Petition for Waiver of Compliance, 82138-82139 [2010-32826]
Download as PDF
82138
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices
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
document (or signing the document, 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; Page 19477) or at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 23,
2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulatory and Legislative Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–32850 Filed 12–28–10; 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
involved, the nature of the relief being
requested, and the petitioner’s
arguments in favor of relief.
City of Vancouver, Washington
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2010–
0170]
The City of Vancouver, WA (City),
seeks a permanent waiver of compliance
from a certain provision of 49 CFR part
222, Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The City
intends to establish a New Quiet Zone
under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.39.
Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver
from the provisions of 49 CFR
222.25(b)(1), which discusses the
treatment of private highway-rail grade
crossings located in New Quiet Zones
that allow access to the public or to
active industrial or commercial sites, so
that a private crossing that provides
VerDate Mar<15>2010
02:10 Dec 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
access to three homes (one of which
includes an office for the provision of
professional counseling services) does
not have to be treated in accordance
with the recommendations of a
diagnostic team.
Title 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) reads as
follows: ‘‘Private highway-rail grade
crossings that are located in New Quiet
Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones and
allow access to the public, or which
provide access to active industrial or
commercial sites must be evaluated by
a diagnostic team and equipped or
treated in accordance with the
recommendations of such diagnostic
team.’’
The City is in the process of
establishing a New Quiet Zone along the
BNSF Railway’s (BNSF) Northwest
Division, Fallbridge Subdivision, which
would extend from approximately
Milepost (MP) 17.82 to MP 19.63. The
New Quiet Zone will consist of three
public at-grade crossings: SE 139th
Avenue (DOT #090090W), SE 147th
Avenue (DOT #090092K) and SE 164th
Avenue (DOT #090093S). (Note: The
City’s waiver petition erroneously
provides the number as DOT #090094Y,
which is a private highway-rail grade
crossing that is not included in the
proposed quiet zone). The New Quiet
Zone also will include in the waiver a
private highway-rail grade crossing,
referred to as SE 144th Avenue (DOT
#090091D) due to its close proximity to
SE 144th Avenue, even though the
crossing in question is not a public
highway-rail grade crossing. This
private highway-rail grade crossing is
located between the SE 139th Avenue
and SE 147th Avenue public highwayrail grade crossings. The City believes
that FRA did not have complete and
accurate information regarding the
nature and use of this private crossing
and therefore was not able to evaluate
all pertinent factors and information
when it determined that the private
crossing allowed access to the public.
The City seeks a waiver of FRA’s
determination that the private crossing
at SE 144th Avenue allows access to the
public due to a resident’s possession of
a Home Occupation Permit under
Vancouver Municipal Code Chapter
20.860. If FRA does not change its
determination, the City seeks a waiver
from complying with the provisions of
49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) so that the private
crossing does not have to be treated in
accordance with the recommendation of
the diagnostic team.
The City provides several reasons
why the private crossing at SE 144th
Avenue does not meet the intent of 49
CFR 222.25(b)(1) and should be treated
as a private crossing without public
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
access. First, it states that the crossing
does not allow access to the general
public as the crossing has signs stating:
‘‘PRIVATE RR CROSSING. NO
TRESPASSING. RIGHT TO PASS BY
PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONTROL
OF OWNER THE BNSF RWY CO.’’ Only
homeowners or invitees of the
homeowners are given permission to
cross. ‘‘Invitees’’ would be either invited
guests or invited counseling patients.
Access allowed under the Home
Occupation Permit is solely for the
provision of professional counseling
services by appointment at the
invitation of the home owner providing
those services at their residence. In
addition, that permit limits the
maximum number of vehicle trips
(customer, employee, and delivery
vehicles) to an aggregate total of not
more than six per day.
Secondly, the City notes that a
counseling patient’s visit is arranged by
appointment so that there would be no
random arrival of patients. Members of
the general public, without an invitation
and without an appointment, are not
allowed. The counseling patient is
passing with the expressed permission
of the owner. They are not uninvited
random members of the public. From a
safety standpoint, there is no material
difference between clients invited to the
counselor’s residence and social guests
invited to any residence. The use of this
private crossing is minimal and highly
restrictive. It is completely different
than having a park on the other side of
the crossing, a beach open to the general
public, or a bait shop or similar open
commercial establishment where
uninvited members of the general public
would have a reason to visit and
traverse the crossing. The City believes
these are examples of the types of
situations that were intended to be
covered under 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1), not
the situation that exists at the SE 144th
Avenue private crossing.
Thirdly, the City states that the
volume of traffic on this private crossing
is not significant by FRA highway-rail
grade crossing standards. The volume of
traffic has been measured on the private
roadway and is less than the number of
trips normally expected to be generated
by the three homes that it services. It
was measured at 20 vehicles per day
and the Institute for Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Handbook
estimates three homes should produce
30 vehicle trips per day. The number of
invited counseling patients and related
traffic is also limited under the Home
Occupation Permit, referenced above, to
no more than 6 trips per day total.
The City convened two diagnostic
team meetings in order to evaluate the
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices
SE 144th Avenue private crossing and to
identify a low cost safety improvement
for the crossing. BNSF only supported a
full supplemental safety measure (SSM)
consisting of a four-quadrant gate
improvement. This would result in
significant civil improvements and
associated costs (estimated to be more
than $500,000) and environmental
impacts to a nearby wetland. At the
second diagnostic team meeting, input
from additional parties was sought out,
and included representatives from the
Washington State Department of
Transportation Rail Office, Amtrak, and
the Washington Utility and
Transportation Commission. The
diagnostic team, again, was not able to
reach consensus, so an SSM of a fourquadrant gate system was recommended
by BNSF as the default SSM. The use of
wayside horns was discussed but was
unacceptable to the residents in the
area.
The City states that it works closely
with BNSF on a variety of projects and
believes it has a good working
relationship with the railroad. The City
contacted BNSF immediately regarding
the proposed waiver. The City requested
BNSF’s input on this waiver; however,
BNSF has indicated in a letter dated
October 29, 2010, that it will not
support the City’s petition. The City
does not believe a joint petition, in this
particular case, significantly contributes
to public safety.
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–2010–
0170) 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
02:10 Dec 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 December 23,
2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulatory and Legislative Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–32826 Filed 12–28–10; 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) has
received a request for a waiver of
compliance from certain requirements
of its safety standards. The individual
petition is described below, including
the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the
relief being requested, and the
petitioner’s arguments in favor of relief.
Grand Canyon Railway, Inc.
[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2010–
0143]
The Grand Canyon Railway, Inc.
(GRCX) seeks a waiver of compliance
with the Steam Locomotive Inspection
and Maintenance Standards, 49 CFR
230.16 and 230.17, as they pertain to the
requirement for annual inspection and
1,472 service day inspection for steam
locomotive number 4960. Locomotive
number 4960 inspections are due to
expire on June 30, 2011, and GRCX
request the locomotive be allowed to
continue in service until September 30,
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
82139
2011, an additional 92 days. If granted,
the locomotive would accrue an
additional 10 service days and would
receive all required inspections after the
September 30, 2011, date.
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–2010–
0143) 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
document (or signing the document, 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 (65 FR
19477) or at https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82138-82139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
City of Vancouver, Washington
[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0170]
The City of Vancouver, WA (City), seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from a certain provision of 49 CFR part 222, Use of
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The City intends to
establish a New Quiet Zone under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.39.
Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver from the provisions of 49
CFR 222.25(b)(1), which discusses the treatment of private highway-rail
grade crossings located in New Quiet Zones that allow access to the
public or to active industrial or commercial sites, so that a private
crossing that provides access to three homes (one of which includes an
office for the provision of professional counseling services) does not
have to be treated in accordance with the recommendations of a
diagnostic team.
Title 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) reads as follows: ``Private highway-rail
grade crossings that are located in New Quiet Zones or New Partial
Quiet Zones and allow access to the public, or which provide access to
active industrial or commercial sites must be evaluated by a diagnostic
team and equipped or treated in accordance with the recommendations of
such diagnostic team.''
The City is in the process of establishing a New Quiet Zone along
the BNSF Railway's (BNSF) Northwest Division, Fallbridge Subdivision,
which would extend from approximately Milepost (MP) 17.82 to MP 19.63.
The New Quiet Zone will consist of three public at-grade crossings: SE
139th Avenue (DOT 090090W), SE 147th Avenue (DOT
090092K) and SE 164th Avenue (DOT 090093S). (Note:
The City's waiver petition erroneously provides the number as DOT
090094Y, which is a private highway-rail grade crossing that
is not included in the proposed quiet zone). The New Quiet Zone also
will include in the waiver a private highway-rail grade crossing,
referred to as SE 144th Avenue (DOT 090091D) due to its close
proximity to SE 144th Avenue, even though the crossing in question is
not a public highway-rail grade crossing. This private highway-rail
grade crossing is located between the SE 139th Avenue and SE 147th
Avenue public highway-rail grade crossings. The City believes that FRA
did not have complete and accurate information regarding the nature and
use of this private crossing and therefore was not able to evaluate all
pertinent factors and information when it determined that the private
crossing allowed access to the public.
The City seeks a waiver of FRA's determination that the private
crossing at SE 144th Avenue allows access to the public due to a
resident's possession of a Home Occupation Permit under Vancouver
Municipal Code Chapter 20.860. If FRA does not change its
determination, the City seeks a waiver from complying with the
provisions of 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) so that the private crossing does not
have to be treated in accordance with the recommendation of the
diagnostic team.
The City provides several reasons why the private crossing at SE
144th Avenue does not meet the intent of 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) and should
be treated as a private crossing without public access. First, it
states that the crossing does not allow access to the general public as
the crossing has signs stating: ``PRIVATE RR CROSSING. NO TRESPASSING.
RIGHT TO PASS BY PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONTROL OF OWNER THE BNSF RWY
CO.'' Only homeowners or invitees of the homeowners are given
permission to cross. ``Invitees'' would be either invited guests or
invited counseling patients. Access allowed under the Home Occupation
Permit is solely for the provision of professional counseling services
by appointment at the invitation of the home owner providing those
services at their residence. In addition, that permit limits the
maximum number of vehicle trips (customer, employee, and delivery
vehicles) to an aggregate total of not more than six per day.
Secondly, the City notes that a counseling patient's visit is
arranged by appointment so that there would be no random arrival of
patients. Members of the general public, without an invitation and
without an appointment, are not allowed. The counseling patient is
passing with the expressed permission of the owner. They are not
uninvited random members of the public. From a safety standpoint, there
is no material difference between clients invited to the counselor's
residence and social guests invited to any residence. The use of this
private crossing is minimal and highly restrictive. It is completely
different than having a park on the other side of the crossing, a beach
open to the general public, or a bait shop or similar open commercial
establishment where uninvited members of the general public would have
a reason to visit and traverse the crossing. The City believes these
are examples of the types of situations that were intended to be
covered under 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1), not the situation that exists at the
SE 144th Avenue private crossing.
Thirdly, the City states that the volume of traffic on this private
crossing is not significant by FRA highway-rail grade crossing
standards. The volume of traffic has been measured on the private
roadway and is less than the number of trips normally expected to be
generated by the three homes that it services. It was measured at 20
vehicles per day and the Institute for Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Handbook estimates three homes should produce 30 vehicle
trips per day. The number of invited counseling patients and related
traffic is also limited under the Home Occupation Permit, referenced
above, to no more than 6 trips per day total.
The City convened two diagnostic team meetings in order to evaluate
the
[[Page 82139]]
SE 144th Avenue private crossing and to identify a low cost safety
improvement for the crossing. BNSF only supported a full supplemental
safety measure (SSM) consisting of a four-quadrant gate improvement.
This would result in significant civil improvements and associated
costs (estimated to be more than $500,000) and environmental impacts to
a nearby wetland. At the second diagnostic team meeting, input from
additional parties was sought out, and included representatives from
the Washington State Department of Transportation Rail Office, Amtrak,
and the Washington Utility and Transportation Commission. The
diagnostic team, again, was not able to reach consensus, so an SSM of a
four-quadrant gate system was recommended by BNSF as the default SSM.
The use of wayside horns was discussed but was unacceptable to the
residents in the area.
The City states that it works closely with BNSF on a variety of
projects and believes it has a good working relationship with the
railroad. The City contacted BNSF immediately regarding the proposed
waiver. The City requested BNSF's input on this waiver; however, BNSF
has indicated in a letter dated October 29, 2010, that it will not
support the City's petition. The City does not believe a joint
petition, in this particular case, significantly contributes to public
safety.
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-
2010-0170) 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 December 23, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-32826 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P