Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Notices 28549

filed only once when a carrier seeks

approval to self-insure its BI&PD and/or

cargo liability.

Public Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to send

comments regarding any aspect of this

information collection, including but

not limited to: (1) the necessity and

utility of the information collection for

the proper performance of the functions

of the FHWA; (2) the accuracy of the

estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

collected information; and (4) ways to

minimize the collection burden without

reducing the quality of the collected

information. Comments submitted in

response to this notice will be

summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB’s clearance for a

renewal of this information collection.

Electronic Availability

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Federal Register electronic bulletin

board service (telephone number: 202–

512–1661). Internet users may reach the

Federal Register’s WWW site at: http:/

/www.access.gpo.gov/sul docs.

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

Issued on: May 13, 1998.

George S. Moore, Jr.,

Associate Administrator for Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13906 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Docket No. RSGC–7]

Environmental Impact Statement: FRA

Regulation of the Use of Locomotive

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade

Crossings Nationwide

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to

advise the public that an environmental

impact statement (EIS) will be prepared

for the proposed regulation covering the

sounding of locomotive horns at

highway-rail grade crossings and to

solicit input into the development of the

scope of that EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding the environmental review

contact David Valenstein,

Environmental Specialist, Office of

Railroad Development, Federal Railroad

Administration (RDV 13), 400 Seventh

Street, SW (Mail Stop 20), Washington,

D.C. 20590, (telephone 202 632–3268).

For information regarding the rule

making process contact Bruce F. George,

Staff Director, Highway Rail Crossing

and Trespasser Programs, Office of

Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW

(Mail Stop 25), Washington, D.C. 20590

(telephone 202 632–3312), or Mark H.

Tessler, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,

400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 10),

Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202

632–3171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 0

The Swift Rail Development Act (Pub.

L. 103–440, November 2, 1994) added

Section 20153 to title 49, United States

Code. That section directs the Secretary

of Transportation (delegated to the

Federal Railroad Administrator) to

prescribe regulations requiring that a

locomotive horn be sounded while each

train is approaching and entering upon

each public highway-rail grade crossing.

In addition, 49 U.S.C. 20153 provides

FRA the authority to except from this

requirement, categories of rail

operations or categories of grade

crossings that: (1) Are determined not to

present significant risk with respect to

loss of life or serious personal injury; (2)

for which the use of a locomotive horn

is impractical; or (3) for which

supplementary safety measures fully

compensate for the absence of the

warning provided by the locomotive

horn.

The sounding of locomotive horns at

highway-rail grade crossings is

recognized by FRA and the railroad

industry as contributing to railroad and

highway safety. Studies conducted by

FRA of circumstances where the

sounding of horns had been restricted in

eastern Florida (so-called ‘‘whistle

bans’’) have indicated an increased

incidence of collisions involving trains

and highway users where locomotive

horns were not sounded. Although the

sounding of locomotive horns at

highway-rail grade crossings is the

normal practice at most of the 162,000

public grade crossings in the U.S., FRA

is aware of approximately 2,200

crossings in 200 communities where

locomotive horns are not routinely

sounded.

In preparing for the rulemaking

process required by 49 U.S.C. 20153,

FRA established a public docket to

enable local officials and citizens to

offer their insight into the issues

surrounding whistle bans and to

comment on how FRA might best

implement 49 U.S.C. 20153. FRA also

undertook extensive research into

locomotive horns and their relationship

to grade crossing safety through the

Department of Transportation’s John A.

Volpe National Transportation Systems

Center. Some of the comments offered

by the public expressed concerns that

any regulation requiring the sounding of

locomotive horns could create adverse

environmental impacts in the form of

significantly higher community noise

levels in the vicinity of those highwayrail grade crossings where horns are

presently not sounded. Based upon a

review of these comments, and ongoing

research, FRA has concluded that the

promulgation of the regulation required

by 49 U.S.C. 20153 is a major Federal

action as this term is used in section

102(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.) As a consequence, FRA is

initiating the preparation of an EIS as

required under NEPA and the

regulations of the President’s Council on

Environmental Quality implementing

NEPA (40 CFR S 1502).

Alternatives

FRA currently plans to analyze two

alternatives in this environmental

review, the proposed action and the

‘‘no-action’’ alternative. The proposed

action is to comply with the statutory

mandate and issue a regulation

requiring the sounding of locomotive

horns at every public highway-rail grade

crossing in the U.S., including those

where locomotive horns are presently

not sounded. Such a rule would

effectively preempt any State or local

law or regulation to the contrary. The

regulation encompassed in the proposed

action would also identify a number of

measures which the States and

communities can undertake to provide

improved safety at public highway-rail

grade crossings. In such situations

regular sounding of railroad horns

would then become unnecessary from a

safety perspective and could cease. The

regulation would also establish a

procedure for consideration by FRA of

proposals by States, communities or

other interested persons for approval of

new supplementary safety measures that

would permit designation of a quiet

zone. The environmental impacts of

requiring the sounding of locomotive

horns at public highway-rail crossings

where the horns are not presently

sounded and a consideration of the

environmental impacts associated with

the implementation of supplementary

safety measures would be a part of the

proposed action analysis.

The no-action alternative would

involve maintenance of the status quo

with respect to the sounding of

locomotive horns. This would require
28550 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Notices

alternative amendments to existing

legislation.

Areas of Significant Environmental

Concern

FRA’s review of the current practice

of sounding locomotive horns at

highway-rail grade crossings and the

comments received thus far in the

public docket of this rulemaking have

identified two primary areas of

environmental concern associated with

the proposed regulation, noise (and

related impacts) and safety.

Scoping and Comments

FRA encourages broad participation

in the EIS process during scoping and

review of the resulting environmental

documentation. Comments and

suggestions are invited from all

interested agencies and the public at

large to insure the full range of issues

related to the proposed action and all

reasonable alternatives are addressed

and all significant issues are identified.

In particular, FRA is interested in

determining whether there are any other

reasonable alternatives consistent with

the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 20153 and

whether there are other areas of

environmental concern where there

might be the potential for significant

impacts, either adverse or favorable, as

a result of promulgating the proposed

rule.

Due to the national scope of the

proposed regulation, FRA does not plan

to hold public scoping meetings.

Notices soliciting comments have been

and will be sent to appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies, private

organizations and citizens who have

expressed an interest in this rulemaking

and made available to the media in

areas that have been identified to date

as currently subject to whistle bans or

where whistle bans have been

preempted by FRA order. Persons

interested in providing comments on

the scope of this environmental

document should do so by June 19,

1998. Comments can be sent in writing

to Mr. David Valenstein at the address

identified above. Comments can also be

sent via the Internet at:

FRAEIS@fra.dot.gov.

The Remaining Environmental Review

Process

Comments received on the scope and

methodology to be used in preparation

of the EIS will be reviewed by FRA to

develop the final scope of the

environmental review. A summary of

the comments received will be provided

to agencies and members of the public

expressing an interest in this

environmental review. FRA and its

consultants will then undertake

preparation of a draft EIS which will be

made available to the public for

comment. This is presently scheduled

for the late fall 1998. It is FRA’s

intention that the comment period for

the draft EIS will occur during the

comment period associated with the

proposed rule so that interested

agencies and the public can combine

their comments and that the

environmental issues can be fully

considered as FRA develops the final

rule. After reviewing comments on the

draft EIS, FRA will prepare a final EIS

that addresses these comments and

incorporates any additional analyses

and material deemed necessary. The

final EIS will be made available for

public review for not less than 30 days

before FRA takes any final action on the

proposed rule.

Internet

This notice and all subsequent

documents prepared as part of this

environmental review will be available

in the environmental pages of the FRA

Internet website, located at: http://

www.fra.dot.gov

Issued in Washington, D.C. on: May 19,

1998.

Donald M. Itzkoff,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–13804 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief from

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)-No.

3463

Applicants: Houston Belt and

Terminal Railway Company, Mr. J. B.

Mathis, General Manager, 501 Crawford,

Room 515, Houston, Texas 77002–2192.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company, Mr. William G.

Peterson, Director Signal Engineering,

4515 Kansas Avenue, Kansas City,

Kansas 66106.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Mr.

Bruce E. Williams, Director Signal

Design, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Houston Belt and Terminal

Railway Company, Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company, and

Union Pacific Railroad Company, jointly

seek approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

traffic control system, on the East Main

Track, between Control Point 169,

milepost 9.6 and Control Point 183,

milepost 10.9, on the West Belt

Subdivision, in Houston, Texas,

including removal of Control Points 175

and 178, and associated signals, poweroperated switch machines, and track

circuits.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are that the track serves yards

and the signal system is no longer

required.

BS–AP–No. 3464

Applicants: Southern California

Regional Rail Authority, Mr. David

Solow, Deputy Executive Director, 700

South Flower Street, Suite 2600, Los

Angeles, California 90017–4101.

Santa Clarita Railroad, Mr. James

Clark, Manager of Operations, 25135

Anza, Santa Clarita, California 91355.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Mr.

Bruce E. Williams, Director Signal

Design, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Southern California Regional Rail

Authority, Santa Clarita Railroad, and

Union Pacific Railroad Company jointly

seek approval of the proposed reduction

to the interlocking limits of CP Saugus,

milepost 32.4, Saugus, California, Valley

Subdivision, consisting of the

conversion of the No. 3 power-operated

switch to hand operation, conversion of

interlocked signal ‘‘2WC’’ to absolute

signal ‘‘3240,’’ in lieu of an electric lock,

removal of signal ‘‘2WA,’’ and

installation of a new interlocked signal

‘‘W,’’ 642 feet west of the 2WA location.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to modify the interlocking to

reflect change in operating practices.

BS–AP–No. 3465

Applicant: Long Island Rail Road, Mr.

Frederick E. Smith, P.E., Chief Engineer,

Hillside Maintenance Complex, 93–59

183 Street, Hollis, New York 11423.

The Long Island Rail Road seeks

approval of the proposed temporary

discontinuance of Cabin ‘‘M’’

Interlocking, on the Montauk Branch, in

Queens County, New York, until June

1999, and govern train movements

through the interlocking by issuance of

a Clearance Card Form C, Rule 331 of