Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40691

confidentiality concerns, while still

others thought that paper filing is not

unduly burdensome. A few commenters

said that electronic filing of nonconfidential information should be

allowed as a means of expediting the

process. Neither MARAD nor the

Department of Transportation has the

current capacity to utilize electronic

filing efficiently or to ensure the

confidentiality of information

submitted. The Department is currently

working on resolving these issues as

part of its centralized docket system.

When such a system is in place,

MARAD will consider offering

electronic filing to applicants as an

option.

Shipyard Documentation

Five commenters stated that they

believed MARAD should create special

documents to govern closings on

commitments to guarantee shipyard

modernizations. Most commenters

recognized that the differences between

the land transactions involved in

shipyard modernization projects and the

maritime transactions involved in vessel

guarantees merited different closing

documentation. In addition,

commenters requested that MARAD

simplify the documentation. In

response, MARAD has prepared a

separate set of closing documents for

shipyard modernizations. A decision

was made not to include a land

mortgage since these mortgages vary

considerably under local law.

U.S.-Flag and Export Closing

Documents

Eight commenters informed us that

the existing documents are redundant,

inconsistent with current financing

practices, unnecessarily voluminous

and cumbersome, and difficult to

understand. They said that the current

documents deter use of the program

instead of facilitating its use. They

asked MARAD to streamline its

documents to reduce unnecessary work

and legal fees and other expenses and to

make the documentation clearer.

The proposed closing documentation

has been rewritten to address many of

these concerns. The proposed

documentation for the financing of

vessels and shipyard modernizations

has been simplified and rewritten in

plainer English. The length of the vessel

documents has been reduced by about

45% (for an uncomplicated transaction)

to about 135 pages from about 250

pages. Naturally, the size of the

documentation will vary depending on

the need for intercreditor agreements,

subordination agreements, corporate

guarantees, and other complexities that

arise out of the individual

considerations of any specific

transaction. Most importantly, MARAD

believes that the proposed revisions to

the documents have been made without

sacrificing any of the essential rights of

the government, shipowners, shipyards

or other parties.

In response to requests for documents

to cover private placements of

obligations without the use of an

Indenture Trustee, the agency has

developed an even more compact set of

documents to cover guarantees of direct

debt instead of the necessarily more

complicated public bond offerings.

These documents eliminate the need for

a bond purchase agreement, a trust

indenture, bonds, and an authorization

agreement. They may be especially

useful in attracting smaller applications,

but they can be used in larger

transactions as well. Depending on the

size of the credit agreement and

promissory note negotiated by the bank

or other direct lender, the

documentation needed in these

nontrustee transactions could be

reduced by about another 40 pages to

about 95 pages in their entirety.

By offering the maritime industry and

its underwriters and attorneys the

opportunity to use these clearer, more

streamlined and contemporary financial

documents, MARAD will make the Title

XI program more attractive to

shipowners and shipyards without

compromising the interests of the

government. By reducing the burden

and cost, MARAD will carry out its

statutory mission more effectively.

MARAD welcomes review of and

comments on these documents.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: July 24, 1998.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20290 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 392

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–98–4202]

RIN 2125–AD75

Railroad Grade Crossing Safety

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Hazardous Materials

Transportation Authorization Act of

1994 requires the amendment of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) to prohibit

operators of commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs) from driving onto a railroad

grade crossing unless there is sufficient

space to drive completely through the

crossing without stopping. The FHWA,

therefore, proposes to make this

amendment which is intended to reduce

the incidence of collisions between

trains and CMVs. Comments and

information are requested about railroad

grade crossings that lack sufficient

clearance for some CMVs to be driven

completely through the crossing before

being required to stop by a stop sign,

highway traffic signal, or similar traffic

control device. The FHWA intends to

have a public meeting in Washington,

D.C. during the comment period to

discuss this subject matter.

DATES: Data and information concerning

railroad-highway crossings from State

agencies must be received no later than

September 28, 1998. Comments from

motor carriers and other interested

parties must be received no later than

November 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All signed, written

comments should refer to the docket

number that appears at the top of this

document and must be submitted to

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room

PL–401, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from

8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Those desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard/envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David M. Lehrman, Office of Motor

Carrier Research and Standards, (202)

366–0994, or Mr. Charles E. Medalen,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–

1354, Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and
40692 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at

(202) 512–1661. Internet users may

reach the Federal Register’s home page

at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the

Government Printing Office’s database

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

The purpose of driving rules

concerning railroad grade crossings is to

prevent the disastrous consequences

which result when trains collide with

commercial motor vehicles. These

consequences are particularly

horrendous when the commercial motor

vehicle is transporting passengers or

hazardous materials. On August 26,

1994, the President signed the

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Authorization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–

311, 108 Stat. 1673)(the Act). Section

112 of the Act requires the Secretary of

Transportation to amend the FMCSRs to

prohibit the driver of any CMV from

driving the motor vehicle onto a

highway-railroad grade crossing without

having sufficient space to drive

completely through the crossing without

stopping.’’ In response to the Act, the

FHWA proposes to amend § 392.12 of

the FMCSRs to implement this statutory

prohibition.

Some railroad grade crossings,

however, lack sufficient clearance for

some CMVs to drive completely through

before stopping for a stop sign or other

traffic control device. For example, a

railroad grade crossing with 12.2 meters

(40 feet) between the tracks and a stop

sign could not accommodate a tractortrailer combination which is 18.3 meters

(60 feet) long. The FHWA requests that

State agencies submit data on the

number and locations of such railroad

grade crossings within their respective

States. In doing so, State agencies

should identify the railroad grade

crossings where CMVs with the longest

legal length under applicable State law

could not comply with the proposed

rule. The FHWA especially wants to

determine whether any such crossings

are present on the National Network

(NN) where the operation of CMV

combinations with two 8.5-meter (28-

foot) trailers, or even longer

combinations, is permitted. Information

about reasonable access routes used by

these vehicles in traveling to or from the

NN would also be useful. States that

allow longer combination vehicles

affected by the freeze imposed by the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 should make

particular efforts to determine the effect

of this proposed rule on those vehicles,

which are prohibited from using routes

not in actual, lawful use under State law

or regulation on or before June 1, 1991.

The rule, if promulgated, could

impact the allowable routing of CMVs.

Motor carriers and drivers would have

to consider all railroad grade crossings

which would be encountered during a

trip. If the CMV driver could not use a

railroad grade crossing without violating

§ 392.12, an alternative routing which

avoids that crossing would have to be

selected. The scenario would be similar

where there is little clearance between

a railroad grade crossing and a highway

traffic signal. Upon approaching such a

crossing, a CMV driver could stop short

of the tracks and wait until the signal

permitted the movement of traffic before

attempting to drive through the

crossing. Signal timing might have to be

adjusted to allow enough time for the

CMV to move completely through the

crossing, given the time necessary to

accelerate from a complete stop and/or

the delay caused by the queue of other

motor vehicles. The proposed rule

would also prohibit the driving of a

CMV onto a railroad grade crossing

when stopped motor vehicle(s) prevent

the driving of the CMV completely

through the crossing without stopping.

Similarly, changes in the location of

traffic signs could alleviate the problems

of insufficient clearance.

The FHWA believes that at least some

motor carriers are aware of the

approximate frequency with which their

drivers encounter a railroad grade

crossing with a nearby stop sign or other

traffic control device that prevents

driving completely through the crossing

without stopping, or that they could

obtain this information without

substantial effort. The FHWA requests

these motor carriers to assess the impact

of the proposed rule upon their

operations and advise the agency of this

assessment. In addition, the FHWA will

consider any recommendation to

implement the statutory prohibition that

would minimize the difficulties and

burdens upon the operations of motor

carriers while reducing the likelihood of

collisions between trains and CMVs.

Physical infrastructure improvements

may provide an alternative in some

situations. During the public input

process to the Secretary’s Task Force on

Grade Crossing Safety and in

deliberations of the Task Force’s

Technical Work Group, a number of

infrastructure improvements were

presented. The proposed improvements

included physical relocation of the

roadway or railroad, construction of

escape or merge lanes, replacement of

signs with traffic signals, adjusting

signal timing, and interconnecting

signals. State and local agencies are

requested to comment on the benefits,

feasibility and impact of the

infrastructure alternatives.

As explained more fully below, the

Department of Transportation has

worked with States to help improve

safety at railroad-highway crossings.

One recommendation of the Secretary’s

Grade Crossing Safety Task Force was

that ‘‘State and local highway

authorities should initiate engineering

studies to determine if safety

improvements are warranted at grade

crossings near highway-highway

intersections where there is no

interconnection and where there is

limited storage distance. Emphasis

should be given to locations with STOP

sign control at the highway-highway

intersection, where storage space is less

than required to accommodate the

longest legal vehicle permitted to use

the highway, and where accident

potential is greater due to high volumes

of highway and/or rail traffic.’’ In

response to this recommendation, States

have begun to develop databases that,

among other things, indicate where

crossings with storage distance

problems may exist.

The FHWA requests that State

agencies submit data and information

concerning railroad-highway crossings

within their jurisdiction by September

28, 1998. The FHWA also intends, as

part of this rulemaking, to contact its

State partners to obtain the latest

information available. The FHWA will

place the information obtained from the

States in the docket. Motor carriers and

others interested in this rulemaking are

asked to check the information placed

in the docket and, by November 27,

1998, to advise the FHWA of the impact

they believe the proposal contained in

this NPRM will have on motor carrier

operations and highway and rail safety

generally.

The FHWA believes that as a result of

the work done by States in this area over

the past several years, much information

is available regarding the number and

location of railroad-highway crossings

that present storage problems, especially

for longer commercial motor vehicles.

However, if such information is not

available or is submitted late to the

docket, or if the information reveals an

unexpectedly large number of railroadhighway crossings presenting storage

problems, the FHWA may extend the

period for comment to this docket to

enable interested parties to comment to

the docket and to provide the FHWA

with the information and time necessary

to effectively and reasonably implement

section 112.

FHWA and the Federal Railroad

Administration request comments on
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40693

the advisability of making provision for

retaining such information within the

U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail

Crossing Inventory thus allowing State

DOTs the option of keeping such data

current and accessible.

In order to fully understand the

context in which this NPRM arose, it is

necessary to review Department of

Transportation efforts to address the

issue of railroad grade crossing safety.

DOT Initiatives on Grade Crossing

Safety

Shortly after the collision of a

commuter train with a school bus in Fox

River Grove, Illinois which resulted in

seven deaths on October 25, 1995, the

Secretary of Transportation established

the U.S. DOT Grade Crossing Safety

Task Force to look into grade crossing

safety. The Task Force was composed of

representatives from four modal

administrations within the Department:

the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), the Federal

Transit Administration (FTA), the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), and staff from

the Office of Intermodalism. The Task

Force was responsible for building upon

the Department’s 1994 Rail-Highway

Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Task

Force proceeded to rigorously review

the decision making process for

designing, constructing, maintaining,

and operating railroad-highway grade

crossings.

The Task Force solicited information

from knowledgeable people in both

public and private sectors who had

expertise in areas relevant to the

inquiry. The National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB), which

investigated the Fox River Grove

collision, also provided a resource

person to assist the Task Force.

On March 1, 1996, the Task Force

delivered a report to the Secretary

entitled ‘‘Accidents That Shouldn’t

Happen.’’ The report focused on 24

long-term and short-term

recommendations broken down into the

following problem areas:

a. Interconnected Signals and Storage

b. High Profile Crossings

c. Light-Rail Crossing Issues

d. Special Vehicle Operations and

Information

e. Available Storage Space for Motor

Vehicles Between Highway-Rail

Crossings and Adjacent HighwayHighway Intersections (Storage Space)

The report concluded that ‘‘improved

highway-rail grade crossing safety

depends upon better cooperation,

communication, and education among

responsible parties if accidents and

fatalities are to be reduced

significantly.’’ The Task Force proposed

to reconvene one year later to evaluate

progress in implementation of the

recommendations. The report also made

a long-term recommendation that the

FHWA and the FRA convene a technical

working group (TWG), to evaluate

current standards and a variety of

technical issues. A TWG was

immediately formed consisting of

government agencies, industry groups,

highway and rail associations, safety

advocacy groups, and law enforcement

associations. The TWG proceeded to

evaluate current standards and

guidelines regarding a variety of grade

crossing technical issues.

The TWG met three times during

1996–1997. It presented 35

recommendations to the Task Force,

including the following suggestions for

the FHWA on standards/guidelines for

vehicle storage and other grade crossing

safety issues: the identification of focal

points to coordinate railroad safety

issues in each State; the initiation of

regional State/railroad conferences; and

the creation of an advance warning sign

for motorists approaching high-profile

crossings.

Recommendations regarding the issue

of interconnected signals and storage

were implemented in guidance issued

by FHWA Executive Director, Anthony

R. Kane, to all field offices. Mr. Kane

urged that FHWA field staff visit their

State and local counterparts to ensure

that the recommendations were

implemented.

As a result, all States with operating

railroads informally designated a central

focal point for railroad crossing safety

issues and provided the name of the

contact to the FHWA and/or the FRA.

The Implementation Report of the

U.S. DOT Grade Crossing Safety Task

Force was submitted to Secretary Slater

on June 1, 1997. It documents the close

coordination achieved through the

cooperative efforts of four operating

administrations on the Grade Crossing

Safety Task Force (FHWA, FRA, FTA,

and NHTSA).

The Department has printed this

report as a formal U.S. DOT publication.

The FHWA, FRA, and Office of

Intermodalism have distributed copies

to U.S. DOT headquarters and field

offices, State DOTs, State emergency

service providers, rail safety

organizations (e.g., Operation Lifesaver),

and industry associations (e.g.,

Association of American Railroads).

The Department has distributed this

report to all the groups and individuals

that participated in the Technical

Working Group. The Department urges

those agencies, organizations, and other

professional societies to take steps to

formally endorse this report and

implement its recommendations.

The nexus between the actions cited

above and the current rulemaking lies in

the common goal of reducing the

incidence of collisions between trains

and commercial motor vehicles. The

Department is committed to using the

best available resources to targeting

safety hazards at railroad crossings

throughout the United States. For that

reason, this rule proposes that operators

of commercial motor vehicles be

prohibited from driving onto a railroad

grade crossing unless there is sufficient

space to drive completely through the

crossing without stopping.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket room at the

above address. Comments received after

the comment closing date will be filed

in the docket and will be considered to

the extent practicable, but the FHWA

may issue a final rule at any time after

the close of the comment period. In

addition to late comments, the FHWA

will also continue to file in the docket

relevant information that becomes

available after the comment closing

date, and interested persons should

continue to examine the docket for new

material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has analyzed this

proposed rule for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866 and the

Department of Transportation regulatory

policies and procedures, and believes

that it is a significant regulatory action

because of the anticipated substantial

public and congressional interest in this

action.

The FHWA anticipates that the rule

could have an economic impact because

it could trigger infrastructure changes to

right-of-way or traffic devices or require

some motor carriers to develop

alternative routing, or operate shorter

CMVs to avoid railroad grade crossings

where the placement of a stop sign or

highway traffic signal would prevent a

driver from being able to drive

completely through the crossing without

stopping. The last alternative would

increase the number of CMVs and

drivers needed to make the same

deliveries because truckload shipments

would be split among two or more

CMVs. The FHWA will attempt to better
40694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

quantify the extent of the economic

impact of this proposed rule on the

motor carrier industry through the

analysis of data requested from State

agencies on the number of such railroad

grade crossings. Comments on the

anticipated costs of complying with this

proposed rule, especially any specific

data available to States, local

communities, or motor carriers, would

be helpful. Such costs may include

possible infrastructure changes;

additional fuel cost attributable to rerouting, the cost of purchasing or

leasing shorter CMVs, and the cost of

hiring and employing additional

drivers. In addition, the FHWA requests

comments from motor carriers about

whether the rule would make some of

their deliveries impossible or cost

prohibitive.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

proposed rule upon small entities. Any

motor carrier, regardless of its size, is

subject to the same driving rules which

protect the safety of the motoring

public. Because some motor carriers,

including small motor carriers, may

have to develop alternative routing as a

result of this proposed rule, it may have

an economic impact on small business

entities. The proposed rule may have

less of an economic impact upon small

motor carriers, as a group, than large

motor carriers because small motor

carriers, as a group, tend to operate with

a lower proportion of long or articulated

CMVs than large motor carriers. Small

motor carriers, therefore, would be

required less often to develop

alternative routing. On the other hand,

the FHWA is concerned that some small

motor carriers may have limited

resources with which to make

modifications to their operations to

comply with this proposed rule.

However, because of a lack of data the

FHWA is presently unable to estimate

how many crossings exist where a CMV

driver would be unable to drive

completely through the railroad grade

crossing because the positioning of the

stop sign or other traffic control device

causes the driver to stop on the tracks.

If the FHWA is able to obtain better

data, the FHWA will further evaluate

the degree to which infrastructure

changes might have to be made and/or

whether small motor carriers might have

to develop alternative routing for their

CMVs and the extent of the resulting

economic impact.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This proposed rule has been analyzed

in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

The rule is not intended to preempt any

State law or State regulation. If this rule

is adopted as proposed, motor carriers

would continue to be subject to State

and local traffic laws. In addition, the

rule would impose no additional cost or

burden upon any State. The rule would

not have a significant effect upon the

ability of the States to discharge

traditional State governmental

functions.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.217,

Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental

consultation on Federal programs and

activities do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action

for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has determined

that this action would not have any

effect on the quality of the environment.

An environmental impact statement is,

therefore, not required.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 392

Highway safety, Motor carriers.

Issued on: July 20, 1998.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA proposes to amend title 49, Code

of Federal Regulations, chapter III, part

392 as set forth below:

PART 392—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 392

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; sec.

112, Pub. L. 103–311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676;

and 49 CFR 1.48.

2. Section 392.12 is added to read as

follows:

§ 392.12 Railroad grade crossing;

sufficient space.

A driver of a commercial motor

vehicle shall not drive onto a railroad

grade crossing without having sufficient

space to drive completely through the

crossing without stopping.

[FR Doc. 98–20209 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P