Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82137 

NSRT, which has fallen from 18,775 to 

14,007. 

DATES: The effective date is December 

29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Ries, Office of Railroad Safety, 

FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493–6299, 

or Ronald.Ries@dot.gov; or Kathryn 

Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493–6038, 

or Kathryn.Shelton@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NSRT is an average of the risk 

indexes for gated public crossings 

nationwide where train horns are 

routinely sounded. FRA developed this 

risk index to serve as one threshold of 

permissible risk for quiet zones 

established under this rule across the 

nation. Thus, a community that is trying 

to establish and/or maintain its quiet 

zone, pursuant to 49 CFR part 222, can 

compare the Quiet Zone Risk Index 

calculated for its specific crossing 

corridor to the NSRT to determine 

whether sufficient measures have been 

taken to compensate for the excess risk 

that results from prohibiting routine 

sounding of the locomotive horn. (In the 

alternative, a community can establish 

its quiet zone in comparison to the Risk 

Index With Horns, which is a corridorspecific measure of risk to the motoring 

public when locomotive horns are 

routinely sounded at every public 

highway-rail grade crossing within the 

quiet zone.) 

In 2006, when the final rule titled, 

‘‘Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings,’’ was amended, 

the NSRT was 17,030 (71 FR 47614, 

August 17, 2006). In 2007, FRA 

recalculated the NSRT to be 19,047 (72 

FR 14850, March 29, 2007). In 2008, 

FRA recalculated the NSRT to be 17,610 

(73 FR 30661, May 28, 2008). In 2009, 

FRA recalculated the NSRT to be 18,775 

(74 FR 45270, September 1, 2009). 

New NSRT 

Using collision data from 2005 to 

2009, FRA has recalculated the NSRT 

based on formulas identified in 

Appendix D to 49 CFR Part 222. In 

making this recalculation, FRA noted 

that the total number of gated, nonwhistle-ban crossings was 41,326. 

Applying the fatality rate and injury rate 

to the probable number of fatalities and 

casualties predicted to occur at each of 

the 41,326 identified crossings and the 

predicted cost of the associated injuries 

and fatalities, FRA calculates the NSRT 

to be 14,007. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

22, 2010. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/ 

Chief Safety Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32778 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–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 a signal system, as detailed below. 

Docket Number FRA–2010–0175 

Applicant: Elgin, Joliet and Eastern 

Railway Company, Mr. Timothy 

Luhm, Manager S&C, 17641 South 

Ashland Avenue, Homewood, IL 

60430. 

The Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway 

Company (EJ&E) seeks approval of the 

proposed discontinuance of the traffic 

control system (TCS) on the Chicago 

Division near Gary, Indiana. The 

proposed discontinuance is from control 

point (CP) Kirk Yard Junction to, but not 

including, CP Stockton 2 on the 

Matteson Subdivision Main 1 and Main 

2; and from CP Kirk Yard Junction to, 

but not including, Stockton 1 on the 

Lake Front Subdivision Main Track. 

The discontinuance consist of the 

removal of the TCS on Main Track 1 and 

2 between milepost (MP) 44.44 and MP 

45.41 on the Chicago Division, Matteson 

Subdivision, and Main Track also 

known as the Lake Front Line between 

MP 11.19 and MP 12.10 on the Chicago 

Division, Lakefront Subdivision, as well 

as all tracks contained with CP Kirk 

Yard Junction between MP 45.41 and 

MP 45.66 on the Chicago Division, 

Matteson Subdivision. 

The reason given for the proposed 

change is that the TCS impedes train 

operation on these tracks due to the 

congestion in the area from the Kirk 

Yard operations. There are plans in 

place to change track and switch 

arrangements in this area to facilitate 

future operations at Kirk Yard. 

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– 

1075) 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN29DE10.025</GPH>
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 

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 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 

[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 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 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES