; Mr. Edgar Hurle,

Director of Environmental Planning,

Bureau of Policy and Planning, 3800

Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Box 317546,

Newington, CT 06131–7546, Telephone:

(860) 594–2920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Existing

State Route 25 is a major arterial from

Interstate 95 in Bridgeport, Connecticut

to U.S. Route 7 in Brookfield,

Connecticut. The corridor under study

involves the section from State Route

111 in Trumbull to Interstate 84 in

Newtown. Following the Notice of

Intent for the preparation of a Draft EIS,

project scoping and preparation of the

document began. Multiple expressway

alternatives on new alignment were

studied, as well as a widening of

existing Route 25 with a 100 foot right

of way for a length of approximately 11

miles. A minimal widening of the

existing road with a 75 foot right of way

and approximate length of 10 miles was

also studied. In 1992, a strategic

financial plan was developed by the

Connecticut Department of

Transportation (ConnDOT). This plan

reevaluated major transportation project

in light of transportation needs and

financial constraints. Based on this

plan, as well as severe environmental

concerns of the expressway alternatives,

the ConnDOT decided to narrow the

scope of the project to only the

widening alternative which has the least

environmental and socio-economic

impacts of all previously studied

alternatives. No significant impacts are

foreseen from the limited widening.

In light of the change of scope of the

project, the FHWA and the ConnDOT

agree that the foreseen impacts of this
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Notices 61163

project no longer warrant an EIS. An

Environmental Assessment will be

prepared and processed to fully analyze

the proposal.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: October 31, 1997.

Donald J. West,

Division Administrator, Glastonbury,

Connecticut.

[FR Doc. 97–29924 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Safety Advisory

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of safety advisory

amendment.

SUMMARY: FRA is amending Safety

Advisory 97–1, which addresses safety

practices to reduce the risk of casualties

from train derailments caused by

damage to tracks, roadbed, and bridges

resulting from uncontrolled flows of

water and similar weather-related

phenomena, by revising the

recommendation concerning the

transmission of flash flood warnings to

train dispatchers or other employees

controlling the movement of trains.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge

Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance

and Compliance, FRA, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., RRS–15, Mail Stop 25,

Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone

202–632–3340) or Daniel L. Alpert, Trial

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., RCC–12, Mail

Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590

(telephone 202–632–3186).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 4, 1997, FRA issued Safety

Advisory 97–1 (SA 97–1) (62 FR 46793),

recommending that railroads take

certain actions to reduce the risk of train

derailments which could result from

severe weather conditions, particularly

undetected flash floods. The first

recommendation of SA 97–1 reads as

follows:

1. The railroad should have in place a

procedure that will assure that all

notifications issued by the National Weather

Service (NWS) of flash flood warnings will be

received within 15 minutes of issuance from

the NWS, directly or through a contract

weather forecasting service, by the train

dispatchers or other employees controlling

the movement of trains on all track of Class

4 or higher or upon which passenger trains

operate in commuter or intercity service,

within the warning area. In the case of such

track located outside of the warning area but

subject to damage from water resulting from

the storm, the information should be

obtained in time to permit timely response by

the railroad.

The intent of the recommendation is for

all flash flood warnings issued by the

NWS for the area in which an affected

railroad operates to be received by the

personnel who control train operations

in the area of the warning. It is not

necessary that the warning come

directly from the NWS, but it should be

received intact and in a timely manner.

Since SA 97–1 was issued, FRA has

become aware of several circumstances

in which large railroads with

centralized dispatching operations have

contracted with specialized weather

services for weather information

tailored to the situation and

requirements of the railroad. Several of

those contract services do not pass on

all NWS warnings, but instead analyze

the warnings in the light of other

weather data available to them and their

knowledge of the specific situation and

requirements of their clients in order to

provide only the weather information

that affects the client and to filter out

irrelevant information. This process

reduces the amount of information that

the client is required to consider and

evaluate, and allows the client to focus

on information that, in the view of the

contract weather service, might actually

affect the client’s property and

operations.

FRA now believes that this procedure

offered by contract weather services

might meet the requirements of some

railroads better than if all NWS

warnings are passed on by the contract

weather service en masse, regardless of

their relevance to the individual

railroad. Therefore, Safety Advisory 97–

1 is amended in part by revising

Recommendation 1 to read as follows:

1. The railroad should have in place a

procedure that will assure that the train

dispatchers or other employees controlling

the movement of trains on all track of Class

4 or higher or upon which passenger trains

operate in commuter or intercity service will

receive timely warnings of any flash flood

that might damage that track or its supporting

structures. In the case of such track located

outside of the warning area but subject to

damage from water resulting from the storm,

the information should be obtained in time

to permit timely response by the railroad.

The warning procedure should incorporate

either:

a. The means to receive within 15 minutes

of issuance by the National Weather Service

(NWS) all NWS flood warnings for the area

in which the track is located; or

b. An arrangement with a competent

commercial weather service which receives

and reviews warnings and weather data from

the NWS as part of its warning procedures,

and from which the railroad receives

warnings and weather information that is

specific to the situation and requirements of

the railroad.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

10, 1997.

George A. Gavalla,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–30032 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

International Standards on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods; Public

Meeting

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise

interested persons that RSPA will

conduct a public meeting to report on

the results of the fourteenth session of

the United Nation’s Sub-Committee of

Experts on the Transport of Dangerous

Goods (UNSCOE) and to discuss the

work program for U.S. participation in

future meetings of the UN SubCommittee of Experts on the Transport

of Dangerous Goods during the 1997–

1998 biennium.

DATES: January 6, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Room 8236–8240 Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frits

Wybenga, International Standards

Coordinator, Office of Hazardous

Materials Safety, Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;

(202) 366–0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

primary purpose of this meeting will be

to (1) review the outcome of the

fourteenth session of the UNSCOE held

from December 8–18, 1997 in Geneva

Switzerland and to begin preparation for

U.S. participation in the fifteenth

session of the UNSCOE. Topics to be

covered during the public meeting

include matters related to reformatting

the UN Recommendations on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods into a

model rule, criteria for environmentally

hazardous substances, review of