Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 43743 

1FWDB operates the line pursuant to a lease with 

UP. See Fort Worth and Dallas Belt Railroad– 

Acquisition and Operation Exemption–Certain 

Lines of St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, 

Finance Docket No. 32514 (ICC served June 22, 

1994). 

2FWDB, a corporate affiliate of FWWR, granted 

FWWR these trackage rights. See Forth Worth & 

Western Railroad Company–Trackage Rights 

Exemption–Forth Worth and Dallas Belt Railroad 

Company, Finance Docket No. 32590, (ICC served 

Nov. 10, 1994). 

3Petitioners state that the lease and trackage 

rights will remain in full force and effect for the 

remainder of the North Fort Worth Branch. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 280X); 

STB Docket No. AB–1038X); STB Docket 

No. AB–546X] 

Union Pacific Railroad Company— 

Abandonment Exemption and 

Discontinuance of Service—in Tarrant 

County, TX; Fort Worth and Dallas Belt 

Railroad Company—Discontinuance of 

Service—in Tarrant County, TX; Fort 

Worth and Western Railroad 

Company—Discontinuance of 

Service—in Tarrant County, TX 

On August 7, 2009, Union Pacific 

Railroad Company (UP), Fort Worth and 

Dallas Belt Railroad Company (FWDB), 

and Fort Worth and Western Railroad 

Company (FWWR) (collectively, 

petitioners) jointly filed with the 

Surface Transportation Board (Board) a 

petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for 

exemption from the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 10903 to permit: (1) UP to 

abandon and discontinue service over a 

segment of its North Fort Worth Branch 

line of railroad between milepost 633.02 

and milepost 634.25, a distance of 

approximately 1.23 miles in Tarrant 

County, TX; (2) FWDB to discontinue 

operations over the subject line 

segment; 1 and (3) FWWR to discontinue 

overhead and local trackage rights over 

the subject line segment.2 The line 

traverses United States Postal Service 

Zip Code 76106.3

In addition to an exemption from the 

prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

10903, petitioners seek exemption from 

49 U.S.C. 10904 (offer of financial 

assistance procedures) and 49 U.S.C. 

10905 (public use conditions). 

Petitioners also seek relief from the trail 

use provisions of the Board’s regulations 

at 49 CFR 1152.29. In support, 

petitioners state that the sole purpose of 

their joint petition is to allow the 

proposed acquisition of the right-of-way 

associated with the line segment by the 

Tarrant Regional Water District for a 

public flood control and redevelopment 

project in the north downtown area of 

Forth Worth, TX, commonly known at 

the Trinity Uptown Project. These 

requests will be addressed in the final 

decision. 

The line does not contain federally 

granted rights-of-way. Any 

documentation in petitioners’ 

possession will be made available 

promptly to those requesting it. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuing this notice, the Board is 

instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by November 25, 

2009. 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2), will 

be due no later than 10 days after 

service of a decision granting the 

petition for exemption. Each OFA must 

be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee. 

See CFR 1002.2(f)(25). 

All interested persons should be 

aware that, following abandonment of 

rail service and salvage of the line, the 

line may be suitable for other public 

use, including interim trail use. Any 

request for a public use condition under 

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail 

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be 

due no later than September 16, 2009. 

Each trail use request must be 

accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49 

CFR 1002.2(f)(27). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–33 

(Sub-No 280X), STB Docket No. 1038X), 

and STB Docket No.546X, and must be 

sent to: (1) Surface Transportation 

Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001; and (2) Mack H. 

Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, 

Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606, and Paul 

H. Lamboley, Bank of America Plaza, 50 

W. Liberty Street, Suite #645, Reno, NV 

89501. Replies to the petition are due on 

or before September 16, 2009. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning abandonment or 

discontinuance procedures may contact 

the Board’s Office of Public Assistance, 

Governmental Affairs, and Compliance 

at (202) 245–0238 or refer to the full 

abandonment or discontinuance 

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. 

Questions concerning environmental 

issues may be directed to the Board’s 

Section of Environmental Analysis 

(SEA) at (202) 245–0305. Assistance for 

the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

An environmental assessment (EA) (or 

environmental impact statement (EIS), if 

necessary) prepared by SEA will be 

served upon all parties of record and 

upon any agencies or other persons who 

commented during its preparation. 

Other interested persons may contact 

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). 

EAs in these abandonment proceedings 

normally will be made available within 

60 days of the filing of the petition. The 

deadline for submission of comments on 

the EA will generally be within 30 days 

of its service. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: August 24, 2009. 

By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–20743 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Access to the Interstate System 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of revised policy 

statement. 

SUMMARY: This document issues the 

revised FHWA policy statement 

regarding requests for new or modified 

access points to the Interstate System. 

The policy includes the requirements 

for the justification and documentation 

necessary to substantiate any request 

that is submitted to FHWA for approval. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information: Mr. Jon 

Obenberger, Office of Program 

Administration (HIPA–20), (202) 366– 

2221. For legal information: Mr. Robert 

Black, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(HCC–32), (202) 366–1359, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

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

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The surface transportation system 

plays a key role in shaping the 

economic health, quality of life and 

sustainability of a metropolitan area, 

region, and State. The Interstate System 

is a critical element providing a network 

of limited access freeways which 

facilitate the distribution of virtually all 

goods and services across the United 

States. The Interstate System also 

influences the mobility and safety of 

people and goods by providing access to 

local highways and a network of public 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

43744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

streets. As a result, it is in the national 

interest to preserve and enhance the 

Interstate System to meet the needs of 

the surface transportation system of the 

United States for the 21st century. 

The FHWA’s Policy on Access to the 

Interstate System provides the 

requirements for the justification and 

documentation necessary to substantiate 

any proposed changes in access to the 

Interstate System. This policy also 

facilitates decisionmaking regarding 

proposed changes in access to the 

Interstate System in a manner that 

considers and is consistent with the 

vision, goals and long-range 

transportation plans of a metropolitan 

area, region and State. This policy 

reflects the congressional intent and 

direction provided in section 1909(a)(3) 

of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144), which 

amended section 101 of title 23, United 

States Code by adding subsection 

(b)(3)(H): ‘‘the Secretary should take 

appropriate actions to preserve and 

enhance the Interstate System to meet 

the needs of the 21st century.’’ 

Section 111 of title 23, United States 

Code, provides that all agreements 

between the Secretary and the State 

departments of transportation (State 

DOTs) for the construction of projects 

on the Interstate System shall contain a 

clause providing that the State will not 

add any points of access to, or exit from, 

the project in addition to those 

approved by the Secretary in the plans 

for such project, without the prior 

approval of the Secretary. The Secretary 

has delegated the authority to 

administer 23 U.S.C. 111 to the Federal 

Highway Administrator pursuant to 49 

CFR 1.48(b)(1). A formal policy 

statement including guidance for 

justifying and documenting the need for 

additional access to the existing sections 

of the Interstate System was published 

in the Federal Register on October 22, 

1990 (55 FR 42670), and modified on 

February 11, 1998 (63 FR 7045). 

The FHWA has adopted the AASHTO 

publication ‘‘A Policy on Design 

Standards—Interstate System’’ as the 

standard for projects on the Interstate 

System as incorporated by reference at 

23 CFR 625.4(a)(2). Section 625.4(a)(2) 

further requires that access to the 

Interstate System shall be fully 

controlled, and that access to the 

Interstate System shall be achieved by 

interchanges at selected public 

highways. 

Summary of Changes 

The changes in FHWA’s policy were 

made to reflect the direction provided in 

SAFETEA–LU, to clarify the operational 

and safety analysis and assessment of 

impacts that provides the basis for 

proposed changes in access to the 

Interstate System, and to update 

language at various locations to 

reference Federal laws, regulations, and 

FHWA policies. The following specific 

revisions have been made to the existing 

policy statement: 

1. Updates were made to Requirement 

1 clarifying the need for agencies to 

analyze and justify that the projected 

design-year traffic demands cannot be 

adequately accommodated by existing 

access to the Interstate. 

2. Additional examples were added to 

Requirement 2 to identify the type of 

improvements to be considered in the 

planning for and development of 

proposed changes in access. 

3. Text was added to Requirement 3 

to clarify that the safety and operational 

analysis to be performed and 

documentation to be submitted provide 

the justification for proposed changes in 

access. 

4. Revisions were made to 

Requirement 4 clarifying the need to 

meet or exceed design standards for all 

roadway improvements included in 

proposals to change access. 

5. Changes were made to Requirement 

5 to reference the current requirements 

contained in SAFETEA–LU and 23 CFR 

part 450. 

6. Text was added to Requirement 6 

clarifying the analysis to be performed 

in support of proposed changes in 

access involving multiple interchanges. 

7. Clarification to Requirement 7 was 

made identifying the justification 

needed to support any proposed change 

in access due to changes in land use or 

density of development. 

8. Revision was made to Requirement 

8 to clarify and avoid duplication with 

Requirement 5. 

9. Updates were made to the 

Application section to reference current 

Federal laws, regulations, and FHWA 

policies. Revisions were made to 

paragraph 4 and a new paragraph 5 was 

added to clarify what is a change in 

access and how this policy may apply 

to different types of access changes. 

Paragraph 8 was added to clarify how 

FHWA’s review and approval of 

proposed changes in access relate to 

other Federal actions, reviews, and 

approvals. Paragraph 9 was added to 

clarify that proposals for changes in 

access need to be reevaluated and the 

proposal resubmitted to FHWA for 

review and approval if the project has 

not proceeded to construction within 8 

years. 

The revised policy statement also 

includes various editorial changes to 

enhance clarity and readability. The 

revised policy statement is as follows: 

Policy 

It is in the national interest to 

preserve and enhance the Interstate 

System to meet the needs of the 21st 

Century by assuring that it provides the 

highest level of service in terms of safety 

and mobility. Full control of access 

along the Interstate mainline and ramps, 

along with control of access on the 

crossroad at interchanges, is critical to 

providing such service. Therefore, 

FHWA’s decision to approve new or 

revised access points to the Interstate 

System must be supported by 

substantiated information justifying and 

documenting that decision. The 

FHWA’s decision to approve a request 

is dependent on the proposal satisfying 

and documenting the following 

requirements. 

Considerations and Requirements 

1. The need being addressed by the 

request cannot be adequately satisfied 

by existing interchanges to the 

Interstate, and/or local roads and streets 

in the corridor can neither provide the 

desired access, nor can they be 

reasonably improved (such as access 

control along surface streets, improving 

traffic control, modifying ramp 

terminals and intersections, adding turn 

bays or lengthening storage) to 

satisfactorily accommodate the designyear traffic demands (23 CFR 625.2(a)). 

2. The need being addressed by the 

request cannot be adequately satisfied 

by reasonable transportation system 

management (such as ramp metering, 

mass transit, and HOV facilities), 

geometric design, and alternative 

improvements to the Interstate without 

the proposed change(s) in access (23 

CFR 625.2(a)). 

3. An operational and safety analysis 

has concluded that the proposed change 

in access does not have a significant 

adverse impact on the safety and 

operation of the Interstate facility 

(which includes mainline lanes, 

existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp 

intersections with crossroad) or on the 

local street network based on both the 

current and the planned future traffic 

projections. The analysis shall, 

particularly in urbanized areas, include 

at least the first adjacent existing or 

proposed interchange on either side of 

the proposed change in access (23 CFR 

625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). The 

crossroads and the local street network, 

to at least the first major intersection on 

either side of the proposed change in 

access, shall be included in this analysis 

to the extent necessary to fully evaluate 

the safety and operational impacts that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 43745 

the proposed change in access and other 

transportation improvements may have 

on the local street network (23 CFR 

625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Requests for a 

proposed change in access must include 

a description and assessment of the 

impacts and ability of the proposed 

changes to safely and efficiently collect, 

distribute and accommodate traffic on 

the Interstate facility, ramps, 

intersection of ramps with crossroad, 

and local street network (23 CFR 

625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request 

must also include a conceptual plan of 

the type and location of the signs 

proposed to support each design 

alternative (23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 

655.603(d)). 

4. The proposed access connects to a 

public road only and will provide for all 

traffic movements. Less than ‘‘full 

interchanges’’ may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis for applications 

requiring special access for managed 

lanes (e.g., transit, HOVs, HOT lanes) or 

park and ride lots. The proposed access 

will be designed to meet or exceed 

current standards (23 CFR 625.2(a), 

625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)). 

5. The proposal considers and is 

consistent with local and regional land 

use and transportation plans. Prior to 

receiving final approval, all requests for 

new or revised access must be included 

in an adopted Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan, in the adopted 

Statewide or Metropolitan 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP or TIP), and the Congestion 

Management Process within 

transportation management areas, as 

appropriate, and as specified in 23 CFR 

part 450, and the transportation 

conformity requirements of 40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93. 

6. In corridors where the potential 

exists for future multiple interchange 

additions, a comprehensive corridor or 

network study must accompany all 

requests for new or revised access with 

recommendations that address all of the 

proposed and desired access changes 

within the context of a longer-range 

system or network plan (23 U.S.C. 

109(d), 23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 

771.111). 

7. When a new or revised access point 

is due to a new, expanded, or 

substantial change in current or planned 

future development or land use, 

requests must demonstrate appropriate 

coordination has occurred between the 

development and any proposed 

transportation system improvements (23 

CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). The 

request must describe the commitments 

agreed upon to assure adequate 

collection and dispersion of the traffic 

resulting from the development with the 

adjoining local street network and 

Interstate access point (23 CFR 625.2(a) 

and 655.603(d)). 

8. The proposal can be expected to be 

included as an alternative in the 

required environmental evaluation, 

review and processing. The proposal 

should include supporting information 

and current status of the environmental 

processing (23 CFR 771.111). 

Application 

This policy is applicable to new or 

revised access points to existing 

Interstate facilities regardless of the 

funding of the original construction or 

regardless of the funding for the new 

access points. This includes routes 

incorporated into the Interstate System 

under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 

103(c)(4)(A) or other legislation. 

Routes approved as a future part of 

the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 

103(c)(4)(B) represent a special case 

because they are not yet a part of the 

Interstate System. Since the intention to 

add the route to the Interstate System 

has been formalized by agreement, any 

proposed new or significant changes in 

access beyond those covered in the 

agreement, regardless of funding, must 

be approved by FHWA. 

This policy is not applicable to toll 

roads incorporated into the Interstate 

System, except for segments where 

Federal funds have been expended or 

these funds will be used for roadway 

improvements, or where the toll road 

section has been added to the Interstate 

System under the provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 103(c)(4)(A). The term ‘‘segment’’ 

is defined as the project limits described 

in the Federal-aid project agreement. 

Each break in the control of access to 

the Interstate System right-of-way is 

considered to be an access point. For the 

purpose of applying this policy, each 

entrance or exit point, including 

‘‘locked gate’’ access, is considered to be 

an access point. For example, a 

diamond interchange configuration has 

four access points. 

Ramps providing access to rest areas, 

information centers, and weigh stations 

within the Interstate controlled access 

are not considered access points for the 

purpose of applying this policy. These 

facilities shall be accessible to vehicles 

only to and from the Interstate System. 

Access to or from these facilities and 

local roads and adjoining property is 

prohibited. The only allowed exception 

is for access to adjacent publicly owned 

conservation and recreation areas, if 

access to these areas is only available 

through the rest area, as allowed under 

23 CFR 752.5(d). 

Generally, any change in the design of 

an existing access point is considered a 

change to the interchange configuration, 

even though the number of actual points 

of access may not change. For example, 

replacing one of the direct ramps of a 

diamond interchange with a loop, or 

changing a cloverleaf interchange into a 

fully directional interchange would be 

considered revised access for the 

purpose of applying this policy. 

All requests for new or revised access 

points on completed Interstate highways 

must closely adhere to the planning and 

environmental review processes as 

required in 23 CFR parts 450 and 771. 

The FHWA approval constitutes a 

Federal action and, as such, requires 

that the transportation planning, 

conformity, congestion management 

process, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act procedures be 

followed and their requirements 

satisfied. This means the final FHWA 

approval of requests for new or revised 

access cannot precede the completion of 

these processes or necessary actions. 

To offer maximum flexibility, 

however, any proposed change in access 

can be submitted by a State DOT to the 

FHWA Division Office for a 

determination of engineering and 

operational acceptability. This 

flexibility allows agencies the option of 

obtaining this acceptability 

determination prior to making the 

required modifications to the 

Transportation Plan, performing any 

required conformity analysis, and 

completing the environmental review 

and approval process. In this manner, 

State DOTs can determine if a proposal 

is acceptable for inclusion as an 

alternative in the environmental 

process. This policy in no way alters the 

planning, conformity or environmental 

review and approval procedures as 

contained in 23 CFR parts 450 and 771, 

and 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 

An affirmative determination by 

FHWA of engineering and operational 

acceptability for proposals for new or 

revised access points to the Interstate 

System should be reevaluated whenever 

a significant change in conditions 

occurs (e.g., land use, traffic volumes, 

roadway configuration or design, 

environmental commitments). Proposals 

shall be reevaluated if the project has 

not progressed to construction within 8 

years of receiving an affirmative 

determination of engineering and 

operational acceptability (23 CFR 

625.2(a)). If the project is not 

constructed within this time period, an 

updated justification report based on 

current and projected future conditions 

must be submitted to FHWA to receive 

either an affirmative determination of 

engineering and operational 

acceptability, or final approval if all 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

43746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

other requirements have been satisfied 

(23 U.S.C. 111, 23 CFR 625.2(a), and 23 

CFR 771.129). 

Implementation 

State DOTs are required to submit 

requests for proposed changes in access 

to their FHWA Division Office for 

review and action under 23 U.S.C. 106 

and 111, and 23 CFR 625.2(a). The 

FHWA Division Office will ensure that 

all requests for changes in access 

contain sufficient information, as 

required in this policy, to allow FHWA 

to independently evaluate and act on 

the request. Guidance to assist with the 

implementation and consistent 

application of this policy can be 

accessed electronically through the 

FHWA Office of Infrastructure’s Web 

page at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

programadmin/index.htm. 

Policy Statement Impact 

The policy statement, first published 

in the Federal Register on October 22, 

1990 (55 FR 42670), and modified on 

February 11, 1998 (63 FR 7045), 

describes the justification and 

documentation needed for requests to 

add or revise access to the existing 

Interstate System. 

The revisions made by the publication 

of this policy statement reflect the 

direction provided in SAFETEA–LU, 

clarify the operational and safety 

analysis to accompany proposed 

changes in access on the Interstate 

System, and update language at various 

locations to ensure consistency with 

other Federal laws, regulations and 

FHWA policies. State DOTs should take 

these factors into consideration when 

making requests for new or revised 

access points, but the overall effort 

necessary for developing the request 

will not be significantly increased. 

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 111 and 315; 49 CFR 

1.48) 

Issued on August 18, 2009. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–20679 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34936] 

Port of Moses Lake—Construction 

Exemption—Moses Lake, WA [STB 

Finance Docket No. 34936 (Sub-No. 1)]; 

Port of Moses Lake—Acquisition 

Exemption—Moses Lake, WA 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of exemption. 

SUMMARY: Subject to a Programmatic 

Agreement negotiated by the parties and 

environmental mitigation measures, the 

Board is granting exemptions under 49 

U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for the 

Port of Moses Lake (Port) in STB 

Finance Docket No. 34936 to construct 

two segments of rail line in Moses Lake, 

WA, one between the community of 

Wheeler and Parker Horn at the mouth 

of Crab Creek and another between 

Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc. 

(CBRW) trackage and the east side of the 

Grant County International Airport, and 

in STB Finance Docket No. 34936 (SubNo. 1) to acquire a segment of rail line 

from CBRW that runs approximately 

from Parker Horn near Stratford Road to 

near the Grant County International 

Airport, which would connect the 

newly constructed segments. The Port 

plans to rehabilitate and upgrade this 

line segment, including the upgrade of 

two signalized grade crossings. The Port 

estimates the total mileage of its 

construction and acquisition proposals 

to be approximately 11.5 miles in 

length. 

DATES: The exemption will be effective 

on September 11, 2009. Petitions to 

reopen must be filed by September 16, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of 

all pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 34936 and STB Finance 

Docket No. 34936 (Sub-No. 1), must be 

filed with the Surface Transportation 

Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy 

of all pleadings must be served on 

petitioner’s representative: Adrian L. 

Steel, Jr., Mayer Brown LLP, 1909 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 245–0395. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional information is contained in 

the Board’s decision. Board decisions 

and notices are available on our Web 

site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: August 21, 2009. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice 

Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner 

Mulvey. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–20666 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Westfield-Barnes Airport, Westfield 

MA; FAA Approval of Noise 

Compatibility Program 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

findings on the noise compatibility 

program submitted by the Westfield 

Airport Commission under the 

provisions of Title I of the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–193) and 14 CFR part 150. 

These findings are made in recognition 

of the description of federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report 

No. 96–52 (1980). On August 3, 2009, 

the Airports Division Manager approved 

the Westfield-Barnes Airport noise 

compatibility program. All of the 

proposed program elements were 

approved. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of the FAA’s approval of the WestfieldBarnes Airport noise compatibility 

program is August 3, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation 

Administration, New England Region, 

Airports Division, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803, Telephone (781) 

238–7613. 

Documents reflecting this FAA action 

may be obtained from the same 

individual. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA has 

given its overall approval to the 

Westfield-Barnes Airport noise 

compatibility program, effective August 

3, 2009. 

Under Section 104(a) of the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 

(hereinafter the Act), an airport operator 

who has previously submitted a noise 

exposure map may submit to the FAA 

a noise compatibility program which 

sets forth the measures taken or 

proposed by the airport operator for the 

reduction of existing non-compatible 

land uses and prevention of additional 

non-compatible land uses within the 

area covered by the noise exposure 

maps. 

The Act requires such programs to be 

developed in consultation with 

interested and affected parties including 

local communities, government 

agencies, airport users, and FAA 

personnel. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES