21940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

depicted on a noise exposure map 

submitted under section 47503 of the 

Act, it should be noted that the FAA is 

not involved in any way in determining 

the relative locations of specific 

properties with regard to the depicted 

noise contours, or in interpreting the 

noise exposure maps to resolve 

questions concerning, for example, 

which properties should be covered by 

the provisions of section 47506 of the 

Act. These functions are inseparable 

from the ultimate land use control and 

planning responsibilities of local 

government. These local responsibilities 

are not changed in any way under Part 

150 or through FAA’s review of noise 

exposure maps. Therefore, the 

responsibility for the detailed 

overlaying of noise exposure contours 

onto the map depicting properties on 

the surface rests exclusively with the 

airport operator that submitted those 

maps, or with those public agencies and 

planning agencies with which 

consultation is required under section 

47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on 

the certification by the airport operator, 

under section 150.21 of Part 150, that 

the statutorily required consultation has 

been accomplished. 

The FAA has formally received the 

noise compatibility program for the 

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, 

also effective on April 5, 2011. 

Preliminary review of the submitted 

material indicates that it conforms to the 

requirements for the submittal of noise 

compatibility programs, but that further 

review will be necessary prior to 

approval or disapproval of the program. 

The formal review period, limited by 

law to a maximum of 180 days, will be 

completed on or before October 2, 2011. 

The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be 

conducted under the provisions of 

section 150.33 of Part 150. The primary 

considerations in the evaluation process 

are whether the proposed measures may 

reduce the level of aviation safety, 

create an undue burden on interstate or 

foreign commerce, or be reasonably 

consistent with obtaining the goal of 

reducing existing non-compatible land 

uses and preventing the introduction of 

additional non-compatible land uses. 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on the proposed program with 

specific reference to these factors. All 

relevant comments, other than those 

properly addressed to local land use 

authorities, will be considered by the 

FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of 

the noise exposure maps, the FAA’s 

evaluation of the maps, and the 

proposed noise compatibility program 

are available for examination at the 

following locations: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Central Region Airports Division, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106– 

2325, from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Jan Titus, St. Louis Airport Authority, 

Lambert-St. Louis International 

Airport, Airport Planning & 

Development, 11495 Navaid Road, 

Bridgeton, Missouri 63044, from 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Questions may be directed to the 

individual named above under the 

heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, April 5, 

2011. 

Jim A. Johnson, 

Manager, Central Region Airports Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9382 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions 

on Proposed Highway in Indiana 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims 

for judicial review of actions by FHWA 

and United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), DoD. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA and the USACE that 

are final within the meaning of 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to 

proposed highway projects for a 28.7 

mile segment of I–69 in the Counties of 

Gibson, Pike and Daviess, State of 

Indiana, and grant licenses, permits, and 

approvals for the project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is 

advising the public of final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) and 

are final within the meaning of that law. 

A claim seeking judicial review of those 

Federal agency actions that are covered 

by this notice will be barred unless the 

claim is filed on or before October 16, 

2011. If the Federal law that authorizes 

judicial review of a claim provides a 

time period of less than 180 days for 

filing such claim, then the shorter time 

period applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the FHWA: Ms. Michelle Allen, Federal 

Highway Administration, Indiana 

Division, 575 North Pennsylvania 

Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, IN 

46204–1576; telephone: (317) 226–7344; 

e-mail: Michelle.Allen@dot.gov. The 

FHWA Indiana Division Office’s normal 

business hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

e.t. For the USACE: Mr. Greg McKay, 

Chief, North Section Regulatory Branch, 

Louisville District, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 59, 

Louisville, KY 40201–0059; telephone: 

(502) 315–6685; e-mail: 

gregory.a.mckay@usace.army.mil. 

Normal business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 

p.m., e.t. You may also contact Mr. 

Thomas Seeman, Project Manager, 

Indiana Department of Transportation 

(INDOT), 100 North Senate Avenue, 

Indianapolis, IN 46204; telephone: (317) 

232–5336; e-mail: 

TSeeman@indot.IN.gov. Normal 

business hours for the Indiana 

Department of Transportation are: 8 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., e.t. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the FHWA and other 

Federal agencies have taken final agency 

actions by issuing licenses, permits, and 

approvals for the highway projects in 

the State of Indiana that are listed 

below. The actions by the Federal 

agencies on a project, and the laws 

under which such actions were taken, 

are described in the Record of Decision 

(ROD), Reevaluation Documents to the 

final environmental impact statements 

(FEIS) issued in connection with the 

projects, Section 404 Discharge of 

Dredged or Fill Material Permit and 

Regional General Permit letters, and in 

other documents in the FHWA 

administrative record for the project. 

The ROD and other documents from the 

FHWA administrative record files for 

the listed projects are available by 

contacting the FHWA or the Indiana 

Department of Transportation (INDOT) 

at the addresses provided above. Project 

information may also be available 

through the INDOT I–69 Project Web 

site at http://www.i69indyevn.org/. 

People unable to access the Web site 

may contact FHWA or INDOT at the 

addresses listed above. This notice 

applies to all Federal agency decisions 

on the listed project as of the issuance 

date of this notice and all laws under 

which such actions were taken, 

including but not limited to: 1. National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 

U.S.C. 4321–4351]. 2. Endangered 

Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544]. 3. 

Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 

and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 4. Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7401–7671(q). 5. Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 6. Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et 

seq.]. 7. Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 688–688d]. 8. 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1377 

(Section 404, Section 402, Section 401, 

Section 319). Previous actions taken by 

the USFWS for the Tier 1, I–69 project, 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21941 

16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, included its 

concurrence with the FHWA’s 

determination that the I–69 project was 

not likely to adversely affect the eastern 

fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

and that the project was likely to 

adversely affect, but not jeopardize, the 

bald eagle. The USFWS also concluded 

that the project was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Indiana bat and was not likely to 

adversely modify the bat’s designated 

Critical Habitat. These USFWS 

decisions were described in the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion issued 

on December 3, 2003, the Revised 

Programmatic Biological Opinion issued 

on August 24, 2006, and other 

documents in the Tier 1 project records. 

A Notice of Limitation on Claims for 

Judicial Review of these actions and 

decisions by the USFWS, DOI, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 17, 2007. A claim seeking judicial 

review of the Tier 1 decisions must have 

been filed by October 15, 2007, to avoid 

being barred under 23 U.S.C. 139(l). 

The projects subject to this notice are: 

1. Project: Section 1 of the I–69 

highway project from Evansville to 

Indianapolis. Location: I–64 just north 

of Evansville to just north of SR 64 west 

of Oakland City. Notice is hereby given 

that, subsequent to the earlier FHWA 

notice, the FHWA has taken final 

agency actions within the meaning of 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by approving three (3) 

Reevaluations of the Tier 2, Section 1 

Record of Decision issued on December 

12, 2007. Section 1 of the I–69 project 

extends from I–64 just north of 

Evansville to just north of SR 64 west 

of Oakland City. Section 1 is a new 

alignment, fully access-controlled 

highway. As approved in the Tier 1 

ROD, the corridor is generally 2000-feet 

wide. The ROD selected Preferred 

Alternative 4 for Section 1, as described 

in the I–69 Evansville to Indianapolis, 

Indiana, Tier 2 Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Evansville to 

Oakland City, Indiana (FEIS), available 

at http://www.i69indyevn.org/ 

section1_FEIS.html. The ROD also 

approved the locations of the 

interchanges, grade separations, and 

access roads (which include new roads, 

road relocations, and realignments). On 

February 1, 2008, the FHWA published 

a ‘‘Notice of Limitation on Claims for 

Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), DOI’’ in the Federal 

Register at (73 FR 6241–01) for the 

Section 1, 13.1 mile segment of I–69 in 

the Counties of Warrick and Gibson. A 

claim seeking judicial review of the Tier 

2, Section 1 decisions must have been 

filed by July 30, 2008, to avoid being 

barred under 23 U.S.C. 139(l). The three 

(3) Reevaluations of the Tier 2, Section 

1 ROD include: (1) The March 20, 2009 

Reevaluation, which was prepared to 

evaluate the effects of additional rightof-way and improvements (including 

right-of-way required for bank 

stabilization, drainage improvements, 

guard-rail, cul-de-sacs, and a potential 

levee) made necessary based on final 

design that were not analyzed in the 

Tier 2 Section 1 ROD or FEIS (approved 

December 12, 2007); (2) the December 

13, 2010 Reevaluation, which was 

prepared to evaluate the impacts of 

additional right-of-way areas (including 

right-of-way required to accommodate 

cul-de-sac construction, right-of-way 

shift to avoid a stream channel, stream 

channel realignment and tree planting, 

berm construction around existing oil 

storage tanks, driveway construction, 

interchange and grade modifications, 

and flood easements) made necessary 

based on final design that were not 

analyzed in the Tier 2 Section 1 ROD or 

FEIS (approved December 12, 2007); 

and (3) the February 17, 2011 

Reevaluation, which was prepared to 

evaluate the impacts of additional rightof-way areas (including right-of-way 

required to accommodate cul-de-sac 

construction, building removal, cut 

sections through hills, driveway 

reconstruction, interchange 

modifications, erosion control, fill-in 

remainder portions of impacted ponds, 

construction of a connector road, 

drainage easements, and revised rightof-way to even station and offset) made 

necessary based on final design that 

were not analyzed in the Tier 2 Section 

1 ROD or FEIS (approved December 12, 

2007). The analysis in each of the 

Reevaluations supports the FHWA’s 

conclusions that none of the changes 

examined will have impacts sufficient 

to require preparation of a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) or an additional Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for Section 1, and therefore that the Tier 

2 Section 1 FEIS and ROD remain valid. 

The detailed analysis of the reevaluation 

documents along with the Federal 

decision of minimal impact can be 

found on the project Web site at 

http://www.i69indyevn.org/ 

reevaluation.html. 

2. Project: Section 2 of the I–69 

highway project from Evansville to 

Indianapolis. Location: Oakland City, 

Indiana to Washington, Indiana, Gibson, 

Pike and Daviess Counties. On August 

13, 2010, the FHWA published a ‘‘Notice 

of Final Federal Agency Actions on 

Proposed Highway in Indiana’’ in the 

Federal Register at (75 FR 49547) for the 

Section 2, 28.7 mile segment of I–69 in 

the Counties of Gibson, Pike and 

Daviess. Notice is hereby given that, 

subsequent to the earlier FHWA notice, 

the USACE has taken final agency 

actions within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 

139(l)(1) by issuing permits and 

approvals for the highway project. The 

actions by the USACE, related final 

actions by other Federal agencies, and 

the laws under which such actions were 

taken, are described in the USACE 

decisions and its project records, 

referenced as Department of the Army 

(DA) Permit, Number LRL–2010–466. 

That information is available by 

contacting the USACE at the address 

provided above. 

On June 18, 2010, INDOT filed an 

application with the USACE for 

authorization under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344, to 

construct the 28.7 mile Section 2 I–69 

project. On April 1, 2011, the USACE 

took final action in issuing the 

Department of the Army (DA) Permit for 

the Section 2 I–69 project, Number 

LRL–2010–466, as described in the 

USACE decision and its administrative 

record for the project. As part of the 

Section 2 project, which begins at the 

northern terminus of the Section 1 

project, there are 14 crossings of water 

resources requiring individual permits 

from the USACE, including streams, 

open water and emergent, scrub-shrub 

and forested wetlands. Subject to the 

permit conditions, INDOT is permitted 

to discharge 6,432 cubic yards of fill 

material below the Ordinary Highway 

Water Mark of 25,075 linear feet of 

stream channels, and to discharge 

638,370 cubic yards of fill material into 

16.41 acres of open water and emergent, 

scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands in 

constructing these 14 crossings. In 

addition, in two letters dated July 29, 

2010 and September 29, 2010, the 

USACE has authorized impacts at 48 

other sites under their jurisdiction 

within Section 2 of the I–69 project in 

Gibson, Pike and Davies Counties via 

the Regional General Permit No. 1 

issued jointly by the Louisville and 

Chicago Districts on December 15, 2009. 

In the letter dated July 29, 2010 from 

Ms. Deborah Duda Snyder of the 

Indianapolis Regulatory Office of the 

USACE to Mr. Nathan Saxe of INDOT, 

the USACE verified that 10 individual 

stream and wetland impacts are 

authorized under the Regional General 

Permit No. 1 issued jointly by the 

Louisville and Chicago Districts on 

December 15, 2009. In the letter dated 

September 29, 2011 from Ms. Deborah 

Duda Snyder of the Indianapolis 

Regulatory Office of the USACE to Mr. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

21942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

Nathan Saxe of INDOT, the USACE 

verified that an additional 38 individual 

stream and wetland impacts are 

authorized under the Regional General 

Permit No. 1 issued jointly by the 

Louisville and Chicago Districts on 

December 15, 2009, subject to special 

permit conditions requiring 

compensatory wetland and stream 

mitigation in accordance with approved 

‘‘Mitigation and Monitoring Plans.’’ 

In addition, FHWA has approved five 

(5) Reevaluations of the Tier 2, Section 

2 Record of Decision issued on August 

13, 2010. The five Reevaluations of the 

Tier 2, Section 2 ROD include: (1) The 

October 6, 2010 Reevaluation, which 

was prepared to analyze the impacts of 

additional right-of-way areas (including 

right-of-way changes to accommodate 

storm water detention, elimination and 

additions of local service roads, cul-desac construction, existing bridge 

upgrades, building removal, mitigation, 

construction of access roads, spill 

containment, and to tie into Section 1 

right-of-way) made necessary based on 

final design of segments 1 and 1A of 

Section 2 that were not analyzed in the 

Tier 2 Section 2 ROD or FEIS (approved 

April 18, 2010); (2) the December 6, 

2010 Reevaluation, which was prepared 

to evaluate the impacts of permanent 

flood easements required for the final 

design of seventeen waterway bridge 

crossings within Section 2 and 

determine the changes in impacts to the 

affected environment from what was 

documented in the Tier 2 Section 2 ROD 

(approved April 18, 2010); (3) the 

December 8, 2010 Reevaluation, which 

was prepared to evaluate the impacts of 

additional right-of-way areas (including 

right-of-way changes to accommodate 

cul-de-sac construction, refined curve 

alignments, construction of local service 

roads to access landlocked parcels, and 

right-of-way revisions to follow 

surveyed parcel lines) in segments 2 and 

3 of Section 2 made necessary based on 

final design that were not analyzed in 

the Tier 2 Section 2 ROD or FEIS; (4) the 

January 6, 2011 Reevaluation, which 

was prepared to analyze the impacts of 

additional right-of-way areas (including 

right-of-way changes to accommodate 

transmission tower relocation, 

connection highway right-of-way into 

existing right-of-way, removal of 

existing pavement, intersection 

realignment for improved safety, cul-desac construction, access drive 

construction, local service roads 

modifications, and improvements in 

sight distance) made necessary based on 

final design of segments 4 and 5 of 

Section 2 that were not analyzed in the 

Tier 2 Section 2 ROD or FEIS (approved 

April 18, 2010); and (5) the January 13, 

2011 Reevaluation, which was prepared 

to evaluate the impacts of minor rightof-way changes (including right-of-way 

changes to accommodate cul-de-sac 

construction, right-of-way shift to avoid 

a stream channel, side slope and 

ditching design to stay within right-ofway, construction of access drives and 

roadway profile changes, filling in the 

small remainder of an impacted pond, 

building removal, Local Service road 

modifications, right-of-way revisions to 

follow surveyed parcel lines, 

improvements to intersection sight 

distance, and right-of-way revisions to 

simplify acquisition and traffic 

maintenance) made necessary as a result 

of final design of segments 6 and 7 of 

Section 2 that were not analyzed in the 

Tier 2 Section 2 ROD or FEIS (approved 

April 18, 2010). The analysis completed 

in each of the five Reevaluations 

supports the FHWA’s conclusions that 

none of the changes examined will have 

impacts sufficient to require preparation 

of a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) or an 

additional Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for Section 2, and 

therefore that the Tier 2 Section 2 FEIS 

and ROD remain valid. The detailed 

analysis of the reevaluation documents 

along with the federal decision of 

minimal impact can be found on the 

project Web site at http:// 

www.i69indyevn.org/reevaluation.html. 

3. Project: Section 3 of the I–69 

highway project from Evansville to 

Indianapolis. Location: U.S. 50 east of 

the city of Washington, Indiana to U.S. 

231 near the Crane NSWC, Daviess and 

Greene Counties. Notice is hereby given 

that the FHWA has approved two (2) 

Reevaluations of the Tier 2, Section 3 

Record of Decision issued on January 

28, 2010. Section 3 of the I–69 project 

extends from U.S. 50 east of the city of 

Washington, Indiana to U.S. 231 near 

the Crane NSWC. Section 3 is a new 

alignment, fully access-controlled 

highway. As approved in the Tier 1 

ROD, the corridor is generally 2000-feet 

wide. The corridor width varies at two 

locations within Section 3. It narrows to 

1200-feet wide near First Creek and 

expands to 6400-feet wide near the 

Thousand Acre Woods. The ROD 

selected Refined Preferred Alternative 1 

for Section 3, as described in the I–69 

Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana, Tier 

2 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Washington to Crane NSWC, 

Indiana (FEIS), available at http:// 

www.i69indyevn.org/ 

section3_FEIS.html. The ROD also 

approved the locations of the 

interchanges, grade separations, and 

access roads (which include new roads, 

road relocations, and realignments). A 

Notice of Limitation on Claims for 

Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), DOI, was published 

in the Federal Register on February 25, 

2010 (75 FR 8786–01). A claim seeking 

judicial review of the Tier 2, Section 3 

decisions must have been filed by 

August 24, 2010, to avoid being barred 

under 23 U.S.C. 139(l). The two (2) 

Reevaluations of the Tier 2, Section 3 

ROD include: (1) The September 29, 

2010 Reevaluation, which was prepared 

to evaluate the impacts of additional 

right-of-way areas (including right-ofway changes to accommodate 

residential relocation, channel grading 

as part of hydraulic design, natural 

channel design, stream relocation of a 

Doan’s Creek tributary, barn removal, 

bridge upgrades, tie-in to existing rightof-way, and driveway reconstruction) 

made necessary as a result of final 

design of segments 10 through 13 of 

Section 3 that were not analyzed in the 

Tier 2 Section 3 ROD or FEIS (approved 

January 28, 2010); and (2) the November 

17, 2010 Reevaluation Addendum (to 

the May 6, 2010 Reevaluation 

concerning flood easements in Section 

3), which was prepared to evaluate the 

impacts of additional permanent flood 

easements required for the final design 

of Section 3 (including modification of 

flood easement boundaries at North 

Fork Prairie Creek and Epsom Lateral 

and acquisition of flood easements 

within the existing floodplain of North 

Fork Prairie Creek) and determine the 

changes in impacts to the affected 

environment from what was 

documented in the Tier 2 Section 3 ROD 

(approved January 28, 2010). The 

analysis completed in the Reevaluations 

supports the FHWA’s conclusions that 

none of the changes examined will have 

impacts sufficient to require preparation 

of a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) or an 

additional Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for Section 3, and 

therefore that the Tier 2 Section 3 FEIS 

and ROD remain valid. The detailed 

analysis of the reevaluation documents 

along with the Federal decision of 

minimal impact can be found on the 

project Web site at http:// 

www.i69indyevn.org/reevaluation.html. 

The actions by the Federal agencies 

on the project, and the laws under 

which such actions were taken, are 

described in the Reevaluation 

documents, the Department of the Army 

(DA) Permit and Regional General 

Permit letters (LRL–2010–466–djd), and 

in other documents in the FHWA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21943 

administrative record for the project. 

The ROD and other documents from the 

FHWA administrative record files for 

the Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3 

projects are available by contacting 

FHWA, USACE or INDOT at the 

addresses provided above. Project 

information may also be available 

through the INDOT I–69 Project Web 

site at http://www.i69indyevn.org/. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). 

Max Azizi, 

Acting Division Administrator, Indianapolis, 

Indiana. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9420 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System 

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has petitioned the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) seeking approval 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system, as detailed below. 

Docket Number FRA–2011–0022 

Applicant: Central Oregon & Pacific 

Railroad, Inc., Mr. Steve Hefley, General 

Manager, 333 S.E. Mosher Avenue, P.O. 

Box 1083, Roseburg, Oregon 97470. 

The Central Oregon & Pacific 

Railroad, Inc. (CORP) seeks approval of 

the proposed discontinuance and 

removal of the automatic block signal 

system (ABS) on three sections of the 

Roseburg Subdivision and on one 

section of the Siskiyou Subdivision. The 

proposal consists of: 

1. On the Roseburg and Siskiyou 

Subdivisions between milepost (MP) 

438.7 and MP 451, near Medford, OR, 

the removal of ABS signal numbers 

427.4D; 4284/4283; 4298/4297; 4328/ 

4327; 4358/4357; 4388/4389; 4406/4407; 

4424/4423; 4444/4443; 4456/4457 and 

4482/4483. An aspect change would be 

made in signal 4505. 

2. On the Roseburg Subdivision 

between MP 471 and MP 475, near 

Grants Pass, OR, the removal of ABS 

signal numbers 4724/4725 and 4734/ 

4735. Aspect changes would be made in 

signals 4783; 4751; 4684 and 4712. 

3. On the Roseburg Subdivision 

between MP 507 and MP 509, near 

Glendale, OR, the removal of ABS signal 

numbers 5076/5077; 5082/5083 and 

5089. Aspect changes would be made in 

signals 5034 and 5060. 

4. On the Roseburg Subdivision 

between MP 559 and MP 563, near 

Dillard, OR, the removal of ABS signal 

numbers 5604/5605 and 5614/5615. 

Aspect changes would be made in 

signals 563.3; 565.5; 559.2 and 557.4. 

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–2011– 

0022) and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

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 

http://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 

http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 

2011. 

Robert C. Lauby, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Regulatory and Legislative Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9386 Filed 4–18–11; 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. 

Illinois Railway Museum 

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2011– 

0017] 

The Illinois Railway Museum (IRYM) 

seeks a waiver of compliance with the 

Steam Locomotive Inspection and 

Maintenance Standards, 49 CFR 230.17, 

as they pertain to the requirement for 

1,472 service day inspection for steam 

locomotive number 1630. Locomotive 

number 1630’s 1,472 day inspection is 

due to expire in July, 2011, and IRYM 

requests the locomotive be allowed to 

continue in service until July, 2016, or 

after 1,472 service days, whichever is 

earlier. Alternately, IRYM requests an 

extension through October, 2011. IRYM 

is not requesting waiver of any other 

inspection requirements, and is 

specifically not requesting extension of 

the requirement to conduct the § 230.17 

inspection after 1,472 service days. 

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–2011– 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES