Petition for Waiver of Compliance, 40640-40642 [E9-19277]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40640
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices
requested, and the petitioner’s
arguments in favor of relief.
City of Crystal Lake, Illinois
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2009–
0013]
The City of Crystal Lake, Illinois
(City) seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from a certain provision of
the Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Title 49
CFR part 222. The City is seeking a
waiver from the rule that requires active
grade crossing warning devices at public
crossings within a quiet zone be
equipped with constant warning time
devices. Specifically, the City is seeking
a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR
222.35(b)(1), so that the active grade
crossing warning devices at Prairie
Street are not required to be equipped
with constant warning time devices.
49 CFR 222.35(b)(1) reads as follows:
‘‘Each public highway-rail grade
crossing in a New Quiet Zone
established under this part must be
equipped, no later than the quiet zone
implementation date, with active grade
crossing warning devices comprising
both flashing lights and gates which
control traffic over the crossing and that
conform to the standards contained in
the MUTCD. Such warning devices shall
be equipped with constant warning time
devices, if reasonably practical, and
power-out indicators.’’ The purpose of
constant warning time devices (CWT) is
so that the crossing warning devices
provide the same amount of warning
time regardless of the speed of the
approaching train.
The City is in the process of
establishing a new quiet zone along the
Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP) McHenry
Subdivision, which would extend from
approximately Milepost (MP) 58.21 to
MP 59.35. The quiet zone will consist of
two public at-grade crossings, one of
which is at IL Route 176 (DOT # 178
803B) and the other is at Prairie Street
(DOT #178 802 U).
Prairie Street is a two lane, 40 foot
wide, asphalt road with an average daily
traffic of 1,450 and a posted speed limit
of 30 miles per hour (mph). The
crossing has two railroad tracks, one of
which is the main track and the other
is an industrial track. There are nine
train movements per day (six on the
main track and three on the industrial
track) with a maximum timetable speed
of 20 mph. The automatic warning
devices at the crossing are standard
flashing lights with gates. CWT is
present for detecting trains on the main
track and DC circuits are used on the
industrial track.
The lack of CWT on the industrial
track was first raised at a diagnostic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
review meeting on February 22, 2008.
Since that date, the City has attempted
to resolve the question as to whether or
not CWT was ‘‘reasonably practical’’ as
used in the rule with the Railroad, FRA
and the Illinois Commerce Commission
(ICC) without success. An FRA
representative indicated that it usually
leaves the determination of this up to
the State agency responsible for crossing
safety, which is ICC in this case and the
railroad. Neither party in this instance
is willing to make a determination.
The City cites the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices Section 8D.06
which states that CWT shall be used
where the speed of trains on a given
track vary considerably under normal
operation. The City also refers to the
Illinois Department of Transportation
Bureau of Local Road’s manual chapter
40–2.04, which provides in part that
CWT should be considered where trains
operate at variable speeds on the line.
The City’s position is that CWT is not
reasonably practical for a number of
reasons. There are relatively few trains
through the crossing and they travel at
a low constant speed. Prairie Street is a
low volume street which has not had a
crossing collision within the last 5
years. The City is working on removing
the on-the-street bike route in the future
which will enhance safety. It also states
that a quiet zone can be established
without making any improvements at
Prairie Street and notes that UP did not
raise the issue of the crossing not having
CWT during the 60 day comment period
on the Notice of Intent to establish a
quiet zone. Lastly, the City points out
that the money necessary to install CWT
would be taking away funds that could
be used to improve the City’s roadways
which are in need of improvements.
The City states that it attempted to
reach an agreement with UP in regard to
their requirement for CWT through
numerous correspondence; however, no
resolution was attained. Due to the
unresolved issue, the City is not filing
a joint waiver. It is the opinion of the
City that the absence of a joint waiver
that included UP would not
significantly contribute to public safety
as is described in its petition.
Interested parties are invited to
participate in these proceedings by
submitting written views, data, or
comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in
connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a
hearing. If any interested party desires
an opportunity for oral comment, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before
the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
All communications concerning these
proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver
Petition Docket Number FRA–2009–
0013) and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by FRA before final action is
taken. Comments received after that
date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.—5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 6,
2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9–19276 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Petition for Waiver of Compliance
In accordance with Part 211 of Title
49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
notice is hereby given that the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) received
a request for a waiver of compliance
with certain requirements of its safety
standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party
seeking relief, the regulatory provisions
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
involved, the nature of the relief being
requested, and the petitioner’s
arguments in favor of relief.
City of Pendleton, Oregon (Waiver
Petition Docket Number FRA–2008–
0120)
The City of Pendleton, Oregon (City),
seeks a permanent waiver of compliance
from a certain provision of the Use of
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings, 49 CFR part 222. The
City is seeking a waiver from the rule
that requires a train-automobile
collision that occurred on June 12, 2006,
be counted as a ‘‘relevant collision’’ for
the purpose of determining whether
there has been a ‘‘relevant collision’’
pursuant to 49 CFR 222.41(a)(1)(iii).
Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver
from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.9,
wherein ‘‘relevant collision’’ is defined.
The waiver petition requests that FRA
stay any action to revoke the City’s quiet
zone until 120 days after the final
decision on this waiver to allow the City
to address supplemental safety
measures that could be installed if the
waiver is denied.
49 CFR 222.9 defines a relevant
collision as follows: Relevant collision
means a collision at a highway-rail
grade crossing between a train and a
motor vehicle, excluding the following:
a collision resulting from an activation
failure of an active grade crossing
warning system; a collision in which
there is no driver in the motor vehicle;
or a collision in which the highway
vehicle struck the side of the train
beyond the fourth locomotive unit or
rail car. With respect to the Pre-Rule
Partial Quiet Zones, a relevant collision
shall not include collisions that occur
during the time period within which the
locomotive horn is routinely sounded.
The City received a letter from FRA
dated August 15, 2008, informing that
the annual risk review required under
49 CFR 222.51(b)(1) for its quiet zone
had revealed that the Quiet Zone Risk
Index (QZRI) was 20,454.05 and that the
current value of the National Significant
Risk Threshold (NSRT) was 17,610.
Since the QZRI was less than twice the
NSRT (35,220) and there had been a
relevant collision on June 12, 2006, at
the S.W. Frazier Avenue and 9th Street
S.W. crossing (DOT Number 809 011 C),
the quiet zone was no longer qualified
per 49 CFR 222.51(b)(2)(iii) and that the
quiet zone would terminate in 6 months
unless the City took the steps required
in 49 CFR 222.51(b)(4). In order to retain
its quiet zone, the City would be
required to provide FRA within 6
months a written commitment to lower
the risk in the quiet zone and detail the
specific steps that would be taken. The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
City would have to implement the steps
to reduce the risk no later than August
15, 2011, or the quiet zone would be
terminated. The quiet zone would have
remained qualified if the collision of
June 12, 2006, had not been deemed a
relevant collision.
The City claims that due to the
unusual circumstances of this collision,
it should not be classified as a relevant
collision. If this was the case, then the
quiet zone would still be in compliance
and the City would not have to take the
actions required in 49 CFR 222.51(b)(4).
The collision in question occurred at
the S.W. Frazier Avenue and 9th Street
S.W. crossing. S.W. Frazier Avenue is a
one-way street with traffic traveling east
that has flashing lights and gates that
completely block the street when the
gates are lowered. The flashing lights
and gates are located immediately west
of the track. 9th Street S.W. is a two-way
street that runs north and south and has
flashing lights and a gate for northbound
traffic only. The Union Pacific
Railroad’s (UP) track runs diagonally
through the intersection of the two
streets from the southeast to the
northwest with a slight curve towards
the north. The crossing is within the
City’s quiet zone.
The vehicle that was involved in the
collision was backing out of a driveway
located on the north side of S.W. Frazier
Avenue immediately east of the UP’s
tracks. According to a citizen witness,
the conductor and engineer, the vehicle
backed out of the driveway and stopped
on the crossing immediately before the
locomotive entered the crossing. The
engineer and conductor stated that the
train was traveling between 23 and 25
miles per hour. The locomotive was
approximately 20 feet from the crossing
when the vehicle began to back out and
the vehicle was traveling at a high rate
of speed before stopping on the
crossing. The engineer then sounded the
locomotive’s horn and initiated an
emergency application of the train’s
brakes. The driver indicated that she
had backed out farther than anticipated
due to her foot slipping off the clutch.
She stated that she tried to put the car
into a forward gear and ‘‘missed it.’’ The
vehicle was struck by the lead
locomotive while the vehicle was
stopped on the crossing. The automatic
warning devices (flashing lights and
gates) that were located on the west side
of the tracks operated as intended.
The City argues the presence or
absence of additional safety measures
on this, or any other crossing in the
quiet zone, would not have affected this
collision. According to the police report,
the train horn did sound but the driver
did not respond. The City feels that the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40641
presence of train horns at this or other
crossings in the vicinity would not
likely have changed the incident. The
City states that where the collision is
independent of the train horn or
supplement safety measures, the
collision should not be considered a
‘‘relevant collision.’’
The City states that it made several
efforts to obtain UP’s support for the
waiver but failed to reach an agreement
and thus was not able to file a joint
waiver. The City sent an e-mail on
October 2, 2008, to UP’s Manager of
Industry and Public Projects that has
responsibility in Oregon, to notify the
railroad of its intent to file a waiver and
asking for help in identifying the
appropriate contact on the railroad to
whom discussions could be directed.
The request was resent on October 8,
2008, via fax along with a draft copy of
the waiver. On October 9, 2008, the City
had a conversation with the manager
who stated that he could not state at that
time whether the railroad would join in
the application. The City tried to contact
him again on October 14, 2008, without
success.
Interested parties are invited to
participate in these proceedings by
submitting written views, data, or
comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in
connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a
hearing. If any interested party desires
an opportunity for oral comment, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before
the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these
proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver
Petition Docket Number FRA–2008–
0120) and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by FRA before final action is
taken. Comments received after that
date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
40642
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 6,
2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9–19277 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35281]
CSX Transportation, Inc.—Trackage
Rights Exemption—Commonwealth
Railway Incorporated
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to a written trackage rights
agreement,1 Commonwealth Railway
Incorporated (CWRY) has agreed to
grant non-exclusive overhead trackage
rights to CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT), over CWRY’s line of railroad
between Suffolk, VA, milepost 16.50,
and Churchland, VA, milepost 9.90, a
distance of approximately 6.60 miles.2
The earliest this transaction may be
consummated is August 26, 2009, the
effective date of the exemption (30 days
after the amendment to the notice of
1 A redacted version of the proposed trackage
rights agreement between CSXT and CWRY was
filed with the notice of exemption. The full version
of the draft agreement was concurrently filed under
seal along with a motion for protective order. The
motion is being addressed in a separate decision.
As required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), the parties
must file a copy of the executed agreement within
10 days of the date the agreement is executed.
2 On July 27, 2009, CSXT filed an amendment to
its verified notice of exemption to comply with the
information required by 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(4)(i),
thereby making July 27, 2009, the official filing date
for the notice. Parties are reminded that, when
filing a notice of exemption for transactions that
may limit future interchange with a third-party
connecting carrier, parties must provide the
following additional information: (1) Disclose the
existence of the provision or agreement that limits
or restricts interchange; (2) disclose the affected
interchange points; and (3) file a confidential,
complete version of the documents containing the
provision or agreement that limits or restricts
interchange.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
exemption was filed). The purpose of
the trackage rights agreement is to
improve CSXT’s access to the Maersk
Terminal in the port of Norfolk and to
provide competitive service for
intermodal and other traffic originating
at, and destined for, the port.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(i), CSXT
discloses that the agreement contains a
provision prohibiting CSXT from using
the line for interchange with any thirdparty carrier, wherever one may connect
with, and create an interchange point
on, the line.
Pursuant to the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110–161, § 193, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007),
nothing in this decision authorizes the
following activities at any solid waste
rail transfer facility: collecting, storing,
or transferring solid waste outside of its
original shipping container; or
separating or processing solid waste
(including baling, crushing, compacting,
and shredding). The term ‘‘solid waste’’
is defined in section 1004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employees affected by the trackage
rights will be protected by the
conditions imposed in Norfolk and
Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,
354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in
Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and
Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
This notice is filed under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false
or misleading information, the
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C.
10502(d) may be filed at any time. The
filing of a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Stay petitions must be
filed at least 7 days before the
exemption becomes effective.
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35281, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on Steven C.
Armbrust, CSX Transportation, Inc., 500
Water Street, J–150, Jacksonville, FL
32202 and Louis E. Gitomer, Law
Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600
Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson,
MD 21204.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: August 6, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
By the Board,
Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–19258 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Form 23 and Form 23–EP
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning Form
23, Application for Enrollment to
Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service, and Form 23–EP, Application
for Enrollment to Practice Before the
Internal Revenue Service as an Enrolled
Retirement Plan Agent (ERPA).
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before October 13, 2009
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue
Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Allan Hopkins at
Internal Revenue Service, room 6129,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–
6665, or through the internet at
Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Application for Enrollment to
Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service. Application for Enrollment to
Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service as an Enrolled Retirement Plan
Agent (ERPA).
OMB Number: 1545–0950.
Form Number: Form 23 and Form 23–
EP.
Abstract: Form 23 must be completed
by those who desire to be enrolled to
practice before the Internal Revenue
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40640-40642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19277]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Petition for Waiver of Compliance
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions
[[Page 40641]]
involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
City of Pendleton, Oregon (Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0120)
The City of Pendleton, Oregon (City), seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from a certain provision of the Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR part 222. The City is seeking a
waiver from the rule that requires a train-automobile collision that
occurred on June 12, 2006, be counted as a ``relevant collision'' for
the purpose of determining whether there has been a ``relevant
collision'' pursuant to 49 CFR 222.41(a)(1)(iii). Specifically, the
City is seeking a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.9, wherein
``relevant collision'' is defined. The waiver petition requests that
FRA stay any action to revoke the City's quiet zone until 120 days
after the final decision on this waiver to allow the City to address
supplemental safety measures that could be installed if the waiver is
denied.
49 CFR 222.9 defines a relevant collision as follows: Relevant
collision means a collision at a highway-rail grade crossing between a
train and a motor vehicle, excluding the following: a collision
resulting from an activation failure of an active grade crossing
warning system; a collision in which there is no driver in the motor
vehicle; or a collision in which the highway vehicle struck the side of
the train beyond the fourth locomotive unit or rail car. With respect
to the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones, a relevant collision shall not
include collisions that occur during the time period within which the
locomotive horn is routinely sounded.
The City received a letter from FRA dated August 15, 2008,
informing that the annual risk review required under 49 CFR
222.51(b)(1) for its quiet zone had revealed that the Quiet Zone Risk
Index (QZRI) was 20,454.05 and that the current value of the National
Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) was 17,610. Since the QZRI was less
than twice the NSRT (35,220) and there had been a relevant collision on
June 12, 2006, at the S.W. Frazier Avenue and 9th Street S.W. crossing
(DOT Number 809 011 C), the quiet zone was no longer qualified per 49
CFR 222.51(b)(2)(iii) and that the quiet zone would terminate in 6
months unless the City took the steps required in 49 CFR 222.51(b)(4).
In order to retain its quiet zone, the City would be required to
provide FRA within 6 months a written commitment to lower the risk in
the quiet zone and detail the specific steps that would be taken. The
City would have to implement the steps to reduce the risk no later than
August 15, 2011, or the quiet zone would be terminated. The quiet zone
would have remained qualified if the collision of June 12, 2006, had
not been deemed a relevant collision.
The City claims that due to the unusual circumstances of this
collision, it should not be classified as a relevant collision. If this
was the case, then the quiet zone would still be in compliance and the
City would not have to take the actions required in 49 CFR
222.51(b)(4).
The collision in question occurred at the S.W. Frazier Avenue and
9th Street S.W. crossing. S.W. Frazier Avenue is a one-way street with
traffic traveling east that has flashing lights and gates that
completely block the street when the gates are lowered. The flashing
lights and gates are located immediately west of the track. 9th Street
S.W. is a two-way street that runs north and south and has flashing
lights and a gate for northbound traffic only. The Union Pacific
Railroad's (UP) track runs diagonally through the intersection of the
two streets from the southeast to the northwest with a slight curve
towards the north. The crossing is within the City's quiet zone.
The vehicle that was involved in the collision was backing out of a
driveway located on the north side of S.W. Frazier Avenue immediately
east of the UP's tracks. According to a citizen witness, the conductor
and engineer, the vehicle backed out of the driveway and stopped on the
crossing immediately before the locomotive entered the crossing. The
engineer and conductor stated that the train was traveling between 23
and 25 miles per hour. The locomotive was approximately 20 feet from
the crossing when the vehicle began to back out and the vehicle was
traveling at a high rate of speed before stopping on the crossing. The
engineer then sounded the locomotive's horn and initiated an emergency
application of the train's brakes. The driver indicated that she had
backed out farther than anticipated due to her foot slipping off the
clutch. She stated that she tried to put the car into a forward gear
and ``missed it.'' The vehicle was struck by the lead locomotive while
the vehicle was stopped on the crossing. The automatic warning devices
(flashing lights and gates) that were located on the west side of the
tracks operated as intended.
The City argues the presence or absence of additional safety
measures on this, or any other crossing in the quiet zone, would not
have affected this collision. According to the police report, the train
horn did sound but the driver did not respond. The City feels that the
presence of train horns at this or other crossings in the vicinity
would not likely have changed the incident. The City states that where
the collision is independent of the train horn or supplement safety
measures, the collision should not be considered a ``relevant
collision.''
The City states that it made several efforts to obtain UP's support
for the waiver but failed to reach an agreement and thus was not able
to file a joint waiver. The City sent an e-mail on October 2, 2008, to
UP's Manager of Industry and Public Projects that has responsibility in
Oregon, to notify the railroad of its intent to file a waiver and
asking for help in identifying the appropriate contact on the railroad
to whom discussions could be directed. The request was resent on
October 8, 2008, via fax along with a draft copy of the waiver. On
October 9, 2008, the City had a conversation with the manager who
stated that he could not state at that time whether the railroad would
join in the application. The City tried to contact him again on October
14, 2008, without success.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0120) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the
[[Page 40642]]
above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available
for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at https://www.regulations.gov.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 6, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-19277 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
