Rule: Railroad Safety: Locomotive Horns Use at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Sounding Requirements

Wednesday,
April 27, 2005
Part II
Department of
Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 222 and 229

Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings; Final Rule
VerDate jul<14>2003 19:03 Apr 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27APR2.SGM 27APR2
21844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION requires the Secretary of Transportation Subsections (I) and (j) were added on
(whose authority in this area has been October 9, 1996 when section 20153
Federal Railroad Administration delegated to the Federal Railroad was amended by Public Law 104–264.
Administrator under 49 CFR 1.49) to The Act requires the use of locomotive
49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 issue regulations that require the use of horns at public grade crossings, but
[Docket No. FRA–1999–6439, Notice No. 16] locomotive horns at public grade gives FRA the authority to make
crossings, but gives the Secretary the reasonable exceptions.
RIN 2130–AA71 authority to make reasonable Section 20153 of title 49 states as
exceptions. follows:
Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway- In accordance with the
Rail Grade Crossings ‘‘Section 20153. Audible warning at
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. highway-rail grade crossings.
AGENCY: Federal Railroad 553), FRA solicited written comments (a) Definitions.—As used in this section—
Administration (FRA), Department of from the public. By the close of the (1) the term ‘‘highway-rail grade crossing’’
Transportation (DOT). comment period on May 26, 2000, includes any street or highway crossing over
approximately 3,000 comments had a line of railroad at grade;
ACTION: Final rule. (2) the term ‘‘locomotive horn’’ refers to a
been filed with this agency regarding
SUMMARY: On December 18, 2003, FRA the NPRM and the associated Draft train-borne audible warning device meeting
standards specified by the Secretary of
published an interim final rule that Environmental Impact Statement. As is
Transportation; and
required that the locomotive horn be FRA’s practice, FRA held the public (3) the term ‘‘supplementary safety
sounded while trains approach and docket open for late filed comments and measure’’ (SSM) refers to a safety system or
enter public highway-rail grade considered them to the extent possible. procedure, provided by the appropriate
crossings. The interim final rule Due to the substantial and wide- traffic control authority or law enforcement
contained an exception to the above ranging public interest in the NPRM, authority responsible for safety at the
requirement in circumstances in which FRA conducted a series of public highway-rail grade crossing, that is
there is not a significant risk of loss of hearings throughout the United States in determined by the Secretary to be an effective
which local citizens, local and State substitute for the locomotive horn in the
life or serious personal injury, use of the prevention of highway-rail casualties. A
locomotive horn is impractical, or safety officials, Congressmen, and Senators
traffic control arrangement that prevents
measures fully compensate for the provided testimony. Twelve hearings careless movement over the crossing (e.g., as
absence of the warning provided by the were held (Washington, DC; Fort where adequate median barriers prevent
locomotive horn. Communities that Lauderdale, Florida; Pendleton, Oregon; movement around crossing gates extending
qualify for this exception may create San Bernadino, California; Chicago, over the full width of the lanes in the
‘‘quiet zones’’ within which locomotive Illinois (four hearings were held in the particular direction of travel), and that
horns would not be routinely sounded. greater Chicago area); Berea, Ohio; conforms to the standards prescribed by the
South Bend, Indiana; Salem, Secretary under this subsection, shall be
The final rule issued today amends deemed to constitute an SSM. The following
certain provisions of the interim final Massachusetts; and Madison,
Wisconsin) at which more than 350 do not, individually or in combination,
rule to facilitate the development of constitute SSMs within the meaning of this
quiet zones, while balancing the needs people testified. subsection: standard traffic control devices or
of railroads, States and local On December 18, 2003, FRA arrangements such as reflectorized
communities. published an Interim Final Rule in the crossbucks, stop signs, flashing lights,
Federal Register (68 FR 70586). Even flashing lights with gates that do not
DATES: The effective date is June 24, though FRA could have proceeded completely block travel over the line of
2005. However, public authorities may directly to the final rule stage, FRA railroad, or traffic signals.
begin to provide quiet zone-related chose to issue an interim final rule in (b) Requirement.—The Secretary of
documentation to FRA and other parties order to give the public an opportunity Transportation shall prescribe regulations
30 days after April 27, 2005. This final to comment on changes that had been requiring that a locomotive horn shall be
rule supercedes the interim final rule, sounded while each train is approaching and
made to the rule. FRA also held a public entering upon each public highway-rail grade
which was published on December 18, hearing in Washington, DC on February crossing.
2003. Therefore, the interim final rule 4, 2004. By the close of the extended (c) Exception.—(1) In issuing such
will not take effect. comment period, over 1,400 comments regulations, the Secretary may except from
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron had been filed with the agency the requirement to sound the locomotive
Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 regarding the Interim Final Rule. As is horn any categories of rail operations or
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC FRA’s practice, FRA held the public categories of highway-rail grade crossings (by
20590 (telephone: 202–493–6299); or docket open for late-filed comments and train speed or other factors specified by
Kathryn Shelton, Office of Chief regulation)—
considered them to the extent possible. (A) that the Secretary determines not to
Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, In order to avoid imposing inconsistent present a significant risk with respect to loss
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: regulatory standards for quiet zone of life or serious personal injury;
202–493–6038). creation and establishment, FRA (B) for which use of the locomotive horn
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: extended the effective date of the as a warning measure is impractical; or
Interim Final Rule on November 22, (C) for which, in the judgment of the
1. Background Secretary, SSMs fully compensate for the
2004 (69 FR 67858) and on March 18,
On January 13, 2000, FRA published 2005 (70 FR 13117) so that the Interim absence of the warning provided by the
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Final Rule would not take effect before locomotive horn.
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (65 FR (2) In order to provide for safety and the
the Final Rule was issued. quiet of communities affected by train
2230) addressing the use of locomotive
2. Statutory Mandate operations, the Secretary may specify in such
horns at public highway-rail grade regulations that any SSMs must be applied to
crossings. This rulemaking was On November 2, 1994, Congress all highway-rail grade crossings within a
mandated by Public Law 103–440, passed Public Law 103–440 (‘‘Act’’) specified distance along a railroad in order to
which added section 20153 to title 49 of which added section 20153 to title 49 of be excepted from the requirement of this
the United States Code. The statute the United States Code (‘‘title 49’’). section.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 21845
(d) Application for Waiver or Exemption.— time for local communities to install SSMs, allows Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
Notwithstanding any other provision of this taking into account local safety initiatives communities to continue to silence the
subchapter, the Secretary may not entertain (such as public awareness initiatives and locomotive horn, without any additional
an application for waiver or exemption of the highway-rail grade crossing traffic law
safety improvements, if the Quiet Zone
regulations issued under this section unless enforcement programs) subject to such terms
such application shall have been submitted and conditions as the Secretary deems Risk Index is at, or below, two times the
jointly by the railroad carrier owning, or necessary, to protect public safety; and Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
controlling operations over, the crossing and (3) may waive (in whole or in part) any and there have not been any relevant
by the appropriate traffic control authority or requirement of this section (other than a collisions within the quiet zone during
law enforcement authority. The Secretary requirement of this subsection or subsection the five years preceding April 27, 2005.
shall not grant any such application unless, (j)) that is not likely to contribute (See § 222.41.) It should also be noted
in the judgment of the Secretary, the significantly to public safety. that Pre-Rule Quiet Zone communities
application demonstrates that the safety of (j) Effective Date of Regulations.—Any
can continue to silence the locomotive
highway users will not be diminished. regulations under this section shall not take
effect before the 365th day following the date horn, without any additional safety
(e) Development of Supplementary Safety
Measures.—(1) In order to promote the quiet of publication of the final rule.’’ improvements, if SSMs have been
of communities affected by rail operations implemented at every public grade
This final rule complies with the crossing within the quiet zone or if the
and the development of innovative safety statutory mandate contained within
measures at highway-rail grade crossings, the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at, or below,
Secretary may, in connection with
section 20153 of title 49. The final rule the Nationwide Significant Risk
demonstration of proposed new SSMs, order retains the locomotive horn sounding Threshold.) Additionally, the rule
railroad carriers operating over one or more requirement for trains that approach and allows Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
crossings to cease temporarily the sounding enter public highway-rail grade communities to take additional time (up
of locomotive horns at such crossings. Any crossings. (See rule § 222.21.) However, to eight years from the effective date of
such measures shall have been subject to the rule contains exceptions for certain the interim final rule) within which to
testing and evaluation and deemed necessary categories of rail operations and
by the Secretary prior to actual use in lieu implement safety improvements that
highway-rail grade crossings, in will bring them into compliance with
of the locomotive horn. accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20153(c)(1).
(2) The Secretary may include in the requirements of the rule. This ‘‘grace
regulations issued under this subsection
Section 222.33 of the rule provides that period’’ has been included in the rule in
special procedures for approval of new SSMs a railroad operating over a public order to comply with 49 U.S.C.
meeting the requirements of subsection (c)(1) highway-rail grade crossing may, at its 20153(i)(2), which requires FRA to
of this section following successful discretion, choose not to sound the provide ‘‘a reasonable amount of time
demonstration of those measures. locomotive horn if the locomotive speed for [pre-existing whistle ban]
(f) Specific Rules.—The Secretary may, by is 15 miles per hour or less and the train communities to install SSMs’’.
regulation, provide that the following crew or appropriately equipped flaggers Section 20153(d) of title 49 states that
crossings over railroad lines shall be subject, provide warning to motorists. FRA has
in whole or in part, to the regulations
‘‘* * * the Secretary may not entertain
determined that these limited types of an application for waiver or exemption
required under this section:
(1) Private highway-rail grade crossings.
rail operations do not present a of the regulations issued under this
(2) Pedestrian crossings. significant risk of loss of life or serious section unless such application shall
(3) Crossings utilized primarily by personal injury. The rule also contains have been submitted jointly by the
nonmotorized vehicles and other special an exception for highway-rail grade railroad carrier owning, or controlling
vehicles. crossing corridors that are equipped operations over, the crossing and by the
(g) Issuance.—The Secretary shall issue with SSMs at each public highway-rail appropriate traffic control authority or
regulations required by this section grade crossing, in accordance with 49 law enforcement authority.’’ Therefore,
pertaining to categories of highway-rail grade U.S.C. 20143(c). § 222.15, which governs the process for
crossings that in the judgment of the Highway-rail grade crossing corridors
Secretary pose the greatest safety hazard to
obtaining a waiver from the
that have a Quiet Zone Risk Index at or requirements of the rule, requires joint
rail and highway users not later than 24
months following the date of enactment of
below the Nationwide Significant Risk filing of waiver petitions by the railroad
this section. The Secretary shall issue Threshold or the Risk Index With Horns and public authority.
regulations pertaining to any other categories have been deemed, by the Section 222.55 addresses the manner
of crossings not later than 48 months Administrator, to constitute a category in which new SSMs and ASMs are
following the date of enactment of this of highway-rail grade crossings that do demonstrated and approved for use.
section. not present a significant risk with Paragraph (c) of this section, which
(h) Impact of Regulations.—The Secretary respect to loss of life or serious personal reflects the requirements contained
shall include in regulations prescribed under injury or that fully compensate for the within 49 U.S.C. 20153(e), specifically
this section a concise statement of the impact absence of the warning provided by the provides that the Associate
of such regulations with respect to the
operation of section 20106 of this title
locomotive horn. Therefore, Administrator may order railroad
(national uniformity of regulation). communities with grade crossing carriers operating over a crossing or
(I) Regulations.—In issuing regulations corridors that meet either of these crossings to temporarily cease sounding
under this section, the Secretary— standards may silence the locomotive the locomotive horn at the crossing(s) to
(1) shall take into account the interest of horn within the crossing corridor, if all demonstrate proposed new SSMs and
communities that— other applicable quiet zone ASMs that have been subject to prior
(A) have in effect restrictions on the requirements have been met. (See testing and evaluation.
sounding of a locomotive horn at highway- § 222.39.) Section 20153(f) of title 49 explicitly
rail grade crossings; or Section 20153(i) of title 49 requires gives discretion to the Secretary as to
(B) have not been subject to the routine (as FRA to ‘‘take into account the interest whether private highway-rail grade
defined by the Secretary) sounding of a
locomotive horn at highway-rail grade
of communities that have in effect crossings, pedestrian crossings, and
crossings; restrictions on the sounding of a crossings utilized primarily by
(2) shall work in partnership with affected locomotive horn at highway-rail grade nonmotorized and other special vehicles
communities to provide technical assistance crossings’’. FRA has complied with this should be subject this regulation. FRA
and shall provide a reasonable amount of requirement in several ways. The rule has decided to refrain from exercising
jurisdiction over crossings utilized 3. Liability local laws that govern the sounding of
primarily by nonmotorized and other FRA received a number of comments locomotive horns at grade crossings
special vehicles in this final rule. FRA on the liability implications of the rule. located within duly established quiet
has, however, exercised its jurisdiction, The majority of these comments were zones. As stated in the interim final
in a limited manner, over private grade concerned that the interim final rule rule, FRA does not expect that future
and pedestrian crossings. Locomotive would shift liability onto the public lawsuits will not arise over accidents
horn use at private grade and pedestrian authority that creates a quiet zone. For within quiet zones, as such lawsuits
crossings will be subject to the example, Steve Stricker, Village may be due to factors other than the lack
requirements of this rule, if the private Administrator for Burr Ridge, Illinois of an audible warning. However, this
grade or pedestrian crossing is located and Chairperson of the DuPage Mayors final rule is intended to remove failure
within a quiet zone. Sections 222.25 and and Managers Conference, expressed to sound the horn, failure to require
222.27 address the specific concern at a February 2004 meeting horn sounding, and prohibitions on
requirements that pertain to private about the potential municipal liability sounding of the horn, at grade crossings
grade and pedestrian crossings within that may result from quiet zone creation. located within duly established quiet
quiet zones. Mr. Stricker urged FRA to include a zones, as potential causes of action. We
Section 222.7 contains a concise clear statement in the final rule that it expect that courts, following Norfolk
statement of the rule’s impact with will not change any federal or state laws Southern v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344
respect to 49 U.S.C. 20106 (national (2000) and CSX v. Easterwood, 507 U.S.
or court decisions on municipal
uniformity of regulation). This 658 (1993), will conclude that this
liability. Similar sentiments were
statement of the rule’s effect on State regulation substantially subsumes the
expressed by John Kravcik, President of
and local law, which was required by 49 subject matter of locomotive horn
Western Springs, Illinois. The Village of
U.S.C. 20153(h), provides that the rule, sounding at highway-rail grade
Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
when effective, will preempt most State crossings, as well as at private grade and
submitted comments expressing
and local laws that govern locomotive pedestrian crossings that are located
concern that by not addressing the
horn use at public highway-rail grade within a quiet zone. As a result, a
liability of local communities that create
crossings. However, as stated in section federal standard of care defined by this
quiet zones, the interim final rule
222.7(b), the rule will not preempt State rule will replace the standard of care
shifted traditional railroad liability that would otherwise apply at highway-
and local laws governing locomotive away from the party profiting from the
horn use at Chicago Region highway-rail rail grade crossings in each State, with
use of the tracks and onto local the exception of those highway-rail
grade crossings where railroads were governments. The City of Sacramento,
excused from sounding the locomotive grade crossings described in section
California submitted comments 222.3(c). (Since the rule does not apply
horn by the Illinois Commerce suggesting that the rule be revised to
Commission, and where railroads did to the highway-rail grade crossings
state that quiet zone establishment described in section 222.3(c), the
not sound the horn, as of December 18, cannot be used as the basis of a claim
2003. In addition, State and local laws standard of care required under State
against a local government, provided the law will continue to apply at those
that govern routine locomotive horn use local government established the quiet crossings.) Local governments and
at private grade and pedestrian zone in accordance with the provisions railroads will benefit equally from the
crossings outside quiet zones will not be of the rule. Noting that the interim final federal standard of care.
preempted. rule exempts railroads from liability, the States also have the ability to assert
Lastly, this rule complies with the Village of Hinsdale, Illinois sovereign immunity on behalf of local
statutory one-year delay requirement. recommended that the final rule provide units of government within their
Section 20153(j) of title 49 prohibits any a similar exemption for public borders, and many states have done so.
regulations issued under its authority authorities or, in the alternative, state It is not appropriate for the Federal
from becoming effective before the that the existing liability structure will government to unnecessarily disturb
365th day following the date of not change. Along the same lines, Brian decisions States have made about
publication of the final rule. On Krajewski, Mayor of Downers Grove, whether local governments in their State
December 18, 2003, FRA published the Illinois asserted that the rule needs to should be immune from tort liability
interim final rule on the use of acknowledge in no uncertain terms that and FRA will not do so here.
locomotive horn at highway-rail grade it is not intended to alter, in any way, FRA also received comments from
crossings. Because the interim final rule the liabilities of any party covered by it. local communities who expressed
had the same force and effect as a final The City of Placentia, California concern that railroads would require
rule, FRA delayed the effective date of submitted comments suggesting that the them to enter into indemnification
the interim final rule for one year, in rule be revised to specify that it is agreements, as a prerequisite to the
order to comply with 49 U.S.C. 20153(j) intended to provide protection from installation of additional safety
and to give public authorities sufficient liability for silencing the train horn to measures at grade crossings that are
time to prepare for quiet zone public authorities, as well as the located within a proposed quiet zone.
implementation before the rule’s railroad and train crew. The City of Arlington, Texas submitted
locomotive horn sounding requirements This final rule clearly covers the comments stating that railroads may
took effect. After reviewing subject matter of locomotive horn require municipalities to enter into
approximately 1,400 comments on the sounding at public grade crossings, as indemnification agreements, if the rule
interim final rule, FRA is now issuing well as locomotive horn sounding at is not revised to address municipal
a final rule that grants additional relief private and pedestrian grade crossings liability for quiet zone establishment.
to States and local communities. The that are located within a quiet zone. Therefore, the City of Arlington, Texas
final rule will become effective on June Therefore, with the exception of State suggested that the rule be revised to
24, 2005 because the one-year statutory and local laws governing locomotive prohibit railroads from requiring
delay requirement was satisfied by horn sounding at the highway-rail grade indemnification and hold harmless
delaying the effective date of the interim crossings described in section 222.3(c), agreements as a condition of quiet zone
final rule. this final rule preempts all State and creation. The DuPage Mayors and
Managers Conference also submitted number of cases, State agencies will be zone. (Please refer to the Section-by-
comments recommending that the rule able to order installation of automated Section Analysis of § 222.42 for further
be revised to prohibit railroads from warning systems, such as four-quadrant information about Intermediate Partial
requiring a transfer of liability as a gates, even on county and local Quiet Zone requirements.)
‘‘quid pro quo’’ for safety improvement roadways. Use of channelization Communities that wish to create a
installation. The Village of Wilmette, techniques may require little or no New Partial Quiet Zone will be required
Illinois submitted comments asserting cooperation from the railroad and, in to comply with New Quiet Zone
that, with respect to SSMs, the rail many cases, photo enforcement can standards. Unless a waiver is granted,
carriers may require municipalities to likely be accomplished using existing all New Partial Quiet Zones must
agree to whatever terms they demand interconnections between crossing restrict locomotive horn sounding
concerning liability. The West Central warning systems and traffic signals. between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Municipal Conference and the Chicago Further, in this context, railroads This requirement will ensure consistent
Area Transportation Study submitted often can provide a unique perspective application of locomotive horn
comments recommending that the final related to crossing improvements. For restrictions within New Partial Quiet
rule include language that prohibits particular applications, railroads may be Zones, which should minimize
railroads from requiring waivers of able to point out important public and confusion for the locomotive engineer.
municipal immunity as part of any private benefits from employing basic
5. Rule Changes
agreement, contract, or lease between traffic channelization in lieu of more
railroads and municipalities. technically complex and maintenance- This brief overview of the changes
On the other hand, FRA received hungry four-quadrant gate systems. that have been made in the Final Rule
comments from the railroad industry is provided for the reader’s
4. Partial Quiet Zones convenience. Because this section
suggesting that the rule be revised to
require public authorities to enter into Commenters requested clarification of merely provides an overview, it should
indemnification agreements with the rule’s effect on crossings at which not be relied upon for a comprehensive
railroads. The Fort Worth & Western horns are silenced for a portion of the discussion of all final rule changes.
Railroad, New Orleans & Gulf Coast day (typically during nighttime hours). Indeed, this full document should be
Railroad, and the Idaho Northern & The final rule thus addresses the read together with the previous
Pacific Railroad submitted comments continuation and establishment of such documents issued in the proceeding.
recommending that the final rule ‘‘partial quiet zones.’’ Inasmuch as the Interim Final Rule and
require local communities to assume Under the final rule, communities Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
any increased liability that would result with Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones (see contained extensive discussion of both
from quiet zone creation. The Fort § 222.9 for the complete definition of the background of the issues involved in
Worth & Western Railroad submitted ‘‘Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones’’) must this rulemaking and the rationale
additional comments asserting that comply with Pre-Rule Quiet Zone behind decisions relating to those
public authorities that establish a quiet standards, in order to continue existing issues, FRA emphasizes that this Final
zone should provide funding for any restrictions on the use of the locomotive Rule should be read in conjunction with
increase in railroad liability insurance horn. However, Pre-Rule Partial Quiet the Interim Final Rule and Notice of
premiums that may result from railroad Zones that do not qualify for automatic Proposed Rulemaking. Unless the
operations within quiet zones. Caltrain approval under § 222.41(a) will be given positions and rationale expressed in
submitted comments asserting that the additional time within which to come those documents have explicitly
sponsoring public authority should be into compliance, provided the public changed in the subsequent rulemaking
required to indemnify railroads and authority complies with the documents, the reader should
hold them harmless from claims that requirements set forth in §§ 222.41(b) understand that those positions and
arise within the quiet zone. and 222.43. Communities that wish to rationale remain those of FRA.
FRA has refrained from adding convert their pre-existing partial whistle
language to the final rule that would bans into 24-hour quiet zones will, Summary of Changes to the Interim
expressly prohibit the railroad industry however, be required to comply with Final Rule
from requiring public authorities to New Quiet Zone standards. (Please refer • The final rule clarifies FRA’s
enter into indemnification and hold to the Section-by-Section Analysis of position that it is not intended to
harmless agreements, as a condition of § 222.41 for further information about preempt administrative procedures
obtaining railroad consent to the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone required under State law regarding
installation of grade crossing safety requirements.) grade crossing warning system
improvements within proposed quiet Communities that had partial whistle modifications and installations. (See
zones. The provisions contained within, bans in place as of December 18, 2003 § 222.7 for more information.)
as well as the overall legality of, (the interim final rule publication date), • Surface-mounted tubular
indemnification and hold harmless but after October 9, 1996, may qualify delineators have been removed from the
agreements between railroads and local for Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone list of approved Supplementary Safety
communities are largely governed by status. (Please refer to § 222.9 for a Measures (SSMs). Tubular delineators
State contract law and FRA has been definition of Intermediate Partial Quiet may only be used as SSMs under the
given no general charge to adjust these Zones.) Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones final rule if they have been affixed to
interests. may continue existing restrictions on raised longitudinal channelizers. (See
In fact, FRA is not persuaded that the use of the locomotive horn for one appendix A for more information.)
railroads will, in most cases, enjoy year. However, Intermediate Partial • The final rule provides a one-year
significant power that could be used Quiet Zones must comply with New grace period to comply with New Quiet
inappropriately in this context. State Quiet Zone standards by the end of the Zone standards for communities with
and local governments retain authority one-year grace period, in order to pre-existing whistle bans that were in
to determine appropriate traffic control prevent the resumption of routine effect on December 18, 2003, but were
devices and roadway improvements at locomotive horn sounding at public adopted after October 9, 1996. These
highway-rail grade crossings. In a grade crossings within the former quiet communities are considered
‘‘Intermediate’’ Quiet Zones under the permit establishment of quiet zones if but that the estimate for the Chicago
final rule. (See § 222.42 for more supplementary safety measures were Region was not statistically significant
information.) implemented at every crossing within a at conventional levels. We further noted
• The final rule addresses quiet zones proposed quiet zone. The qualitative reasons why the lower
that prohibit sounding of horns during supplementary safety measures estimate appeared to make sense (e.g.,
a portion of the day. These are referred specified in the Order, although similar, discretionary selection by railroads of
to as Partial Quiet Zones. are not the same as those contained in crossings subject to no-whistle policies,
• The final rule requires diagnostic this final rule. FRA recognizes that the high train counts supporting strong
team reviews of pedestrian crossings SSMs, and the conditions on their motorist expectations concerning the
that are located within proposed New implementation contained in this rule, presence of a train, Metra’s emphasis on
Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet provide communities substantially locomotive conspicuity measures).
Zones. (See § 222.27 for more greater flexibility in creating quiet zones Commenters on the interim final rule
information.) than those in the Order. have continued to question FRA’s
• The final rule requires quiet zone Therefore, the provisions of this final position on this issue. Commenters
communities to retain automatic bells at rule will apply to all grade crossings outside the Chicago area seek the benefit
public highway-rail grade crossings that within the State of Florida when E.O. 15 of their own regional estimates (which
are subject to pedestrian traffic. (See is rescinded. FRA conducted a public are not achievable given the smaller
§ 222.35(d) for more information.) conference on April 15, 2005, and number of relatively homogenous
• The definition of ‘‘public authority’’ solicited comments on the appropriate crossings available for analysis), and
has been revised under the final rule to excess risk estimate that should be commenters from Chicago claim that the
include only those public entities who applied when routine use of the lower estimate is too high (and should
are responsible for traffic control and locomotive horn is prohibited at be set at 0%, requiring no safety offset
law enforcement at public highway-rail highway-rail grade crossings that are for loss of the train horn as an auditory
grade crossings. (See § 222.9 for more currently subject to E.O. 15. FRA warning to the motorist).
information.) intends to amend the final rule to In response to the IFR, the Village of
• The final rule extends ‘‘recognized specifically address this issue, after Arlington Heights, City of Chicago,
State agency’’ status to State agencies considering comments and testimony Northwest Municipal Conference,
who wish to participate in the quiet provided at the public conference from Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, and the
zone development process. (See interested parties. Chicago Area Transportation Study
§ 222.17 for more information.) (‘‘Chicago Region commenters’’)
7. Chicago Regional Issues
• The final rule contains a 60-day submitted a study by TransInfo LLC and
comment period on quiet zone The six-county Chicago Region is host the University of Illinois at Chicago
applications. (See § 222.39(b) for more to the largest rail terminal in the United (‘‘TransInfo-UIC study’’), which
information.) States, and it accounts for the biggest concluded that ‘‘* * * there is no
• The final rule requires public concentration of ‘‘whistle bans’’ and reason to believe that in northeastern
authorities to provide notification of associated casualties in the nation. Illinois, banning the sounding of horns
their intent to create a New Quiet Zone. Chicago communities and industries increases the chance of collisions at
During the 60-day period after the have grown up with, and around this gated highway-rail crossings.’’ The
Notice of Intent is mailed, comments extensive rail network, while the entire TransInfo-UIC study noted that the
may be submitted to the public Chicago metropolitan area has 17.3% excess risk estimate was not
authority. (See § 222.43(b) for more benefitted from an extensive commuter statistically significant at conventional
information.) rail system established by the State and levels. Given this lack of significance,
• The final rule provides quiet zone funded by the State, region, and Federal the TransInfo-UIC study asserted
risk reduction credit for certain pre- government. As stated in the interim ‘‘ * * * one must then accept the
existing SSMs. (See appendix A for final rule, the unique aspects of hypothesis of no difference in the effects
more information.) locomotive horn sounding at public of a ban on horn soundings * * * ’’
• The final rule provides quiet zone grade crossings within the Chicago Using the same data set as FRA’s
risk reduction credit for pre-existing Region have contributed to the need for contractor, Westat, Inc., TransInfo LLC
modified SSMs. (See appendix B for different treatment for those crossings and the University of Illinois at Chicago
more information.) that have been subject to pre-existing developed alternative statistical models.
• The final rule contains a new whistle bans. Their seemingly preferred model
category of ASMs that addresses produced a ¥26.4% effectiveness rate
Excess Risk Estimate for Gated
engineering improvements other than (compared to +17.3% from the Westat
Crossings Subject to Existing Whistle
modified SSMs. (See appendix B for model) that was statistically significant
Bans in the Chicago Region
more information.) at the conventional 5% level. TransInfo-
• The minimum sound level for In the interim final rule, FRA UIC also raised questions about possible
wayside horns has been reduced to 92 explained at some length why the collinearity in the Westat model.
dB(A). (See appendix E for more agency had decided to apply an excess FRA provided the TransInfo/UIC
information.) risk estimate of 17.3% to Chicago study to its contractor, Westat, for
Region gated crossings. We noted that analysis. While acknowledging that its
6. E.O. 15 Status Chicago Region no-whistle gated estimate lacks statistical significance at
Emergency Order 15, issued in 1991, crossings have a statistical profile that is conventional levels (a point made
requires the Florida East Coast Railway distinctly different from gated whistle explicitly by Westat in reporting its
Company to sound locomotive horns at ban crossings in the rest of the Nation. 2003 findings), Westat indicated that
all public grade crossings. The We explained that analysis conducted this does not mean that one must accept
Emergency Order preempted State and for FRA by a statistical firm, Westat, the hypothesis of no difference in
local laws that permitted nighttime bans Inc., arrived at the 17.3% excess risk collision rates between horn and no-
on the use of locomotive horns. estimate for gated crossings in contrast horn crossings. Westat noted that ‘‘[i]n
Amendments to the Order did, however, to a national excess risk figure of 66.8%, a statistical study, absence of evidence
against a hypothesis is not conclusive The Mayors Caucus filing (FRA–1999– FRA is required by law to issue a final
evidence for the hypothesis. * * * The 6439–3770) called attention to direction rule requiring use of the train horn. The
hypothesis may be true, or false, in the provided in February 2002 by the Office agency is not required to provide
absence of evidence against it, we of Management and Budget to develop exceptions to use of the train horn,
simply do not know.’’ After reviewing and implement data quality standards. except to the extent that it is useful to
the TransInfo-UIC seemingly preferred The commenters specifically questioned take into consideration the interests of
model, Westat found that it has biased the quality of the National Highway-Rail communities with pre-existing bans.
residuals and that it systematically Crossing Inventory, which is maintained Nevertheless, FRA has aggressively
underpredicts collisions for the Chicago by FRA on behalf of States, railroads sought from the beginning of this
area ban crossings. and other users. The Inventory was used effort—including before enactment of
In 2004, Westat developed a model to generate risk estimates for use in the any requirement to consider the
that tested the sensitivity of the Westat Westat and TransInfo-UIC studies.1 interests of pre-rule ban communities—
2003 model which was used to develop FRA recognizes that, in a voluntarily- to craft suitable exceptions. Providing
the interim final rule. This 2004 model populated database that provides for quiet zones is a goal embraced by
supports earlier findings and the FRA information for over 149,000 public at- virtually all commenters in this
conclusion that collision rates at gated grade crossings, there are individual proceeding, and in order to do it fairly
crossings where train horns are not errors. For instance, in conducting and effectively, FRA must utilize the
routinely sounded in the Chicago area additional review of Chicago Region best data available.
are higher than at gated crossings in the crossings equipped with flashing lights FRA has proceeded with development
rest of the nation (except Florida) where only, FRA recently determined that of this rulemaking with the belief,
horns are routinely sounded. several of them have been upgraded by founded on daily use of Inventory
Westat compared the TransInfo-UIC, the addition of gates. State authorities information for a variety of purposes,
Westat 2003, and Westat 2004 models and railroads apparently had not that while some of the data are older
and found that the two Westat models reported the improvements to FRA’s than would be desired, there are not
are superior for estimating the effect of contractor. This is the typical type of patterns in the inventory that would
train horns at gated crossings in problem encountered when a significant create biased results as between train
Chicago. Both Westat models fit the data minority of records are simply out of horn crossings and whistle ban
better and avoid the biased residuals date. crossings or in any regional analysis. In
found in the TransInfo-UIC model. The commenters suggest that FRA making their data quality argument, the
Since there is some evidence of ‘‘correct the data’’ before undertaking Chicago Region commenters do not
numerical instability in the Westat 2004 further analysis. FRA meets regularly allege specific bias or suggest a reason
model, Westat prefers the Westat 2003 with railroads and with State agencies why there could be such a bias. If FRA
model. Westat also tested the Westat cannot rely upon the Inventory data for
responsible for highway-rail crossing
2003 model for collinearity and found purposes of this rulemaking, then FRA
safety. FRA strongly encourages
that (1) since approximately 76 percent would lack a rational basis for
submissions from these parties, which
of the effect of the no-horn parameter permitting any exceptions to the
typically have more recent data
was independent of the other model statutory command that train horns
available for their own purposes. The
parameters, there was no confirmation sound at highway-rail grade crossings.
U.S. Department of Transportation has
of collinearity, (2) although there was Nevertheless, FRA agrees that, when
four times sent legislation to the
evidence of some possible collinearity dealing with a comparative safety
Congress that would have made regular
among some of the parameters, there performance difference as small as the
updating of the inventory mandatory on
was no such evidence pertaining to the one at issue for gated crossings in the
no-horn parameter, and (3) the test both the State agencies (which are
Chicago Region, and given the poor
statistic for assessing an adverse effect generally recipients of substantial
results for statistical significance and
of collinearity for the no-horn parameter Federal-aid highway funds) and the
model fit for the various approaches, it
was well below the threshold for railroads. The first such legislation was
is wise to explore whether there may be
collinearity, therefore collinearity did transmitted on July 26, 1999. The
any differences in the characteristics of
not pose a serious threat to estimated Congress has not taken final action on
the Inventory data that might
effectiveness of train horns. As a result, this legislation, although a virtually inadvertently introduce bias into the
Westat concluded that its 2003 model identical provision was included in S. analysis.
provided the best representation of 1402, the Federal Railroad Safety FRA had noted during the 10-year
excess risk among the models applied. Improvement Act, which passed the pendency of this rulemaking that much
FRA analysts agreed that the TransInfo- Senate on November 25, 2003, but failed of the data for the Chicago area and the
UIC model did not perform suitably to of final passage with the adjournment of balance of Illinois was badly out of date.
explain crossing risk in the region. the 108th Congress in December of FRA encouraged the State to update the
Westat further concluded that the 2004. Short of mandatory reporting, information, and the State did make a
sample size for the Chicago area is not FRA has no practical means of re- major effort to update average annual
large enough to derive consistent creating the national inventory in a daily traffic in 2003. Because of the
statistical results across different manner acceptable to Chicago Region study period (1997 through 2001) and
statistical models. commenters in this proceeding. the methodology used for retrieval of
Detailed comments by Chicago inventory information, however, most of
1 This criticism was repeated in an October 5,
jurisdictions further questioned the this updated information was not
2004, letter from the CATS Council of Mayors
interim final rule’s statistical basis. For Executive Committee to the Department of
utilized in the Westat or Transinfo-UIC
example, the Metropolitan Mayors Transportation’s Inspector General and in a January analysis (i.e., the updates occurred late
Caucus, acting in concert with the City 26, 2005, letter from eleven Members of Congress in the study period or after its close).
of Chicago and the Chicago Area from Illinois to the Director, Office of Management (The updated information has been used
and Budget. These documents are filed in the
Transportation Study (CATS), stated public docket of this proceeding as Document nos.
in generating corridor risk estimates and
that, ‘‘The FRA’s data quality and model FRA–1999–6439–3918 and FRA–1999–6439–3922, is accessed by the quiet zone web
use is inappropriate for setting policy.’’ respectively. calculator.) FRA concurs that it is
prudent to inquire further into whether Commission has been aggressive in by that region. Noting that the Chicago
known data quality issues—which adding gates at the higher-risk crossings Region was afforded ‘‘a much lower
themselves cannot be effectively over the past several years. There is no effectiveness rate than the rest of the
addressed by FRA without cooperation reason to believe that this will not nation,’’ the City of Cumberland,
from other parties—have the potential to continue. Maryland asserted that the discrepancy
adversely affect the Chicago Region 3. FRA expects to conclude further should be resolved using accurate data
analysis. data analysis regarding the Chicago or the rest of the nation should also be
Therefore, FRA will arrange for an Region gated crossings as soon as accorded the lower excess risk estimate.
independent peer review of its possible and to conclude any necessary Massachusetts Congressman John
conclusion on this issue before issuing final rule amendment as quickly Tierney submitted comments asserting
an amendment to this final rule which thereafter as feasible, given the need for that a number of his constituents
will address Chicago Region crossings. review and clearance of the amendment. ‘‘perceive discriminatory
FRA will respond to the ‘‘peer review Pre-rule quiet zones are expected to be implementation of the rule’’ based on
report’’ and place a copy of its response brought in full conformity with this the rule’s specific exception for the
in the public docket. final rule within 5 to 8 years, depending greater Chicago area. Questioning why
Pending completion of this Chicago upon actions taken by the State to similar analysis was not performed in
Region re-analysis, FRA is excepting support local communities. The further the Northeast, particularly along the
existing Chicago Region no whistle delay associated with temporarily commuter-only rail lines of Boston’s
crossings from the requirement to sound excepting these non-gated crossings North Shore, Congressman Tierney
the train horn. It is FRA’s intention to from the requirement to sound the train asserted that the rule should not be
leave those crossings—and those horn will not be significant. implemented until adequate regional
crossings alone—subject to existing FRA does not perceive any reason to analyses have been completed.
Illinois State Law pending further conduct an entire new series of analyses FRA is not able to provide for separate
rulemaking. Existing no-whistle for the balance of the Nation. Westat’s regional estimates of excess risk.
excusals will stand, and railroads will results for the Nation were statistically Statistically, there are sound reasons for
remain free to sound the horn where significant with good model fit. Given assigning a horn effectiveness rate to
they elect to do so (as is the case today). that whistle bans outside of the Chicago gated crossings in the Chicago area that
In doing so, FRA notes that the most Region involve inventory records from is lower than that for gated crossings in
active challenge made by the Chicago 24 States, FRA cannot conceive any the rest of the country. Westat estimated
authorities has to do with the 17.3% condition under which the Inventory an effectiveness rate for gated crossings
excess risk estimate for gated crossings. records for whistle ban crossings would for the Chicago Region of 17.3% and an
FRA pointed out in the interim final be of materially different quality effectiveness rate for gated crossings in
rule that there are an insufficient (currency and accuracy) than for train the rest of the nation (excluding Florida)
number of non-gated crossings in the horn crossings. of 66.8%. Associated with these point
region to calculate a special excess risk FRA calls attention to the fact that estimates are 95% confidence intervals.2
rate for them. Nor, in the case of many two important sets of data have not been Neither point estimate is contained in
of the non-gated crossings, would all of effectively challenged as to their quality: the 95% confidence interval of the
the same considerations presented by Data regarding highway-rail crossing other. Based on this, Westat noted ‘‘the
Chicago Region commenters apply (e.g., incidents (which is filed under penalty ban effect in the Chicago area is
most of the non-gated crossings are on of law); and the identity of Chicago different from the ban effect in the rest
tracks used by fewer trains, some are on Region crossings (which has been of the nation.’’ Had the point estimate
lines exclusively used for freight meticulously studied and agreed upon for the Chicago Region been within the
service). Nevertheless, FRA is including by the Illinois Commerce Commission 95% confidence interval for the rest of
those non-gated crossings in the and FRA). the nation (excluding Florida), there
temporary exclusion provided in this FRA further notes that there is likely would have been some reason to believe
final rule. The following considerations no transportation safety database that is that the ban effect in the Chicago Region
support this approach: free of imperfections. Use of imperfect was not necessarily different from that
1. Some of the subject crossings are data is greatly to be preferred over in the rest of the nation (excluding
within logical pre-rule quiet zones disregarding of data. But it is important Florida).
comprised principally of gated not to rely excessively on data whose Westat performed a statistical analysis
crossings. It is not reasonable to ask characteristics are poorly understood. at FRA’s direction on no-whistle
public authorities to move forward with Chicago Region commenters in this crossings in Wisconsin and the Chicago
improvement of individual crossings rulemaking have challenged FRA to take Region. These regions were selected for
outside the context of planning for the another look at the data, and FRA will regional statistical analysis because (1)
corridor. Nor would it in every case be do so. commenters argued that safety
cost effective, in comparison with a performance at whistle ban crossings is
corridor approach, to do so. Other Regional Claims
different than in the nation at large, (2)
2. The total risk associated with these FRA also received comments from
the statute provides a basis for
crossings is not high. There are fewer communities in Massachusetts and
addressing their concerns, and (3) they
than 10 non-gated crossings that would Maryland requesting differential
contained a sufficiently large number of
fall in pre-rule quiet zones requiring treatment under the final rule, based on
no-whistle crossings that might support
some form of action to compensate for the characteristics of rail operations in
absence of the train horn (based on the Northeast. Ledyard McFadden of 2 A 95% confidence interval for an estimate
current risk indices and relevant Beverly Farms, Massachusetts accused provides a range over which we are highly
accidents in the past 5 years). Several of FRA of discriminatory implementation confident the true value exists. If we could sample
these are on lines with moderate speeds of the rule, given the ‘‘specific the Chicago area and the rest of the nation many
times and compute corresponding confidence
or very modest annual average daily exception’’ accorded to the Chicago intervals, the true value would be between the
traffic and have individual risk indices Region based on extensive and computed confidence intervals about 95% of the
below the NSRT. The Illinois Commerce expensive statistical analysis provided time.
comparison with national crossing data. data points makes it impractical to subject to whistle bans are often located
Given the relatively low number of derive special estimates for this region, on the same rail lines as other grade
whistle ban crossings in Northeast FRA remains open to dialogue regarding crossings not subject to existing whistle
Massachusetts and Maryland, FRA was circumstances in individual bans, the Town of Riverside, Illinois and
not able to perform a regional statistical communities in the context of waiver the City of Elmhurst, Illinois asserted
analysis of those crossings that would proceedings. that it was illogical to suggest that
yield reliable conclusions. This statutory exception (49 U.S.C. motorists consciously exhibit riskier
It is unusual for FRA to tailor a rule 20153(i)(1)) to the requirement for behavior at one gated crossing over
to the characteristics of one or more national uniformity may be seen as another. The Village of Northbrook,
regions of the country because of the consistent with the policy behind the Illinois asserted that differential
statutory command that ‘‘[l]aws, national uniformity requirement treatment of public crossings implies
regulations, and orders related to because, while it yields varying that drivers need the audible cue at
railroad safety * * * shall be nationally requirements for communities in some crossings, but not at others, in
uniform to the extent practicable.’’ 49 different circumstances, the order to achieve the same level of safety.
U.S.C. 20106. In this case, FRA is requirements for railroads are nationally However, drivers in northeastern
authorized by statute to treat uniform. The policy is aimed at Illinois regularly cross multiple
communities with pre-existing quiet facilitating transportation over the crossings and are not cognizant of
zones differently. Congress directed general system of railroad transportation which crossings are subject to whistle
FRA, in issuing this rule, to ‘‘take into by assuring that railroads face the same bans and which are not. The Village of
account the interest of communities that requirements nationwide—put another Buffalo Grove asserted that different
(A) have in effect restrictions on the way, the railroad system cannot standards should not apply to adjacent
sounding of a locomotive horn at function efficiently if the rules for crossings along the same rail line, while
highway-rail grade crossings; or (B) have operation change across local or state George Pradel, Mayor of Naperville,
not been subject to the routine * * * jurisdictions. Railroads are required Illinois asserted that there is no
sounding of a locomotive horn at nationwide to sound the train horn at difference in motorist behavior at such
highway-rail grade crossings.’’ 49 U.S.C. every highway-rail grade crossing crossings.
20153(i)(1). FRA must, however, have a except those in quiet zones. The FRA is not persuaded by the
rational basis for doing so. As discussed standards for railroad operations remain suggestion that the lower estimate of
above and elsewhere in this Final Rule the same nationwide without regard to excess risk associated with gated no-
and the Interim Final Rule, the Chicago regional variations in the standards whistle crossings in Chicago is
region presented enough data points for local governments must meet in order to applicable to other crossings. As FRA
FRA to rationally distinguish safety establish quiet zones. explained in the interim final rule, one
behavior at no-whistle highway-rail As noted in the interim final rule, of the most important explanatory
grade crossings in the Chicago region FRA investigated a number of options in factors supporting a reduced estimate of
from those in the rest of the country. addressing Chicago area issues. (See excess risk for gated no-whistle
The record does not contain sufficient section 14 of the preamble to the interim crossings in Chicago is discretionary
data for Northeast Massachusetts or final rule, ‘‘Chicago Regional Issues,’’ 68 selection. Railroads have determined
Cumberland, Maryland to enable FRA to FR 70611.) FRA noted then, and that they should sound the horn at a
make similar rational distinctions for reiterates here that the option of using clear majority of crossings in the region
them. Nor have whistle bans in national averages for the entire Nation, where the Illinois Commerce
Massachusetts or Maryland been subject including Chicago, would have been Commission excused use of the horn
to discretionary selection (i.e., there is employed by FRA if the Chicago because of the risk that the railroads
no reason to believe that relatively safer Regional data were not available or their perceive at those crossings. Factors that
crossings were selected for inclusion in use inappropriate. FRA could have drive such decisions may include
ban areas). rationally decided that the limited accident history, reports of ‘‘near hits’’
If a court should conclude that FRA significance of the Chicago Region by train crews, poor crossing geometry,
lacks a rational basis for treating the statistical conclusions did not require poor sight distances on one or more
Chicago region differently than the rest reliance on those conclusions. This approach, absence of active law
of the nation, the Chicago region would would have resulted in a fully enforcement, and other factors. It is, of
then be required to meet the national functional and appropriate final rule course, possible that the excess risk
standard. Such a ruling would not consistent with the Act; a rule FRA associated with silencing the train horn
extend the benefit of the 17.3% excess would not have hesitated issuing. at other crossings in Chicago may be
risk estimate to any other region. However acceptable this option was, it less than the national average due to a
FRA notes the possibility that the would have necessitated according little variety of factors. However, FRA has no
marginal effectiveness of the train horn weight to a sizable body of testimony principled basis for deriving such an
might be smaller in a situation such as from the Chicago Region together with estimate. FRA notes that Illinois
Northeast Massachusetts where the statistical analysis and qualitative authorities have not seen fit to impose
following conditions exist: knowledge of the Chicago Region’s mandatory train horn bans at these
Predominance of commuter rail service unique characteristics. additional crossings, and FRA is
(scheduled service, shorter trains), unwilling to do so except on the basis
moderate speed over crossings adjacent Excess Risk Estimate for New Quiet
required of all New Quiet Zones
to stations, and absence of heavy freight Zones
nationwide.
service on the rail lines. However, the Other commenters from the Chicago
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Region assert that the 17.3% excess risk Chicago Region Proposed Alternate
Authority provides express, as well as estimate attributed to gated crossings Crossing Safety Program
local, service at a number of crossings subject to whistle bans in the Chicago The Village of Arlington Heights, City
proximate to station locations that Region should be applied to all public of Chicago, Northwest Municipal
present significant hazards. Although grade crossings within the Chicago Conference, Metropolitan Mayors
the small number of crossings and other Region. Noting that gated crossings Caucus, and the Chicago Area
Transportation Study (‘‘Chicago Region requirements for quiet zone rail grade crossings and pedestrian
commenters’’) submitted comments development and implementation in the crossings. However, the final rule
asserting that their whistle ban crossings wholesale manner recommended by the addresses private and pedestrian
should qualify for the statutory Chicago Region commenters. FRA also crossings to the extent that they are
exception from the rule’s locomotive finds the proposed safety threshold of located within quiet zones. Given the
horn sounding requirements found at 49 no more than three ‘‘relevant’’ (as limited number of private and
U.S.C. 20153(c)(1)(C). This exception defined by the commenters) collisions pedestrian crossings affected by the
can be applied by FRA to those over a five-year period to be inadequate, rule, FRA has not expanded the scope
categories of highway-rail grade particularly in light of the fact that the of this section.
crossings that do not present a Program would exclude collisions in Section 222.3 What Areas Does This
significant risk with respect to loss of which the driver intentionally drives Regulation Cover?
life or serious personal injury. In around or under activated gates from the
support of their assertion, the Chicago definition of ‘‘relevant collision.’’ Paragraph (a) of this section has not
Region commenters submitted a study Aggressive motorist behavior is part of been revised. A new paragraph (b) has
by TransInfo LLC and the University of the risk that this rule seeks to counter. been added to this section. In the course
Illinois at Chicago (‘‘UIC’’), which It is simply not the case that a motorist of drafting any rule, and especially
concluded that ‘‘* * * based on FRA who would drive around or under a gate when drafting a rule of this complexity
data, there is no reason to believe that cannot be deterred. Absent suicidal and one involving a number of
in the Chicago Area banning the behavior (suicides are not included in sometimes competing interests, FRA
sounding of horns increases the chance FRA safety data), motorists can often be makes a number of difficult decisions.
of collisions at gated public highway- persuaded by a warning that is urgent In doing so, FRA makes every attempt
rail grade crossings.’’ and clearly associated with the to construe and implement statutory
In the alternative, the Chicago Region imminent arrival of the train at the requirements appropriately.
commenters submitted a Proposed crossing. To the extent that State policy Accordingly, paragraph (b) has been
Alternative Crossing Safety Program to overlooks this fact, it fails to address the added to this section to expressly
FRA for consideration. Under this full range of risk addressed by this indicate the intent of FRA that the
proposed program, FRA would delegate rulemaking. provisions of this part are separate and
its authority over quiet zone Nonetheless, within the framework of severable from one another. If any
development and implementation to a uniform national policy, State provision is stayed or determined to be
‘‘an appropriate State agency with agencies can make substantial invalid, it is the intent of FRA that the
railroad safety oversight contributions to the successful remaining provisions shall continue in
responsibilities.’’ While FRA would implementation of quiet zones. In effect.
monitor the effectiveness of the regional response to comments, FRA has added Due to the uncertainty associated with
quiet zone program, the State agency a new provision to the final rule that the excess risk estimate of silencing the
would establish acceptable safety provides a greater role for State agencies locomotive horn at highway-rail grade
thresholds, designate quiet zone status, in the quiet zone development process. crossings in the Chicago Region where
and enforce railroad compliance within This provision will allow State agencies horn sounding was excused by the
quiet zones. For example, the Chicago to submit applications for ‘‘recognized Illinois Commerce Commission and
Region would establish a safety State agency’’ status, under which the where railroads have implemented no-
threshold for quiet crossings of no more agency can choose to participate as a whistle policies, paragraph (c) has been
than three ‘‘relevant’’ collisions over a partner throughout the quiet zone added to exclude those highway-rail
five-year period. If this threshold was development process. FRA envisions grade crossings from the scope of the
ever exceeded at a quiet crossing, the that ‘‘recognized State agencies’’ could final rule pending completion of the
State agency could immediately impose serve as clearinghouses for proposed Chicago Region data re-analysis
routine horn sounding at the crossing. quiet zones, by coordinating the quiet discussed in ‘‘Chicago Regional Issues’’
As stated above, FRA provided the (Supplementary Information, section 7).
zone development process, designating
TransInfo/UIC study to its contractor,
crossings that are eligible for Pre-Rule Section 222.5 What Railroads Does
Westat, Inc., a nationally respected
Quiet Zone and Intermediate Quiet This Regulation Apply To?
statistical research firm, for analysis.
Zone status, and/or participating in This section describes the railroads to
After reviewing the study, Westat
concluded that the model used by diagnostic team reviews of crossings. which this regulation applies. The
TransInfo/UIC produced biased Therefore, FRA encourages State regulation applies to every railroad with
estimates. Westat also concluded that its agencies who, like the Illinois a number of listed exceptions. The
original model, which estimated a Commerce Commission, would like to regulation does not apply to (1)
17.3% risk increase at whistle ban take a proactive role in the quiet zone railroads exclusively operating freight
crossings in the Chicago Region, development process to submit trains only on track which is not part of
constituted the best estimate of excess applications for ‘‘recognized State the general railroad system of
risk available. Given this increase in agency’’ status. transportation; (2) passenger railroads
risk, FRA has not, as of this date, Section-by-Section Analysis that operate only on track which is not
applied the statutory exception to part of the general railroad system of
whistle ban crossings in the Chicago Section 222.1 What Is the Purpose of transportation and that operate at a
Region. However, FRA has excepted This Regulation? maximum speed of 15 miles per hour
pre-rule no-whistle crossings in the This section was not revised in the over public grade crossings; and (3)
Region from the requirement to sound final rule. Noting that the interim final rapid transit operations within an urban
the train horn pending further analysis. rule already addressed private crossings, area that are not connected to the
In addition, FRA has not adopted the the AAR submitted comments general railroad system of
Proposed Alternative Crossing Safety recommending the revision of this transportation.
Program. FRA cannot delegate its section to state that the purpose of this Paragraph (a) of this section was not
statutory authority to prescribe rule is to provide for safety at highway- revised in the final rule. However,
paragraph (b) of this section was revised application of Part 222. FRA may then operate in densely populated areas. FRA
in response to comments received from grant relief, depending on the has not, however, revised paragraph (c)
the Association of Railway Museums. underlying circumstances of each case. to cover commuter rail service.
Noting that the interim final rule would New Jersey Transit Corporation (‘‘NJ Commuter rail service, unlike rapid
require tourist and excursion railroads Transit’’) also submitted comments transit operations, operates on the
to limit their operating speeds to 15 requesting clarification of the rule’s general railroad system of
miles per hour over all railroad trackage, applicability to light rail systems that transportation, often over the same
the Association of Railway Museums operate on the general railroad system trackage over which freight railroads
recommended that the rule be revised to pursuant to an FRA-approved Temporal operate. In addition, the equipment
exclude passenger railroads that operate Separation Plan. NJ Transit urged FRA used in commuter rail service carries
on track which is not part of the general to exempt these light rail operations substantial weight which, in turn,
railroad system of transportation and from the application of the rule based requires significant stopping distances.
that operate at a maximum speed of 15 on the distinct nature of light rail Even though the commuter rail service
mph over public grade crossings. The equipment (i.e., light rail vehicles weigh in Manchester-by-the-Sea may entirely
Association of Railway Museums less than conventional rail equipment consist of short passenger trains, the
asserted that precedent for this and have superior stopping longer stopping distances associated
recommendation could be found in 49 capabilities). with conventional commuter rail
CFR 229.125, which requires operative FRA also received comments from operations necessitate advance warning
auxiliary lights on each lead locomotive individuals in Riverton, New Jersey who of their impending arrival at grade
operating at a speed greater than 20 mph requested that the rule be revised to crossings, absent additional safety
over public grade crossings. After exempt light rail operations from the measures that mitigate existing risk.
considering these comments, FRA scope of the rule. Mark Schneider
submitted comments requesting that the Section 222.7 What Is This
determined that passenger operations Regulation’s Effect on State and Local
that operate on track which is not part final rule be revised to exclude the light
rail operation in the historic town of Laws and Ordinances?
of the general railroad system of
transportation could be exempted from Riverton, New Jersey, which, he states, This section contains a statement of
the rule’s locomotive horn sounding is one of five light rail operations in the FRA’s intent regarding the preemptive
requirements, provided these operations nation that can ‘‘stop on a dime.’’ effect of this final rule. While the
Catherine Wheelhouse, owner of the presence or absence of such a section
are limited to 15 mph over public
Thomas Margaret Fine Art Gallery, does not conclusively establish the
highway-rail grade and pedestrian
submitted comments asserting that light preemptive effect of a final rule, it
crossings. Therefore, FRA has revised
rail operations should be evaluated provides information to the public about
paragraph (b) accordingly.
under a different set of criteria because the statutory provisions that govern the
Paragraph (c) of this section has not these operations consist of slower preemptive effect of the rule and FRA’s
been revised. The California Public moving vehicles that provide a very position on this issue.
Utilities Commission (‘‘California PUC’’) large area of visibility for the operator. Paragraph (a) has been revised in the
submitted comments asserting that the Given the unique characteristics of final rule to provide clarification as to
rule should be revised to exclude rapid individual light rail operations and the the preemptive effect of the rule on
transit operations that share highway- fact that freight operations over shared State laws governing the sounding of the
rail grade crossings with conventional crossings will generally sound the horn locomotive horn at public highway-rail
operations but do not share trackage. In (creating motorist expectations that grade crossings. 49 U.S.C. 20106 states
its comments, the California PUC noted should be considered in planning for that all regulations prescribed by the
that rapid transit operations exhibit safety), FRA has not provided an Secretary relating to railroad safety
different risk patterns and hazards than exemption for all light rail operations in preempt any State law, regulation, or
conventional rail operations. For the final rule. However, FRA would be order covering the same subject matter,
instance, rapid transit operations feature willing to consider any waivers filed except a provision necessary to
shorter consist lengths, different overall under § 222.15, for relief from the eliminate or reduce an essentially local
visibility profiles, and greater braking requirements of this part, on a case-by- safety hazard that is not incompatible
abilities. If the rule is applied to rapid case basis. These requests can be with a Federal law, regulation, or order
transit operations that share highway- considered within existing ‘‘shared use’’ and that does not unreasonably burden
rail grade crossings with conventional dockets and after consultation with the interstate commerce. However, the
operations, rapid transit operations Federal Transit Administration and highway-rail grade crossings described
would be required to sound the horn State Safety Oversight agencies. in § 222.3(c) are exempt from the scope
more frequently at crossings and to use The Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea, of the final rule. Therefore, except as
a much louder horn than is being Massachusetts also submitted comments provided in paragraph (b) of this
currently used. FRA notes that § 229.129 recommending that the exemption set section, this final rule shall preempt any
continues to exclude all rapid transit forth in paragraph (c) be expanded to State statutory or common law, local
operations from the audible warning cover commuter rail service. Noting that ordinance or State or local regulatory
sound level requirements. Therefore, its commuter rail service consists of agency rule governing locomotive horn
rapid transit operations that share short passenger trains, generally not use at public highway-rail grade
highway-rail grade crossings with longer than seven or eight cars, the crossings. As for the highway-rail grade
conventional operations will not be Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea asserted crossings described in § 222.3(c),
required to use louder horns to provide that motorists are not tempted to ‘‘beat’’ paragraph (b) states that the final rule
an audible warning at public highway- the train to the crossing and are willing will not have any preemptive effect on
rail grade crossings. However, rapid to wait for it to travel through the State laws, rules, regulations, or orders
transit operations that share highway- crossing. The Town of Manchester-by- governing the sounding of the
rail grade crossings with conventional the-Sea also drew similarities between locomotive horn at those crossings. Note
operations must file a waiver under commuter rail service and rapid transit that this statement of non-preemptive
§ 222.15 to obtain relief from the operations, as both types of rail service effect applies only to those Chicago
Region highway-rail grade crossings empowered with exclusive authority ‘‘Chicago Region’’ means the
described in § 222.3(c). Thus, it does not over grade crossing design and following six counties in the State of
apply to every highway-rail grade modification. The Township of Illinois: Cook, DuPage, Lake, Kane,
crossing in the Chicago Region. Montclair, New Jersey also submitted McHenry and Will.
Paragraph (c) states that the final rule comments requesting clarification of the The definition of ‘‘Crossing Corridor
preempts any State statutory or common State’s role during the quiet zone Risk Index’’ was not revised in the final
law, local ordinance or State or local development process. After reviewing rule. The definition of ‘‘Diagnostic
regulatory agency rule governing these comments, FRA has revised the team’’ was also not revised in the final
locomotive horn use at private and final rule by specifically stating, in rule. The California PUC submitted
pedestrian grade crossings that are paragraph (e), that the rule does not comments recommending that the
located within a duly established quiet preempt State law concerning definition of ‘‘diagnostic team’’ be
zone. This paragraph has been revised administrative procedures for the revised to state that State agencies with
in the final rule to include a reference installation or modification of highway- jurisdiction over grade crossings must
to the rule’s preemptive effect over State rail grade crossing improvements. be included in any diagnostic team.
and local laws governing locomotive However, FRA did not revise the
horn use at pedestrian grade crossings Section 222.9 Definitions definition of ‘‘diagnostic team’’ to
within quiet zones. The definitions of ‘‘Administrator’’, mandate the inclusion of State agencies
Paragraph (d) states that the final rule ‘‘Alternative safety measures (ASMs)’’, with jurisdiction over grade crossings
will not preempt State law regarding use and ‘‘Associate Administrator’’ have not because no funding for diagnostic team
of SSMs and ASMs as traffic control been revised in the final rule. activities has been provided.
measures. However, with the exception ‘‘Channelization device’’ means a ‘‘Effectiveness rate’’ means a number
of SSMs and ASMs implemented at the traffic separation system made up of a
between zero and one which represents
highway-rail grade crossings described the reduction of the likelihood of a
raised longitudinal channelizer, with
in § 222.3(c), the final rule will preempt collision at a public highway-rail grade
vertical panels or tubular delineators
State law governing the sounding of the crossing as a result of the installation of
attached, that is placed between
locomotive horn at highway-rail grade an SSM or ASM when compared to the
opposing highway lanes designed to
crossings equipped with SSMs and/or same crossing equipped with
alert or guide traffic around an obstacle
ASMs. Since the highway-rail grade conventional active warning systems of
or to direct traffic in a particular
crossings described in § 222.3(c) are flashing lights and gates. Zero
direction. ‘‘Tubular markers’’ and
exempt from the scope of the final rule, effectiveness means that the SSM or
‘‘vertical panels’’ as described in
the final rule will not preempt State law ASM provides no reduction in the
sections 6F.57 and 6F.58, respectively,
governing the sounding of the probability of a collision, while an
locomotive horn at those crossings. of the Manual on Uniform Traffic effectiveness rating of one means that
Paragraph (e), which expresses FRA’s Control Devices (‘‘MUTCD’’) issued by the SSM or ASM is totally effective in
intent to refrain from preempting State the Federal Highway Administration, eliminating collision risk.
law concerning administrative are acceptable channelization devices Measurements between zero and one
procedures that must be followed for purposes of this part. Additional reflect the percentage by which the SSM
regarding the installation or design specifications are determined by or ASM reduces the probability of a
modification of engineering the standard traffic design specifications collision. This definition has been
improvements at highway-rail grade used by the governmental entity revised in the final rule to correct a
crossings, has been added to the final constructing the channelization device. typographical error.
rule in response to comments requesting However, FRA notes that it would be The definitions of ‘‘FRA’’ and ‘‘Grade
clarification of the role of State agencies highly advisable to use raised Crossing Inventory Form’’ have not been
that have jurisdiction over highway-rail longitudinal channelizers that are at revised in the final rule.
grade crossing safety. For example, least four inches high. ‘‘Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone’’
while requesting clarification of the FRA revised the definition of means a segment of a rail line within
rule’s effect on the role of State channelization device in the final rule which is situated one or a number of
agencies, the Oregon Department of to reflect the fact that tubular markers consecutive public highway-rail grade
Transportation noted that signal and and vertical panels must now be crossings at which State statutes or local
median installations within the state of attached to raised curbing, in order to ordinances restricted the routine
Oregon must be approved by the Oregon qualify as an SSM. Even though the sounding of locomotive horns for a
Department of Transportation’s Rail interim final rule allowed the use of specified period of time during the
Division. Along the same vein, the tubular markers and vertical panels that evening or nighttime hours, or at which
Missouri Department of Transportation were directly affixed to the pavement as locomotive horns did not sound due to
stated that whenever highway-rail grade Supplementary Safety Measures, FRA formal or informal agreements between
crossings are modified, the Missouri received a number of negative the community and the railroad or
Department of Transportation is comments about the effectiveness and railroads for a specified period of time
required to review and approve plans high maintenance burden associated during the evening and/or nighttime
and issue administrative orders. Noting with the use of this type of roadway hours, and at which such statutes,
that State law gives it exclusive treatment. After considering these ordinances or agreements were in place
jurisdiction over the terms of comments, FRA has removed surface- and enforced or observed as of
installation, operation, maintenance, mounted channelization devices from December 18, 2003, but not as of
use and protection of each crossing, the the list of approved SSMs. Therefore, October 9, 1996.
California Public Utilities Commission the rule has been revised by restricting ‘‘Intermediate Quiet Zone’’ means a
asserted that the interim final rule was the definition of channelization devices segment of a rail line within which is
sufficiently vague that some localities to include only those raised situated one or a number of consecutive
might assume that they could bypass longitudinal channelizers that are public highway-rail grade crossings at
state agencies, such as the California equipped with vertical panels or tubular which State statutes or local ordinances
Public Utilities Commission, that are delineators. restricted the routine sounding of
locomotive horns, or at which ‘‘Partial Quiet Zone’’ means a segment whistle bans enforced or observed as of
locomotive horns did not sound due to of a rail line within which is situated the date of passage of Public Law 104–
formal or informal agreements between one or a number of consecutive public 264, which amended 49 U.S.C. 20153 to
the community and the railroad or highway-rail grade crossings at which require the Secretary to take into
railroads, and at which such statutes, locomotive horns are not routinely account the interest of communities that
ordinances or agreements were in place sounded for a specified period of time ‘‘have in effect’’ restrictions on the
and enforced or observed as of during the evening and/or nighttime sounding of the locomotive horn at
December 18, 2003, but not as of hours. highway-rail grade crossings or have not
October 9, 1996. ‘‘Pedestrian crossing’’ means, for been subject to the routine sounding of
The definitions of ‘‘Locomotive’’, purposes of this part, a separate a locomotive horn at highway-rail grade
‘‘Locomotive horn’’, ‘‘Median’’, designated sidewalk or pathway where crossings. FRA reads the statute as
‘‘MUTCD’’, and ‘‘Nationwide Significant pedestrians, but not vehicles, cross requiring FRA to be particularly
Risk Threshold’’ have not been revised railroad tracks. Sidewalk crossings solicitous of communities that had
in the final rule. contiguous with, or separate but restrictions in effect at the time of the
‘‘New Partial Quiet Zone’’ means a adjacent to, public highway-rail grade 1996 ordinance.
segment of a rail line within which is crossings, are presumed to be part of the The definitions of ‘‘Pre-Rule Quiet
situated one or a number of consecutive public highway-rail grade crossing and Zone’’ and ‘‘Private highway-rail grade
public highway-rail crossings at which are not considered pedestrian crossings crossing’’ have not been revised in the
locomotive horns are not routinely for purposes of this rule. final rule.
sounded between the hours of 10 p.m. The definition for ‘‘Power-out
‘‘Public authority’’ means the public
and 7 a.m., but are routinely sounded indicator’’ has not been revised in the
entity responsible for traffic control or
during the remaining portion of the day, final rule.
‘‘Pre-existing Modified law enforcement at the public highway-
and which does not qualify as a Pre- rail grade or pedestrian crossing. The
Supplementary Safety Measure’’ (Pre-
Rule Partial Quiet Zone. This definition definition of this term has been revised
existing Modified SSM) means a safety
contains a uniform period for the to more accurately reflect the statutory
system or procedure that is listed in
routine silencing of the locomotive appendix A to this Part, but is not fully definition provided in 49 U.S.C. 20153.
horn, which was included in response compliant with the standards set forth In making this revision, FRA is
to comments submitted by the Florida therein, which was installed before responding to comments submitted by
East Coast Railway asserting that December 18, 2003 by the appropriate the American Association of Railroads
different time periods for partial quiet traffic control or law enforcement (‘‘AAR’’) which asserted that, under the
zones would cause operational authority responsible for safety at the definition provided in the interim final
confusion and make compliance highway-rail grade crossing. The rule, multiple entities could qualify for
difficult. calculation of risk reduction credit for public authority status over a set of
‘‘New Quiet Zone’’ means a segment pre-existing modified SSMs is crossings. For example, a county police
of a rail line within which is situated addressed in appendix B of this part. department could have jurisdiction over
one or a number of consecutive public ‘‘Pre-existing Supplementary Safety the same set of crossings that fall under
highway-rail grade crossings at which Measure’’ (Pre-existing SSM) means a the jurisdiction of a State highway
routine sounding of locomotive horns is safety system or procedure established agency. Under such a scenario, the
restricted pursuant to this part and in accordance with this part before county police department and the State
which does not qualify as either a Pre- December 18, 2003 which was provided highway agency would qualify for
Rule Quiet Zone or Intermediate Quiet by the appropriate traffic control or law ‘‘public authority’’ status. By narrowing
Zone. enforcement authority responsible for scope of the definition, FRA is
‘‘Non-traversable curb’’ means a safety at the highway-rail grade attempting to minimize the number of
highway curb designed to discourage a crossing. These safety measures must circumstances in which there may be
motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. fully comply with the SSM multiple entities that can qualify for
Non-traversable curbs, which are used requirements set forth in appendix A. public authority status over a single set
at locations where highway speeds do The calculation of risk reduction credit of crossings. While the definition refers
not exceed 40 miles per hour, are at for qualifying pre-existing SSMs is to the entity ‘‘responsible for traffic
least six inches high. Additional design addressed in appendix A of this part. control or law enforcement’’ at the
specifications are determined by the ‘‘Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone’’ means public crossing, FRA does not
standard traffic design specifications a segment of a rail line within which is contemplate that the local police
used by the governmental entity situated one or a number of consecutive department will be the entity creating a
constructing the curb. public highway-rail crossings at which quiet zone. Instead, the public entity
FRA revised this definition in the State statutes or local ordinances having control over that law
final rule to correct a typographical restricted horns for a specified period of enforcement agency would be the more
error and to remove the maximum time during the evening and/or appropriate entity. Thus, if city police
height requirement contained within the nighttime hours, or at which locomotive patrol the crossing, the city government,
interim final rule. The interim final rule horns did not sound due to formal or rather than the actual city police
defined non-traversable curbs as being informal agreements between the department, would be the appropriate
more than six inches, but no more than community and the railroad or railroads entity.
nine inches high. As noted by SEH, Inc., for a specified period of time during the ‘‘Public highway-rail grade crossing’’
this definition would exclude the evening and/or nighttime hours, and at means, for purposes of this part, a
standard six-inch curb frequently used which such statutes, ordinances or location where a public highway, road,
by governmental entities. Therefore, agreements were in place and enforced or street, including associated sidewalks
FRA has revised the definition to or observed as of October 9, 1996 and or pathways, crosses one or more
include the standard six-inch curbs that on December 18, 2003. railroad tracks at grade. If a public
are frequently used by governmental The definition of Pre-Rule Partial authority maintains the roadway on
entities. Quiet Zone specifically includes partial both sides of the crossing, the crossing
is considered a public crossing for or rail car. For purposes of Pre-Rule Section 222.11 What Are the Penalties
purposes of this part. Partial Quiet Zones, a relevant collision for Failure To Comply With This
The definition of public highway-rail shall not include collisions that occur Regulation?
grade crossing has been revised in the during the time period within which the This section has been revised in the
final rule. The Florida Department of locomotive horn is routinely sounded. final rule to reflect the May 2004
Transportation submitted comments
A specific exception has been added inflation adjustment of FRA’s maximum
asserting that the definition of public
to the definition of ‘‘relevant collision’’ and minimum civil monetary penalties.
highway-rail grade crossing in the
for Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. This Under the final rule issued on May 28,
interim final rule is inconsistent with
exception has been added to the final 2004 (69 FR 30591), FRA increased its
the definition of public road provided in
Title 23 of the United States Code. rule to ensure that only those relevant minimum civil penalty from $500 to
Noting that grade crossings owned and collisions which occur during periods $550 and its maximum civil penalty
maintained on one side by a private when the locomotive horn is silenced where a grossly negligent violation or
entity are generally considered to be will be considered for purposes of pattern of repeated violations has
private crossings, the AAR also § 222.41(b). created an imminent hazard of death or
submitted comments expressing FRA received comments from Metra injury or has actually caused death of
concern that the definition provided by recommending that the definition of injury from $22,000 to $27,000.
the interim final rule would include a ‘‘relevant collision’’ be revised to Section 222.13 Who Is Responsible for
number of crossings that are currently exclude collisions that were deemed Compliance?
considered private crossings. As a intentional on the part of the driver and
result, the interim final rule would This section has not been revised in
collisions caused by driver impairment
require routine horn sounding at many the final rule.
due to consumption of alcohol or
crossings where horns are not currently controlled substances. The City of Section 222.15 How Does One Obtain
sounded. After considering these Cumberland, Maryland also submitted a Waiver of a Provision of This
comments, FRA revised the definition of comments recommending that the Regulation?
public highway-rail grade crossing to definition of ‘‘relevant collision’’ be The California PUC submitted
reflect the generally-accepted industry revised to exclude collisions in which comments recommending that the rule
standard of having a public roadway on the driver was under the influence of be revised to require that any petition
both sides of the crossing. drugs or alcohol and collisions in which
The definition of ‘‘Quiet Zone’’ has for waiver must come before the State
the driver committed suicide. However, agency responsible for grade crossings.
not been revised in the final rule. FRA did not revise the definition of
‘‘Quiet Zone Risk Index’’ means a The California PUC asserted that, at the
‘‘relevant collision’’ to exclude these very least, the State agency responsible
measure of risk to the motoring public types of collisions because primary
which reflects the Crossing Corridor for crossing safety should be a party to
cause determinations for highway-rail the waiver proceeding and should be
Risk Index for a quiet zone, after grade crossing collisions are matters that
adjustment to account for increased risk given an opportunity to address the
are best left for resolution by the courts. petition. However, FRA notes that the
due to lack of locomotive horn use at
the crossings within the quiet zone (if Lastly, the AAR submitted comments waiver procedures set forth in 49 CFR
horns are presently sounded at the recommending that the definition of part 211 require publication notice of
crossings) and reduced risk due to ‘‘relevant collision’’ be revised to the waiver petition in the Federal
implementation, if any, of SSMs and include collisions at highway-rail grade Register and the public, including State
ASMs with the quiet zone. crossings between a train and a agencies, is encouraged to submit
The calculation of the Quiet Zone pedestrian. While collisions between comments on the waiver petition before
Risk Index, which is explained in trains and pedestrians have been FRA issues a decision.
appendix D of this part, does not differ included in the overall calculation of The National League of Cities
for partial quiet zones. FRA calculates grade crossing risk, FRA has not revised submitted comments recommending
risk on a 24-hour basis for all quiet the definition of ‘‘relevant collisions’’ to that the scope of this section be
zones, even if restrictions on locomotive include collisions between trains and expanded to include multi-
horn use have only been imposed pedestrians because pedestrian jurisdictional quiet zones. By expanding
during the nighttime hours. collisions are not relevant on the direct this section to include multi-
The definition of ‘‘Railroad’’ has not issue of motorist decision-making. jurisdictional quiet zone disputes, FRA
been revised in the final rule. would make the final decision with
‘‘Risk Index With Horns’’ means a
‘‘Recognized State agency’’ means, for respect to whether quiet zone status
measure of risk to the motoring public
purposes of this part, a State agency, should be granted or denied in those
when locomotive horns are routinely instances in which an individual
responsible for highway-rail grade
sounded at every public highway-rail jurisdiction is in opposition to a
crossing safety or highway and road
grade crossing within a quiet zone. In proposed multi-jurisdictional quiet
safety, that has applied for and been
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule zone. However, FRA is unwilling to
approved by FRA as a participant in the
Partial Quiet Zones, the Risk Index With allow the waiver process to be used by
quiet zone development process.
‘‘Relevant collision’’ means a collision Horns is determined by adjusting the one jurisdiction to impose its proposed
at a highway-rail grade crossing between Crossing Corridor Risk Index to account quiet zone and all resultant
a train and a motor vehicle, excluding for the decreased risk that would result responsibilities upon its neighbor.
the following: A collision resulting from if locomotive horns were routinely Therefore, the changes requested by the
an activation failure of an active grade sounded at each public highway-rail National League of Cities will not be
crossing warning system; a collision in grade crossing. made.
which there is no driver in the motor The definitions of ‘‘Supplementary This section has been revised,
vehicle; or a collision in which the safety measure (SSM)’’, ‘‘Waiver’’, and however, to conform to the statutory
highway vehicle struck the side of the ‘‘Wayside horn’’ have not been revised requirements of §§ 20153(d) and
train beyond the fourth locomotive unit in the final rule. 201553(I)(3). Accordingly, paragraph (b)
has been revised to require that in the grade crossing safety. The North Paragraph (b) provides that FRA will
event the railroad and public authority Carolina Department of Transportation approve the State agency application if
cannot reach agreement to file a joint recommended that State departments of the proposed scope of involvement will,
petition, the filing party, in addition to transportation serve as clearinghouses in the Associate Administrator’s
specifying in its petition the steps it has for quiet zone requests, so that State judgment, facilitate safe and effective
taken in an attempt to reach agreement agencies could be involved in safety quiet zone development. However, the
with the other party, must also explain evaluations for each proposed quiet Associate Administrator reserves the
why applying the requirement for a zone. right to impose additional conditions as
jointly filed submission under Other State agencies submitted may be necessary to ensure effective
paragraph (a) would not be likely to comments requesting a more expansive coordination between the State agency
contribute significantly to public safety. role during the quiet zone development and FRA during the quiet zone
If the Associate Administrator process. The Ohio Public Utilities development process.
determines that applying the Commission and the California Public Section 222.21 When Must a
requirement for a jointly filed Utilities Commission submitted Locomotive Horn Be Used?
submission to that particular petition comments recommending that all
would not be likely to significantly proposed quiet zones be reviewed and Paragraph (a) of this section
contribute to public safety, the approved by State grade crossing establishes the duty to sound the
Associate Administrator shall waive the regulatory agencies. Similarly, the Ohio locomotive horn when approaching a
requirement for a joint submission and Rail Association submitted comments public highway-rail grade crossing. The
accept the petition for consideration. recommending that the final rule extend locomotive horn shall be sounded when
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section to States the power to determine what the lead locomotive or cab car is
have not been revised in the final rule. approaching a public highway-rail grade
oversight and safety standards need to
crossing. This paragraph also requires
Section 222.17 How Can a State be applied when communities seek
the sounding of the locomotive horn in
Agency Become a Recognized State quiet zones. FRA also received a
a pattern of two long, one short, and one
Agency? Proposed Alternative Crossing Program
long blast, which shall be initiated at
This section sets forth the procedure from the Chicago Region, under which
the location specified in paragraph (b) of
that shall be followed by a State agency FRA would delegate the authority to
this section. The locomotive horn
responsible for highway-rail grade implement and manage quiet zone
sounding pattern shall be repeated or
crossing safety and/or highway and road development to an appropriate State
prolonged until the locomotive or train
safety in order to become a recognized agency with railroad safety oversight
occupies the crossing. However, the
State agency. Even though the specific responsibilities. horn sounding pattern may be varied as
functions of a recognized State agency After considering these comments, necessary where crossings are spaced
are subject to agreement between the FRA decided to create a process by closely together.
State agency and FRA, FRA envisions which State agencies who are interested FRA revised this paragraph in
that a recognized State agency could act in having a greater role in quiet zone response to comments received from the
as a quiet zone clearinghouse by development can provide assistance to AAR which noted an inconsistency in
providing guidance on appropriate SSM FRA throughout the quiet zone the locomotive horn sounding
selection, ensuring that proposed grade development process. As suggested by requirements imposed by the first two
crossing improvements comply with the North Carolina Department of sentences in the interim final rule. The
FRA regulations and State Transportation, recognized State first sentence of this paragraph
administrative rules, securing all agencies could serve as clearinghouses originally required the sounding of the
necessary State administrative for proposed quiet zones by locomotive horn when the locomotive
approvals, and ensuring that all coordinating quiet zone creation and or lead car approached and passed
required public authority notification verifying local compliance with all through a public grade crossing.
packages comply with FRA regulations. applicable FRA regulations and State However, the second sentence in the
FRA does not, however, plan to delegate laws and administrative rules. However, interim final rule required that the
any authority to approve quiet zone as stated above, FRA does not plan to sounding of the locomotive horn be
applications or to establish acceptable delegate any authority to approve quiet repeated or prolonged until the
risk thresholds within quiet zones. Nor zone applications or to establish locomotive or train occupied the public
does FRA intend to allow recognized acceptable quiet zone risk thresholds. grade crossing. For the sake of
State agencies to prevent public Paragraph (a) provides that a State consistency, FRA revised the first
authorities from creating quiet zones, if agency responsible for highway-rail sentence of this paragraph to address
the proposed quiet zone qualifies under grade crossing safety and/or highway the initiation of locomotive horn
this rule and all applicable State laws and road safety may become a sounding, so that only the second
and regulations. recognized State agency by submitting sentence of this paragraph refers to the
FRA has added this section to the an application to the Associate duration of the locomotive horn
final rule in response to comments Administrator. This application must sounding requirement.
submitted by State agencies who contain a detailed description of the Paragraph (b) of this section addresses
suggested the need for a larger role in State agency’s proposed scope of the time interval within which the
the quiet zone development process. involvement in the quiet zone locomotive horn shall sound in advance
Asserting that the State’s role was development process, contact of the public highway-rail grade
virtually non-existent under the interim information for the person(s) who will crossing. Under the interim final rule,
final rule, the Minnesota Department of be made available to discuss the State this paragraph (b) required that the
Transportation submitted comments agency application with FRA, and a locomotive horn shall begin sounding at
expressing concern that the interim final statement from State agency counsel least 15 seconds, but no more than 20
rule would allow communities to affirming that the State agency is seconds, before the locomotive enters a
bypass the considerable expertise of authorized to undertake the public highway rail grade crossing. The
State agencies charged with improving responsibilities proposed. paragraph also stated that in no event
shall a locomotive horn be sounded present whistle boards as an aid to their revised to provide the same coverage for
more than one-quarter mile in advance locomotive engineers. public authorities. Along the same lines,
of the crossing. Paragraph (c), which has been added the City of Placentia, California
FRA received comments on this to the final rule, reiterates the fact that submitted comments suggesting that the
paragraph from the North Carolina the highway-rail grade crossings final rule be revised to specify that it is
Department of Transportation and the described in § 222.3(c) have been intended to provide protection from
AAR. North Carolina noted that a train excluded from the scope of the final liability for silencing the train horn to
operating at a speed of 80 mph would rule. Since the horn sounding public authorities, as well as the
only be able to sound its horn for 11 requirements established by this section railroad and train crew. The City of
seconds prior to its arrival at a public will not apply, locomotive horn Placentia also recommended that this
grade crossing. On the other hand, the sounding at these crossings will protection from liability extend to
AAR noted that a train operating at a continue to be governed by State and incidents involving both motor vehicles
speed less than 45 mph would sound its local law. and pedestrians. The Village of
horn for more than 20 seconds, if horn Section 222.23 How Does This Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
sounding was initiated one-quarter mile Regulation Affect Sounding of a Horn submitted comments asserting that by
from the public crossing. During an Emergency or Other not addressing the liability of local
As a result of the comments received, Situations? communities that create quiet zones, the
FRA revised this paragraph. New interim final rule shifts traditional
This section addresses the situations railroad liability away from the party
paragraph (b)(1) provides that, subject to in which the locomotive horn may be
paragraph (b)(2), the locomotive horn that is profiting from the use of the
sounded within a quiet zone. Paragraph tracks and onto local governments. The
shall begin sounding at least 15 seconds, (a)(1) is intended to make clear that a
but no more than 20 seconds, before the City of Sacramento, California
locomotive engineer may sound the
locomotive enters a public highway-rail submitted comments recommending
locomotive horn in emergency
grade crossing. Paragraph (b)(2) that the final rule be revised to state that
situations. Notwithstanding any other
addresses locomotives traveling at the establishment of a quiet zone cannot
provision of the rule, a locomotive
speeds more than 45 mph. That be the basis of a claim against a local
engineer may sound the locomotive
paragraph states that locomotives entity, provided the local entity
horn to provide a warning to vehicle
traveling at speeds in excess of 45 mph established the quiet zone in accordance
operators, pedestrians, trespassers or
shall not begin sounding the horn more with the rule. Along the same lines, the
crews on other trains in an emergency
than one-quarter mile in advance of a Town of Riverside, Illinois submitted
situation if, in the engineer’s sole
public grade crossing, even if the comments suggesting that the final rule
judgment, such action is appropriate in
advance warning provided by the order to prevent imminent injury, death, contain a clear statement that it is not
locomotive will be less than 15 seconds or property damage. Thus, intended to create any new liability for
in duration. Research has shown that establishment of a quiet zone shall not municipalities. The City of West
the effect of a locomotive horn sounded prevent the locomotive engineer from University Place, Texas submitted
at a distance greater than 1⁄4 mile from using his or her discretion to sound the comments suggesting that the final rule
a grade crossing is attenuated to the locomotive horn in emergency be revised by including broad language
extent that it does not provide adequate situations. that eliminates liability—either civil or
warning to the motorist. There is thus The AAR submitted comments on the criminal—for public and private
no need to sound the horn beyond this interim final rule recommending that organizations and individuals who
point. Eliminating the extra distance this paragraph be revised to specifically participate in quiet zone establishment.
over which the horn is sounded will state that sounding of the locomotive As stated in the interim final rule,
reduce its noise impact on nearby horn to warn animals constitutes an FRA intends to protect from liability the
residences and businesses without emergency situation that would justify locomotive engineer who, in accordance
affecting safety at grade crossings. horn sounding within a quiet zone. FRA with this rule and railroad operating
The Brotherhood of Locomotive agrees that sounding the locomotive rules that were established in response
Engineers and Trainmen submitted horn to warn animals that are to the creation of a quiet zone, does not
comments reiterating the importance of trespassing on, or near the track, sound the locomotive horn. As for the
retaining whistle posts in their current constitutes an emergency situation that public authority that creates a quiet
locations to help locomotive engineers justifies horn sounding within a quiet zone in accordance with this part, FRA
gauge their distance from upcoming zone. Therefore, the rule has been expects that the courts will apply the
public crossings. Asserting that the revised accordingly. standard of care set by this rule,
location of upcoming grade crossings Paragraph (a)(2) is intended to clarify inasmuch as any quiet zone established
can often only be determined in that while the rule does not preclude in accordance with this part will have
reference to permanent whistle boards, the sounding of the locomotive horn in been established in accordance with
the Metropolitan Transit Authority emergency situations, the rule also does federal law and FRA’s intention to
submitted comments asserting that it not impose a legal duty to do so. FRA preempt State law is expressly stated.
would be virtually impossible for received a number of comments from This rule, in effect, establishes the
locomotive engineers to comply with communities throughout the country standard of care for the creation of quiet
the rule, given the range of speeds over who were concerned that the limited zones and the sounding of train horns,
which trains are operated. Although scope of this provision does not shield providing reassurance both to railroads
FRA has not received many comments public authorities from liability for and communities that no plaintiff will
from locomotive engineers and their silencing the routine use of the prevail on the basis that an audible
representatives asserting that there may locomotive horn within quiet zones. For warning has been withheld. Further,
be substantial difficulties in complying example, the Village of Hinsdale, this rulemaking does nothing to
with the time-based horn sounding Illinois asserted that the interim final undermine the sovereign immunity of
requirements contained within this rule, rule exempts railroads from liability and State and local governments, where they
FRA encourages railroads to retain recommended that the final rule be have asserted it.
Paragraph (b) of this section addresses would entitle a local community to crossings. Responsibility will be
situations involving warning system establish a quiet zone without railroad determined under normal principles of
malfunctions, in which use of the input because the importance of property law and based upon whatever
locomotive horn within a quiet zone receiving such input during the contracts and cooperative agreements
shall be allowed. These situations planning process cannot be overlooked. that may have been entered into by the
include instances in which active grade The Fort Worth & Western Railroad, parties. It is, however, expected that the
crossing warning devices have New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railroad, and public authority seeking to establish a
malfunctioned and use of the the Idaho Northern & Pacific Railroad quiet zone would assume responsibility
locomotive horn is required by submitted comments recommending for funding any necessary
§§ 234.105, 234.106, or 234.107 of title that the interim final rule be revised to improvements, the private crossing
49, Code of Federal Regulations. These establish a proactive review process by owner would agree to the installation of
situations also include instances in railroads on the potential impacts of any necessary improvements, and the
which a grade warning system is proposed quiet zones. The Southern railroad would assume practical
temporarily out of service for California Regional Rail Authority responsibility for maintenance of any
inspection, testing, or maintenance commented that the final rule should automated warning systems at the
purposes. The final rule includes a third require diagnostic team reviews of every crossing.
category of warning system malfunction, grade crossing within a proposed quiet Paragraph (c) of this section
which consists of wayside horn zone or diagnostic team reviews of every establishes requirements for the
malfunctions, the occurrence of which grade crossing that will be treated with installation of signage at private
shall also exempt locomotive horn use an SSM that will need to be connected crossings located within quiet zones.
within a quiet zone. to the grade crossing warning system. Paragraph (c)(1) states that every private
Paragraph (c) permits use of the (Please see the Section-by-Section crossing within a New Quiet Zone or
locomotive horn, within a quiet zone, to discussion of § 222.17 for a summary of New Partial Quiet Zone shall, at a
announce the approach of a train to the comments requesting a greater role minimum, be equipped with crossbucks
roadway workers in accordance with a for State agencies.) After considering and ‘‘STOP’’ signs, which are compliant
program adopted under part 214 of this these comments, FRA revised the rule with MUTCD standards unless
Chapter, or where otherwise required by by providing greater opportunity for otherwise prescribed by State law,
railroad operating rule. railroads to provide input during the together with advance warning signs
Section 222.25 How Does This Rule quiet zone development process. The that comply with § 222.35(c). However,
Affect Private Highway-Rail Grade revision of paragraph (b) reflects this even if State law prescribes use of a
Crossings? approach, as public authorities are now private crossing sign that is not
required to provide an opportunity for MUTCD-compliant, the private crossing
This section clarifies the manner in State agencies and railroads to
which this rule affects private crossings. sign must indicate to the motorist that
participate in diagnostic team reviews of a stop is required. Paragraph (c)(2)
(Section 20153(f) of title 49 explicitly private crossings.
gives discretion to the Secretary on the provides a period of three years from the
Paragraph (b)(1) retains the
question of whether private highway- effective date of the final rule for the
requirement contained within the
rail grade crossings should be subject to installation of such signs at private
interim final rule that private highway-
the rule’s locomotive horn sounding crossings located within Pre-Rule Quiet
rail grade crossings located within New
requirements.) FRA has determined that Quiet Zones which allow access to the Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones.
exercising its jurisdiction in a limited public, or access to active industrial or Paragraph (c) has been revised in
manner over these crossings is the commercial sites, may be included in a response to comments submitted by the
appropriate course of action. quiet zone only if a diagnostic team Association of American Railroads.
This section specifically states that evaluates the crossing to determine Under the interim final rule, crossbucks
this rule does not require the routine whether the institution of a quiet zone and ‘‘STOP’’ signs that were installed at
sounding of locomotive horns at private will significantly increase risk at the private crossings within quiet zones
highway-rail grade crossings. Although private crossing. The scope of this were required to conform to the
FRA has jurisdiction over locomotive requirement has, however, been MUTCD. However, the Association of
horn use at private crossings based on expanded in the final rule to include American Railroads noted in its
49 U.S.C. 20103 and 20153, it is not New Partial Quiet Zones. comments that some railroads use stop
exercising that jurisdiction at this time, Paragraph (b)(2) states that the public signs and crossbucks that have been
except as to the use of horns at private authority shall provide the State agency incorporated into a ‘‘private railroad
crossings within quiet zones. responsible for grade crossing safety and crossing’’ sign, which does not comply
Paragraph (a) has not been revised in all affected railroads an opportunity to with all aspects of the MUTCD.
the final rule. However, paragraph (b) participate in the diagnostic team Furthermore, the Association of
has been revised to require the public review of private crossings. This new American Railroads asserted that the
authority to provide an opportunity to requirement should ensure that the State of California mandates use of a
the State agency responsible for grade State agency and all affected railroads specific private railroad crossing sign.
crossing safety and all affected railroads are given an opportunity to express their Therefore, the interim final rule would
to participate in diagnostic team reviews views and provide useful information require railroads to replace signs that
of private crossings located within New for the public authority to consider. As have been widely used for years. In an
Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet stated in paragraph (a), the private attempt to reduce the regulatory
Zones. FRA is making this revision in crossing must then be equipped or burdens associated with this rule, FRA
response to comments requesting a treated in accordance with the has revised this paragraph to allow
greater role for State agencies and recommendations of the diagnostic railroads and public authorities to
affected railroads in the quiet zone team. continue to use crossbucks and ‘‘STOP’’
establishment process. For example, the This rule does not specify the signs that are not fully compliant with
Florida East Coast Railway expressed financial responsibility of parties for MUTCD standards, if prescribed by
concern that the interim final rule safety improvements at private State law.
Section 222.27 How Does This Rule views and provide useful information Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. However,
Affect Pedestrian Crossings? for the public authority to consider. any sign(s) used shall conform to the
This section has been added to the Paragraph (d), which has been added standards contained in the MUTCD.
final rule in order to address pedestrian to the final rule, requires the installation Paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) provide a
crossings located within quiet zones. of signs at pedestrian crossings located three-year grace period for the
within quiet zones that advise installation of signs at pedestrian
(Section 20153(f) of title 49 explicitly
pedestrians that train horns are not crossings in Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and
gives discretion to the Secretary on the
sounded at the crossing. Noting that the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. This three-
question of whether pedestrian
interim final rule failed to require year grace period tracks the three-year
crossings should be subject to the rule’s
specific warnings for pedestrians within grace period provided to Pre-Rule Quiet
locomotive horn sounding
quiet zones, the Southern California Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones
requirements.) FRA has determined that
Regional Rail Authority and Caltrain under § 222.41.
exercising its jurisdiction in a limited
submitted comments recommending
manner of these crossings is the Section 222.33 Can Locomotive Horns
that the rule be revised to require the
appropriate course of action. Although Be Silenced at an Individual Public
posting of warning signs at locations
FRA has jurisdiction over locomotive Highway-Rail Grade Crossing That Is
within quiet zones where pedestrians
horn use at pedestrian crossings based Not Within a Quiet Zone?
can access the railroad right-of-way.
on 49 U.S.C. 20103 and 20153, it is not After considering these comments, in This section has not been revised in
exercising that jurisdiction at this time combination with the comments of the the final rule. FRA received comments
except as to the use of horns at AAR which have been described above, on this section from the DuPage Mayors
pedestrian crossings within quiet zones. FRA added paragraph (d) to the final and Managers Conference and the
The AAR submitted comments Chicago Area Transportation Study
rule to provide an additional warning to
warning that the failure of the interim pedestrians at pedestrian crossings recommending that the rule be revised
final rule to address pedestrian located within quiet zones. to exclude from the rule’s locomotive
crossings and pedestrian accidents was Paragraph (d)(1) requires that each horn sounding requirements those
a major gap in the regulatory scheme. pedestrian crossing within a New Quiet situations in which the train stops
Noting that, in the absence of the Zone shall be equipped with a sign that immediately before or after a highway-
warning provided by the locomotive advises the pedestrian that train horns rail grade crossing. After considering
horn, the only warning a pedestrian may are not sounded at the crossing. FRA these comments, FRA did not revise the
have of an approaching train is the recommends use of the W10–9 ‘‘NO final rule because of the potential
sound of the train itself and visual TRAIN HORN’’ sign within New Quiet confusion that could be created for
observation, the AAR recommended Zones. However, any sign used shall motorists. Motorists who may have
that the final rule require public conform to the standards contained in come to expect the sounding of the
authorities that want to create New the MUTCD. locomotive horn may not stop before
Quiet Zones that encompass pedestrian Paragraph (d)(2) requires that each entering a crossing that is occupied by
crossings to demonstrate that they have pedestrian crossing within a New Partial a train that is preparing to depart.
addressed the effect that the quiet zone Quiet Zone shall be equipped with a Likewise, motorists who are unaware
would have on pedestrian traffic. sign that advises the pedestrian that that an approaching train intends to
It is imperative that the establishment train horns are not sounded at the stop immediately after the grade
of a quiet zone shall not result in a crossing between the hours of 10 p.m. crossing may actually accelerate upon
significant increase in risk at pedestrian and 7 a.m. FRA recommends use of the viewing an approaching train, in order
crossings located within the quiet zone. W10–9 ‘‘NO TRAIN HORN’’ sign, in to ‘‘beat’’ the train over the crossing.
Therefore, FRA is addressing pedestrian combination with a yellow S4–1 ‘‘10 Both of these scenarios present a
crossings in a manner similar to the p.m. to 7 a.m.’’ sign within New Partial potentially unacceptable increase in
approach recommended by the AAR. Quiet Zones. However, any sign(s) used risk.
Paragraph (a) of this section provides shall conform to the standards FRA also received comments from
that pedestrian crossings may be contained in the MUTCD. Metra recommending that this section
included in a quiet zone. Paragraph (b) Paragraph (d)(3) requires that each be revised to exempt train operations at
of this section requires public pedestrian crossing within a Pre-Rule speeds of 30 mph or less. Metra also
authorities to address pedestrian safety Quiet Zone shall be equipped by June recommended that the ‘‘flagger’’
issues when establishing New Quiet 24, 2008 with a sign that advises the requirement be removed under such a
Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones that pedestrian that train horns are not scenario. This section was included in
contain pedestrian crossings. Public sounded at the crossing. FRA the rule in order to exempt switching
authorities that want to establish a New recommends use of the W10–9 ‘‘NO operations from the rule’s locomotive
Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone TRAIN HORN’’ sign within Pre-Rule horn sounding requirements. However,
that contains pedestrian crossings will Quiet Zones. However, any sign used FRA is unwilling to expand the scope of
be required to conduct diagnostic team shall conform to the standards this exemption to include low-speed
reviews of the pedestrian crossings and contained in the MUTCD. passenger operations, given the increase
treat them in accordance with the Paragraph (d)(4) requires that each in risk associated with passenger
diagnostic team recommendations. pedestrian crossing within a Pre-Rule operations over public highway-rail
Paragraph (c) states that the public Partial Quiet Zone shall be equipped by grade crossings.
authority is required to provide an June 24, 2008 with a sign that advises
opportunity for the State agency the pedestrian that train horns are not Section 222.35 What are the Minimum
responsible for grade crossing safety and sounded at the crossing for a specified Requirements for Quiet Zones?
all affected railroads to participate in period of time. FRA recommends use of This section details the minimum
diagnostic team reviews of pedestrian the W10–9 ‘‘NO TRAIN HORN’’ sign, in requirements for quiet zones established
crossings. This will ensure that the State combination with a yellow S4–1 sign in conformity with this part. It
agency and all affected railroads are that sets forth the hours during which addresses the minimum length of a
given an opportunity to express their train horns will be not sounded, within quiet zone, minimum level of active
warning to be provided, and minimum existing quiet zones, provided there is single, contiguous Pre-Rule Quiet Zone,
type of signage required. no public highway-rail grade crossing at FRA has clarified the rule accordingly.
Paragraph (a), which governs the which locomotive horns are routinely Paragraph (a)(3) has not, however,
minimum required length of quiet sounded within one-half mile of the been revised in the final rule.
zones, has been revised in the final rule. New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Paragraph (b), which addresses the
The scope of paragraph (a)(1)(i) has been Zone. need for active warning devices at
expanded to include New Partial Quiet New Quiet Zones and New Partial crossings within quiet zones, has been
Zones. FRA received comments on Quiet Zones in the Chicago Region may revised to address partial quiet zones.
paragraph (a) of this section from the not, however, include any highway-rail Paragraph (b)(1) has not been revised in
California PUC which re-asserted its grade crossing described in § 222.3(c), the final rule. However, paragraph (b)(2)
position that the minimum length of for purposes of meeting the one-half has been added to the final rule to
quiet zones should not be codified. In mile minimum length requirement. address active warning devices in New
the alternative, the California PUC Given the uncertainty associated with Partial Quiet Zones. This new paragraph
recommended that the rule be revised to the appropriate excess risk estimate that states that, with the exception of public
allow quiet zone length to be should be derived from silencing the highway-rail grade crossings that are
determined by the applicant and locomotive horn at those highway-rail temporarily closed in accordance with
railroad and approved by the grade crossings, FRA is unable to appendix A of this part, each public
appropriate State agency. However, as determine a practicable means of highway-rail grade crossing in a New
stated in the interim final rule, FRA including them in the risk calculations Partial Quiet Zone must be equipped, no
believes that establishment of a for proposed New Quiet Zones and New later than the quiet zone
minimum length of one-half mile for Partial Quiet Zones. Therefore, pending implementation date, with flashing
most New Quiet Zones and New Partial completion of the Chicago Region data lights and gates that control motorist
Quiet Zones is appropriate. With the re-analysis discussed in ‘‘Chicago traffic over the crossing and that
exception of New Quiet Zones or New Regional Issues’’ (SUPPLEMENTARY conform to the MUTCD. An exception to
Partial Quiet Zones that are added to this requirement has been provided for
INFORMATION, section 7), public
existing quiet zones, the one-half mile public highway-rail grade crossings that
authorities who are unable to meet the
minimum length requirement will are closed between the hours of 10 p.m.
minimum one-half mile minimum
ensure that the sounding of the and 7 a.m., in accordance with
length requirement without including
locomotive horn at a public grade appendix A of this part, when routine
any of the highway-rail grade crossings
crossing located outside the quiet zone sounding of the locomotive horn will be
described in § 222.3(c) in their proposed
will not effectively negate the prohibited. Paragraph (b)(3) provides
New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet
prohibition on routine locomotive horn that grade crossing safety warning
Zones may apply for a waiver, in
sounding within the quiet zone. In devices that existed at public highway-
accordance with § 222.15. FRA will
addition, the one-half mile minimum rail grade crossings located within Pre-
consider any waiver petition submitted Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial
requirement for New Quiet Zones and
on a case-by-case basis. Quiet Zones as of December 18, 2003
New Partial Quiet Zones should
minimize workload demands on the Paragraph (a)(2) specifically addresses must be retained. These warning
locomotive engineer, who will be the minimum length requirement for devices may be upgraded, which can
required to become familiar with all Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule result in additional risk reduction credit
quiet zone locations along his/her Partial Quiet Zones. Even though the when calculating the Quiet Zone Risk
designated routes. length of a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre- Index, but they may not be downgraded
In response to comments received Rule Partial Quiet Zone may continue from that which was in existence as of
from the Chicago Department of unchanged, FRA has revised the interim December 18, 2003. Any upgrade
Transportation and the Chicago Area final rule to clarify that the addition of involving the installation or renewal of
Transportation Study, an exception to any public crossing to a Pre-Rule Quiet an automatic warning device system
the minimum-length requirement has Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone will shall include power-out indicators and
been carved out for New Quiet Zones transform the quiet zone into a New constant warning time devices, unless
and New Partial Quiet Zones that are Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone existing conditions at the crossing
being added to existing quiet zones. In subject to all requirements applicable to would prevent the proper operation of
their comments, the Chicago New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet the constant warning time devices.
Department of Transportation and the Zones. In addition, the deletion of any Paragraph (c) specifically addresses
Chicago Area Transportation Study public crossing from a Pre-Rule Quiet the installation of advance warning
requested that the final rule waive the Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone, signs at grade crossings within a quiet
half-mile minimum length requirement with the exception of a grade separation zone. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) require
for New Quiet Zones that are located or crossing closure, must result in a that each highway approach to every
between existing quiet zones or that will quiet zone of at least one-half mile in public and private highway-rail grade
be added to the end of an existing quiet length in order to retain Pre-Rule Quiet crossing within New Quiet Zones and
zone. After considering the fact that Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone New Partial Quiet Zones shall be
New Quiet Zone grade crossings would status. equipped with an advance warning sign
be required to comply with all New FRA received comments on paragraph that advises the motorist that train horns
Quiet Zone standards, with the sole (a)(2) from the DuPage Mayors and are not sounded at the crossing. Such
exception of the one-half mile minimum Managers Conference and the Chicago signs shall conform to the standards
length requirement, FRA decided to add Area Transportation Study requesting contained in the MUTCD. Paragraph
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to the final rule. that the interim final rule be revised to (c)(2), which was added to the final rule,
Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) states that the one- specifically authorize communities to requires that each highway approach to
half mile minimum length requirement combine adjacent Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. public and private highway-rail grade
set forth under § 222.35(a)(1)(i) shall be As FRA had always intended to give crossings within New Partial Quiet
waived for New Quiet Zones and New communities the ability to combine Zones shall be equipped with an
Partial Quiet Zones that are added onto adjacent Pre-Rule Quiet Zones into a advance warning sign that advises the
motorist that train horns are not Impact Statement that has accompanied The Village of Hinsdale, Illinois
sounded at the crossing between the this rulemaking, FRA has refrained from submitted comments recommending
hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. requiring the installation of automatic that the rule be revised to limit the
Paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) provide a bells at public highway-rail grade definition of ‘‘public authority’’ to State
three-year grace period for the crossings that are located within quiet or regional authorities. In its comments,
installation of advance warning signs at zones and subject to pedestrian traffic. the Village of Hinsdale stated that local
public and private crossings in Pre-Rule However, FRA strongly encourages governments have the most constraints
Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet communities to take a prudent approach and the least experience in dealing with
Zones. This three-year grace period to quiet zone continuation and highway-rail grade crossings. In
tracks the three-year grace period establishment. addition, local authorities within the
provided to Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Paragraph (e) retains the interim final State of Illinois cannot order grade
Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones under rule requirement that all private crossing modifications. However, after
§ 222.41. crossings within the quiet zone must be considering these comments, FRA did
Paragraph (d) has been added to the treated in accordance with this section not revise the definition of ‘‘public
final rule, in response to comments and § 222.25. authority’’ to exclude local
requesting that the rule be revised to Paragraph (f), which has been added communities. As stated in the interim
address pedestrian safety issues within to the final rule, provides that all final rule, a review of section 21053 of
quiet zones. The Florida Department of pedestrian grade crossings within a title 49 of the United States Code
Transportation submitted comments quiet zone must be treated in indicates a clear Congressional
asserting that pedestrian safety at accordance with § 222.27. preference that quiet zone decision-
crossings is a significant safety factor Paragraph (g) retains the interim final makers be the ‘‘traffic control authority
that should be addressed in the final rule requirement that all public or law enforcement authority
rule. The New York Department of crossings within the quiet zone must be responsible for safety at the highway-
Transportation recommended that the in compliance with the requirements of rail grade crossing.’’ The statute also
final rule address pedestrian traffic over the MUTCD. requires that FRA take into account the
highway-rail grade crossings by Section 222.37 Who May Establish a interest of ‘‘communities’’ and that FRA
requiring the installation of bells at all Quiet Zone? ‘‘work in partnership with affected
grade crossings where pedestrian traffic communities to provide technical
is prevalent and by requiring public This section has not been revised in assistance and * * * a reasonable
authorities to consider pedestrian traffic the final rule. However, it should be amount of time for local communities to
issues when establishing quiet zones. noted that the highway-rail grade install SSMs.’’ Given this statutory
On the other hand, Caltrain and the crossings described in § 222.3(c) have directive, FRA is unwilling to exclude
Southern California Regional Rail been excluded from the scope of the local communities from the definition of
Authority recommended that advance final rule. Thus, any New Quiet Zones ‘‘public authority.’’
warning signs be installed at locations or New Partial Quiet Zones established FRA also received comments from Dr.
within quiet zones where pedestrians under this part cannot contain any Robert Johnson, a resident of Houston,
can legally access the railroad right-of- highway-rail grade crossing described in Texas, who recommended that the rule
way. After considering these comments, § 222.3(c). be revised to empower citizens to
FRA decided on an approach that The Chicago Area Transportation designate quiet zones. However, FRA is
incorporates all of their suggestions. Study submitted comments requesting unwilling to expand the definition of
Given the fact that the majority of gated that the rule be revised to provide an ‘‘public authority’’ to include
crossings are already equipped with at acknowledgment that a public authority individuals. This final rule requires
least one automatic bell, paragraph (such as a state or county) could grant public authorities to take certain steps
(d)(1) of this section requires that each a blanket delegation of authority to during the quiet zone development
public highway-rail grade crossing in a municipalities to pursue and create process for which State and local
New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet quiet zones. In its comments, the governments are uniquely suited, given
Zone that is subjected to pedestrian Chicago Area Transportation Study the need to coordinate State and local
traffic and equipped with at least one or stated that the State of Illinois has efforts to improve high-risk crossings. If
more automatic bells shall retain those indicated that it would prefer to issue a FRA were to empower individuals to
bells in working condition. Similarly, blanket delegation rather than giving create quiet zones in their
paragraph (d)(2) requires that each individual, written delegations for each neighborhoods, it would become
public highway-rail grade crossing in a potential quiet zone under its exceedingly difficult to keep track of the
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Quiet jurisdiction. However, a revision of the quiet zone development process and to
Zone that is subjected to pedestrian rule is not necessary, given the language ensure that the proper notifications of
traffic and equipped with at least one or in paragraph (a) this section, which quiet zone continuation/establishment
more automatic bells shall retain those states that if a proposed quiet zone have been made.
bells in working condition. includes public grade crossings under
Public highway-rail grade crossings the authority and control of more than Section 222.38 Can a Quiet Zone Be
that are located within a quiet zone, but one public authority, both public Created in the Chicago Region?
are not equipped with an automatic bell, authorities must agree to the This section has been added to the
shall be equipped with advance warning establishment of a quiet zone and may, final rule to provide clarification as to
signs that comply with the MUTCD, in by delegation provided to one of the the effect of the final rule in the Chicago
accordance with § 222.35(c). However, authorities, take such actions as are Region. As stated in § 222.3(c) of this
FRA assumes that prudent communities required by this part. The rule already part, the final rule will not apply to any
will exercise the option to install an allows the State of Illinois to delegate its highway-rail grade crossing in the
automatic bell, particularly at those authority over public grade crossings Chicago Region where the railroad was
public grade crossings where the within proposed quiet zones to local excused from sounding the locomotive
locomotive horn has been silenced. Due communities for purposes of quiet zone horn by the Illinois Commerce
to the scope of the Environmental creation/continuation. Commission, and where the railroad did
not sound the horn, as of December 18, final rule does not require public submitted to, and processed by, FRA’s
2003 (the publication date of the Interim authorities to install SSMs at the designated contractor before
Final Rule). Therefore, the horn highest-risk crossings with quiet zones, submission. Given the fact that it can
sounding requirements set forth in FRA expects that many public take up to three months to process a
§ 222.21 will not apply to these authorities will install SSMs at those Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA
crossings. On the other hand, pending crossings, regardless of any obvious will accept copies of Grade Crossing
the Chicago Region data re-analysis safety-motivated reasons for doing so. Inventory Forms that have been
discussed in ‘‘Chicago Regional Issues’’ By installing an SSM at the highest-risk submitted for processing, provided all
(SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, section crossing within a proposed quiet zone entries on the Grade Crossing Inventory
7), public authorities who would corridor, the public authority will gain Form have been completed.
otherwise have been authorized to a higher overall risk reduction than that Paragraph (b)(2) specifically addresses
include these crossings in a new duly which would result from the installation quiet zone application requirements for
created quiet zone may no longer do so. of a similar SSM at a low-risk crossing. newly established public and private
Public authorities may establish New It should also be noted that FRA highway-rail grade crossings. This
Quiet Zones and/or New Partial Quiet retains the right to review the status of paragraph has been added to the final
Zones in the Chicago Region. However, any quiet zone under § 222.51(c). If risk rule in response to comments received
any New Quiet Zone or New Partial dramatically increases within a quiet from the Chicago Area Transportation
Quiet Zone established in the Chicago zone, FRA may require the installation Study and the Chicago Department of
Region cannot include any highway-rail of additional safety improvements or Transportation, which noted that there
grade crossing described in § 222.3(c) of terminate the quiet zone after providing are locations in the Chicago Region
this part. an opportunity for comment. Should where extensions of rail lines are
immediate action be required, FRA also expected to result in new grade
Section 222.39 How Is a Quiet Zone
reserves the right to exercise its crossings. The Chicago Area
Established?
emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. Transportation Study and the Chicago
This section addresses the manner in 20104 and 49 CFR Part 211, by issuing Department of Transportation requested
which a quiet zone may be established. an order to immediately resume routine that FRA waive the half-mile minimum
In the NPRM, FRA proposed two locomotive horn sounding at specific length requirement imposed by
different methods of establishing quiet grade crossings. § 222.35(a)(1) for these crossings. After
zones. In one method, every public Paragraph (a) of this section addresses considering these comments, as well as
grade crossing within the proposed situations in which the public authority the implications of creating a quiet zone
quiet zone would have an SSM applied may designate a quiet zone without the with newly established grade crossings,
to the crossing and the governmental need for formal application to, or FRA has added a paragraph to the final
entity establishing the quiet zone would approval by, FRA. Paragraphs (a)(1) and rule that sets forth additional data
be required to designate the perimeters (a)(2) have not been revised in the final requirements for each newly established
of the quiet zone, install the SSMs, and rule. However, paragraph (a)(3), which grade crossing that will be included in
comply with various notice and provides that a quiet zone can be the proposed quiet zone. Thus,
information requirements set forth in established by implementing SSMs that paragraph (b)(2) of this section requires
the rule. The second proposed method are sufficient to reduce the Quiet Zone public authorities to submit five-year
(which was ultimately adopted) would Risk Index to a level at, or below, the projected vehicle and rail traffic counts
provide a governmental entity greater Risk Index With Horns, has been revised for newly established public and private
flexibility in using SSMs and ASMs to in the final rule to substitute the defined grade crossings, in addition to the
address problem crossings. The second term ‘‘Risk Index With Horns’’ for documentation required by paragraph
method allows FRA to consider quiet language that had been used in the (b)(1) of this section, as part of the
zones that do not have SSMs at every interim final rule to provide an public authority’s application package.
crossing, as long as implementation of explanation of this standard. FRA has, however, decided not to
the proposed SSMs and ASMs in the FRA has revised the rule to give waive the half-mile minimum length
quiet zone as a whole would cause a railroads and State agencies the requirement, imposed by § 222.35(a)(1),
reduction in risk to compensate for the opportunity to play a greater role during regarding newly established grade
absence of routine sounding of the the quiet zone development process. crossings. In FRA’s experience, rail line
locomotive horn. Therefore, paragraph (b)(1) of this extensions often exceed one-half mile in
FRA received a number of comments section, which provides a list of length. Therefore, this half-mile
that were critical of the corridor required documentation for public minimum length requirement should
approach to risk reduction, including authority applications for quiet zone not present a substantial obstacle to the
comments from the Ohio Rail approval, now requires that the creation of quiet zones that contain
Development Commission, the Ohio application include a statement newly established grade crossings.
Railroad Association, the Metropolitan describing the public authority’s efforts Should a public authority wish to create
Transit Authority, and the AAR. FRA to work with all affected railroads and a quiet zone that is less than one-half
also received comments from Ohio the State agency responsible for grade mile in length, the public authority may
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the New crossing safety, as well as a list of any file a petition for a waiver in accordance
York Department of Transportation, the objections that may have been raised to with § 222.15.
Missouri Department of Transportation, the proposed quiet zone by the Paragraph (b)(3) has been added to the
and the Florida Department of railroad(s) and State agency. final rule in response to comments
Transportation recommending that the Paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires public requesting a greater role for State
rule be revised to establish a maximum authorities to submit an accurate, agencies in the quiet zone development
risk threshold for individual grade complete, and current Grade Crossing process. As discussed earlier in the
crossings. Inventory Form for each public and analysis of § 222.17, the Ohio Public
FRA is, however, committed to private grade crossing. FRA would like Utilities Commission and the California
providing a flexible approach to quiet to clarify that FRA is not requiring that Public Utilities Commission
zone establishment. Even though the Grade Crossing Inventory Forms be recommended that the interim final rule
be revised to require State agency authority having jurisdiction over applications. Under this final rule, the
review and approval of all proposed vehicular traffic at grade crossings public authority and the railroad may
quiet zones. The North Carolina within the quiet zone; the landowner petition the Associate Administrator to
Department of Transportation having control over any private reconsider his/her decision to approve
recommended that the interim final rule crossings within the quiet zone; the or deny a quiet zone application, on the
be revised to allow State departments of State agency responsible for highway basis that the Associate Administrator
transportation to serve as clearinghouses and road safety; the State agency improperly exercised his/her judgment
for quiet zone requests or, in the responsible for grade crossing safety; in finding that the proposed SSMs and
alternative, to require public authorities and the Associate Administrator. Any ASMs would, or would not, result in a
to seek formal state and railroad input party that receives a copy of the public Quiet Zone Risk Index that is at or
on quiet zone proposals. The City of authority application may then submit below the Risk Index With Horns or the
Saint Paul, Minnesota also submitted comments on the public authority Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.
comments recommending that the application to the Associate Petitions for reconsideration may be
interim final rule be revised to assign Administrator during the 60-day period filed with the Associate Administrator
technical resource/review responsibility after the date on which the application in accordance with §§ 222.57(b) and (d).
to the State rail authority to ensure was mailed. However, this 60-day Paragraph (c) of this section has not
accuracy and uniformity of quiet zone comment period can be waived if the been revised in the final rule.
applications. public authority application includes Section 222.41 How Does This Rule
FRA also received a number of written statements from each affected Affect Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-
comments from the railroad industry railroad, the highway or traffic control Rule Partial Quiet Zones?
requesting that the final rule be revised authority or law enforcement authority
to allow railroads to provide input having control over vehicular traffic at This section addresses the effect of
during the quiet zone development the crossings within the quiet zone, the this rule on Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and
process. The Fort Worth & Western State agency responsible for grade Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. A Pre-Rule
Railroad, New Orleans & Gulf Coast crossing safety, and the State agency Quiet Zone is a segment of a rail line
Railroad, and the Idaho Northern & responsible for highway and road safety within which is situated one or a
Pacific Railroad submitted comments stating that the railroad, vehicular traffic number of consecutive public highway-
suggesting that the rule be revised to authority and State agencies have rail crossings at which State statutes or
establish a proactive review process for waived their rights to provide comments local ordinances restricted the routine
railroad input on the potential impact of on the public authority application. sounding of locomotive horns, or at
proposed quiet zones. The Florida East Paragraph (b)(4) addresses the which locomotive horns did not sound
Coast Railway submitted comments Associate Administrator’s decisions on due to formal or informal agreements
recommending that the rule be revised quiet zone applications. After reviewing between the community and the
to require railroad and state government any comments submitted during the 60- railroad or railroads, and at which such
involvement during the quiet zone day comment period established by statutes, ordinances or agreements were
development process. Asserting that the paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the in place and enforced or observed as of
interim final rule fails to provide for any Associate Administrator will approve October 9, 1996 and on December 18,
meaningful input by State authorities or the quiet zone if the public authority 2003. A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone
railroads during the quiet zone has complied with the requirements means a segment of a rail line within
development process, the Metropolitan established by this paragraph (b) and which is situated one or a number of
Transit Authority also submitted has satisfactorily demonstrated that the consecutive public highway-rail
comments recommending that the rule proposed SSMs and ASMs will result in crossings at which State statutes or local
be revised to allow for participation by a Quiet Zone Risk Index that is at, or ordinances restricted the routine
the State and railroads during the quiet below, the Risk Index With Horns or the sounding of locomotive horns for a
zone evaluation and decision-making Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. specified period of time during the
process, in order to facilitate However, the Associate Administrator evening and/or nighttime hours, or at
consideration of relevant information. may include conditions in the decision which locomotive horns did not sound
The Association of American Railroads of approval that are necessary, in the due to formal or informal agreements
submitted comments expressing its Associate Administrator’s judgment, to between the community and the
strong objection to failure of the interim ensure that the proposed safety railroad or railroads for a specified
final rule to provide railroads that own improvements are effective. If the period of time during the evening and/
or operate over grade crossings within a Associate Administrator does not or nighttime hours, and at which such
proposed quiet zone the opportunity to approve the quiet zone application, the statutes, ordinances or agreements were
provide input. reasoning behind the Associate in place and enforced or observed as of
After considering these comments, Administrator’s decision will be October 9, 1996 and on December 18,
FRA has revised the rule by providing provided to the public authority. Copies 2003.
an opportunity for State agencies and of the Associate Administrator’s FRA received a number of comments
railroads to review and provide input on decision shall be provided to all parties seeking clarification of the rule’s
the public authority application for FRA listed in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this treatment of pre-existing partial whistle
approval, in accordance with the section. bans. Noting that it had adopted a
procedures set forth in paragraph (b)(3). This paragraph (b)(4) has been revised partial whistle ban in 1993 that
Under the terms of this paragraph, in the final rule to give railroads an prohibits the routine sounding of the
copies of the public authority opportunity to petition the Associate locomotive horn between the hours of
application shall be provided, by Administrator to reconsider his/her 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the City of
certified mail, return receipt requested, decision to approve a quiet zone Plymouth, Minnesota requested that
to: All railroads operating over the application. Under the interim final FRA treat pre-existing partial whistle
public highway-rail grade crossings rule, only the public authority could bans ‘‘just like other Pre-Rule bans.’’
within the quiet zone; the highway or request reconsideration of the Associate The City of Highland Park, Illinois also
traffic control or law enforcement Administrator’s decisions on quiet zone submitted comments asserting that
partial whistle ban communities should does not reflect the average level of risk Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
be granted Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status. at crossings at which the locomotive and there have been no relevant
On the other hand, the City of horn is silenced. Rather, the Nationwide collisions at any public grade crossing
Sacramento, California, which has a Significant Risk Threshold reflects the within the quiet zone for the past five
partial ban on the routine sounding of average level of risk at crossings at years; or (4) if the Quiet Zone Risk Index
locomotive horns between the hours of which the locomotive horn is routinely as last published by FRA is at, or below,
6 p.m. and 7 a.m., requested that FRA sounded. Therefore, the formula used to the Risk Index With Horns. It should be
establish a lower target risk index for calculate the Nationwide Significant noted that, for purposes of Pre-Rule
partial Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. Noting Risk Threshold would not produce a Partial Quiet Zones, collisions that
that two communities in DuPage County lower risk level for crossings at which occurred during the time period within
have pre-existing partial whistle bans, the locomotive horn is silenced during which the locomotive horn was
the Chicago Area Transportation Study the evening/nighttime hours. routinely sounded are not considered
recommended that the same standards Paragraph (a) of this section addresses ‘‘relevant collisions.’’
and procedures already in place be the establishment of Pre-Rule Quiet This paragraph also requires the
applied to part-time Quiet Zones. Zones by automatic approval. This public authority to provide Notice of
Additionally, the Chicago Area paragraph was revised in the final rule Quiet Zone Establishment, in
Transportation Study recommended to extend the cut-off date for relevant accordance with § 222.43, on or before
that FRA allow existing partial whistle collisions to April 27, 2005. This December 24, 2005. After December 24,
bans to remain in effect until they could revision has been made to ensure that 2005, all Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones
meet the standards for 24-hour Quiet any relevant collisions that occur must be established in accordance with
Zones. between the publication dates of the paragraph (c) of this section.
On the other hand, the AAR urged interim final rule and the final rule are Paragraph (c) addresses those Pre-
FRA to prohibit the continuation of pre- included in any determinations on this Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial
existing partial whistle bans that are issue. This paragraph has also been Quiet Zones that will not be established
based on temporary crossing closures. revised to allow Pre-Rule Quiet Zones to by automatic approval. This paragraph
AAR argued that, at the very least, these be established by automatic approval if has been revised in the final rule to
grade crossings should not be allowed to the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at or below include Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones, to
qualify for quiet zone status by the Risk Index With Horns. This adjust the three- and five-year grace
comparison to the Nationwide revision has been made to accommodate periods to correspond to the final rule
Significant Risk Threshold because the those Pre-Rule Quiet Zone communities effective date, and to provide a reference
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold that will be able to meet the Risk Index to other relevant Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
does not accurately reflect the average With Horns by obtaining risk reduction and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone
risk level for the time period within credit for pre-existing SSMs. Lastly, this requirements. Paragraph (c)(1) provides
which temporary crossing closures are paragraph has also been revised to that a public authority may decide to
in effect. AAR asserted that an average require the public authority to provide continue Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-
risk level for partial whistle bans would Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, in Rule Partial Quiet Zones on an interim
necessarily be lower than the accordance with § 222.43, on or before basis under the provisions of this
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. December 24, 2005. After December 24, paragraph. Continuation of a quiet zone
After considering these comments, 2005, all Pre-Rule Quiet Zones must be beyond the periods specified in this
FRA decided to adopt an approach established in accordance with paragraph will require implementation
similar to that which was recommended paragraph (c) of this section. of SSMs or ASMs as though the quiet
by the City of Plymouth, Massachusetts Paragraph (b) has been added to the zone is a New Quiet Zone (in
and the Chicago Area Transportation final rule to address the establishment accordance with § 222.39 (‘‘How is a
Study, whereby Pre-Rule Partial Quiet of Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones by quiet zone established?’’)) and
Zones will be treated in a manner automatic approval. Pre-Rule Partial compliance with the requirements set
similar to 24-hour Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. Quiet Zones are similar to Pre-Rule forth in §§ 222.25(c), 222.27(d), and
Therefore, communities with Pre-Rule Quiet Zones because they have a 222.35.
Partial Quiet Zones that do not qualify collision history, unlike New Quiet Paragraph (c)(2)(i) provides that a
for automatic approval will be given Zones, that can be analyzed to public authority may continue a Pre-
additional time within which to meet determine the safety effect of silencing Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial
the standards set for 24-hour Pre-Rule the horn at the crossings within the Quiet Zone for five years from the
Quiet Zones, provided the public quiet zone. Therefore, FRA will allow effective date of the final rule. This 5-
authority complies with the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones that are year grace period should ensure that the
requirements set forth in § 222.41(b). established by automatic approval public authority has adequate time for
FRA has not established a lower risk under paragraph (b) of this section to planning and implementation of SSMs
threshold for Pre-Rule Partial Quiet remain in effect. Pre-Rule Partial Quiet or ASMs. This five-year extension is,
Zones. FRA remains confident that Pre- Zones can be established by automatic however, dependent on the public
Rule Quiet Zones that have Quiet Zone approval if, in addition to §§ 222.35 and authority filing a detailed plan for
Risk Indices that are at, or below, either 222.43, the quiet zone is in compliance establishing a quiet zone under this
the Nationwide Significant Risk with one of the following conditions: (1) part. If the proposed quiet zone will
Threshold or two times the Nationwide There are SSMs at every public require approval under § 222.39(b), the
Significant Risk Threshold with no highway-rail grade crossing within the plan must include all the required
relevant accidents over the past five quiet zone; (2) if the Quiet Zone Risk elements of filings under that paragraph
years constitute a category of highway- Index as last published by FRA is at, or together with a timetable for
rail grade crossings that do not present below, the Nationwide Significant Risk implementation of the safety
a significant risk with respect to loss of Threshold; (3) if the Quiet Zone Risk improvements. The plan must be filed
life or serious personal injury. Index as last published by FRA is above by June 24, 2008. FRA understands that,
It should be noted that the the Nationwide Significant Risk in some cases, plans filed in accordance
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold Threshold but less than twice the with this paragraph will be contingent
on funding arrangements that may not implementing improvements at Pre-Rule 222.39, and the public authority
be complete as of the date of filing Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet provides notification of the
(particularly where State-level Zones. (These improvements must, establishment of a New 24-hour Quiet
participation has been requested). FRA when implemented, enable the Pre-Rule Zone in accordance with § 222.43. FRA
is seeking a good faith filing, which Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet is requiring public authorities to meet
normally would be tendered by the Zone to qualify for quiet zone status these requirements because Pre-Rule
executive head of the relevant public under this rule.) In addition, physical Partial Quiet Zones do not have
authority or authorities involved. improvements must have been initiated collision histories that reflect the
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) specifically at one of the crossings within the Pre- increased risk that will result from
addresses those situations in which, Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial silencing the routine use of the
during the three-year period following Quiet Zone, or the State agency must locomotive horn for 24 hours.
the final rule effective date, the Quiet have participated in quiet zone
Zone Risk Index for its Pre-Rule Quiet Section 222.42 How Does This Rule
improvements in one or more
Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone has Affect Intermediate Quiet Zones and
jurisdictions elsewhere in the State, by
dropped to a level at or below the Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones?
June 24, 2009. FRA wishes to emphasize
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. that the requirement for a plan and This section addresses the effect of
In these situations, the Pre-Rule Quiet some funding participation is not this rule on Intermediate Quiet Zones
Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone intended to restrict any State to a single and Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones.
may remain in effect without any approach for addressing this need. By An Intermediate Quiet Zone is a
additional safety improvements, June 24, 2008, for instance, a State segment of a rail line within which is
provided the public authority provides agency might have in place a broad situated one or a number of consecutive
notification of Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or policy for providing technical assistance public highway-rail grade crossings at
Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone to communities interested in continuing which State statutes or local ordinances
establishment in accordance with Pre-Rule Quiet Zones, along with restricted the routine sounding of
§ 222.43 and has complied with the sufficient identified funding to locomotive horns, or at which
requirements of §§ 222.25(c), 222.27(d) participate in the initial improvement locomotive horns did not sound due to
and 222.35(c) on or before June 24, required by June 24, 2009. It is not formal or informal agreements between
2008. intended that the State agency assume the community and the railroad or
Thus, the practical implication of general financial responsibility for this railroads, and at which such statutes,
paragraph (c)(2) is that a Pre-Rule Quiet program unless the State elects to do so. ordinances or agreements were in place
Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone Rather, the additional three-year grace and enforced or observed as of
may continue for three years from the period provided by this provision is December 18, 2003, but not as of
effective date of the final rule without intended to encourage State assistance October 9, 1996. An Intermediate Partial
the installation of any improvements by of whatever appropriate type and to Quiet Zone is a segment of a rail line
the public authority. In addition, should create an incentive for the State to within which is situated one or a
the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the Pre- contribute to improvements in any number of consecutive public highway-
Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial jurisdiction where environmental rail grade crossings at which State
Quiet Zone fall to a level at or below the justice issues are prevalent. statutes or local ordinances restricted
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold Paragraph (c)(4), which has not been the routine sounding of locomotive
during this three-year grace period, the revised in the final rule, states that if the horns for a specified period of time
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial safety improvements planned for the during the evening or nighttime hours,
Quiet Zone may remain in effect, quiet zone will require FRA approval, or at which locomotive horns did not
provided the public authority provides the public authority should apply for sound due to formal or informal
notification of quiet zone establishment such approval prior to December 24, agreements between the community and
in accordance with § 222.43 and has 2007, to ensure that FRA will have the railroad or railroads for a specified
complied with the requirements set ample time to review such application period of time during the evening and/
forth in §§ 222.25(c), 222.27(d) and prior to the end of the three-year or nighttime hours, and at which such
222.35 on or before June 24, 2008. extension period. statutes, ordinances or agreements were
However, if the Quiet Zone Risk Index Paragraph (d), which addresses Pre- in place and enforced or observed as of
for the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Rule Partial Quiet Zones that will be December 18, 2003, but not as of
Partial Quiet Zone does not fall to a converted to 24-hour quiet zones, has October 9, 1996.
level at or below the Nationwide been added in response to comments This section has been added to the
Significant Risk Threshold by the end of received on the rule. The Minnesota final rule in response to comments
the three-year grace period, locomotive Department of Transportation submitted expressing concern that the interim final
horns shall resume sounding at all comments asserting that communities rule does not address the needs of
public crossings within the former quiet should be entitled to convert their Pre- communities that enacted whistle bans
zone, unless the public authority has Rule Partial Quiet Zones into full quiet after October 9, 1996. Steven Klafka,
filed a detailed plan for completing the zones, if they so choose. The Township resident of Madison, Wisconsin,
necessary safety improvements. of Montclair, New Jersey also submitted submitted comments recommending
If certain conditions are met, comments requesting that the final rule that the final rule extend the cutoff date
paragraph (c)(3) states that locomotive address the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status for Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status to
horn restrictions may continue for three implications of converting a Pre-Rule include the Madison whistle ban that
years beyond the five-year period Partial whistle ban into a 24-hour was adopted in 2001. The Town of
permitted under paragraph (c)(2). The whistle ban. FRA has decided to allow Newbury, Massachusetts, which enacted
appropriate State agency must provide communities to convert their Pre-Rule a whistle ban after commuter rail
to the Associate Administrator a Partial Quiet Zones into 24-hour quiet service resumed in October 1998, also
comprehensive State-wide zones, if the quiet zone complies with asserted that communities that had
implementation plan and funding the New Quiet Zone requirements set established whistle bans as of the date
commitment, by June 24, 2008, for forth in §§ 222.25, 222.27, 222.35 and of the interim final rule should qualify
for Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status. Continuation of the Intermediate Quiet § 222.41or to continue an Intermediate
Alternately, a new category of ‘‘pre- Zone or Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone Quiet Zone or Intermediate Partial Quiet
existing’’ quiet zones should be added beyond June 24, 2006 will require Zone under § 222.42. This notification
to the rule, which would not be required implementation of SSMs or ASMs in shall be provided by certified mail,
to meet the stringent risk formulas accordance with § 222.39 (‘‘How is a return receipt requested, to: All
required of New Quiet Zones. quiet zone established?’’) and railroads operating over the public
Congressman John Tierney submitted compliance with the New Quiet Zone highway-rail grade crossings within the
comments requesting special standards set forth in §§ 222.25, 222.27 quiet zone; the highway or traffic
consideration for communities like and 222.35. control or law enforcement authority
Newbury that do not qualify for Pre- Thus, the practical implications of having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic
Rule Quiet Zone status. At the very this timetable is that Intermediate Quiet at grade crossings within the quiet zone;
least, Congressman Tierney asserted that Zones and Intermediate Partial Quiet the landowner having control over any
communities like Newbury should be Zones may continue until June 24, 2006. private crossings within the quiet zone;
granted a waiver from the rule’s Locomotive horns will, however, the State agency responsible for
effective date and given additional time resume sounding at all public crossings highway and road safety; the State
to comply with the rule. In a similar within the former quiet zone, unless the agency responsible for grade crossing
vein, Massachusetts State public authority has created a New safety; and the Associate Administrator.
Representative Harriett Stanley Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone Although the interim final rule required
submitted comments requesting that the by implementing sufficient SSMs and/or public authorities to provide
interim final rule be amended to either ASMs to bring the quiet zone into notification of Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
grant Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status to compliance with § 222.39 and taking the continuation, this requirement has been
communities like Newbury or to create necessary steps to comply with the New expanded in the final rule to include
a new category of quiet zones for these Quiet Zone standards set forth in Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones,
communities. §§ 222.25, 222.27 and 222.35. Intermediate Quiet Zones, and
The Town of Concord, Massachusetts Paragraph (b) addresses Intermediate Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones. In
also submitted comments on this issue. Partial Quiet Zones that will be addition, the rule has been revised to
Asserting that the October 9, 1996 cutoff converted to 24-hour quiet zones. An require the public authority to submit
date for Pre-Rule Quiet Zones is Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone can be copies of all supporting documentation
inequitable, the Town of Concord converted into a 24-hour New Quiet to each party listed in this paragraph.
recommended that the interim final rule Zone by complying with the New Quiet (Under the interim final rule, some
be revised to allow all communities Zone standards set forth in §§ 222.25, supporting documentation was
with pre-existing whistle bans to qualify 222.27, 222.35 and 222.39, provided submitted only to the Associate
for Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status. This notification of intent to create a New Administrator.)
position was reiterated in comments Quiet Zone and notification of New Paragraph (a)(3) requires the public
submitted by Massachusetts State Quiet Zone establishment is provided in authority to provide notification of its
Representative Doug Atkins and accordance with § 222.43. intent to file a detailed plan for a Pre-
Concord resident Mark Garvey. Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial
Section 222.43 What Notices and
After considering these comments, Quiet Zone in accordance with § 222.41.
FRA determined that a third quiet zone Other Information Are Required To
This notification shall be provided by
category should be added to the final Create or Continue a Quiet Zone?
certified mail, return receipt requested,
rule, which will be referred to as This section sets forth the to all railroads operating over the public
‘‘Intermediate Quiet Zones’’ and requirements that pertain to the four highway-rail grade crossings within the
‘‘Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones’’, to different types of quiet zone quiet zone; the State agency responsible
cover communities like Newbury and notification. The intent of this section is for highway and road safety; and the
Concord that enacted whistle bans after to ensure that interested parties are State agency responsible for grade
October 9, 1996, which were in place made aware of quiet zone initiation, crossing safety. This requirement has
when the interim final rule was issued continuation, and establishment in a been added to the final rule to ensure
on December 18, 2003. Intermediate timely manner. that railroads and State agencies are
Quiet Zone and Intermediate Partial Under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, given an opportunity to provide
Quiet Zone communities will be the public authority is required to comment on proposed improvements to
required to meet New Quiet Zone provide notification of its intent to the quiet zone before the detailed plan
standards, but will be given additional create a New Quiet Zone or New Partial for quiet zone improvements is filed
time within which to come into Quiet Zone under § 222.39. This under § 222.41(c)(2).
compliance. FRA did not extend full notification shall be provided by Paragraph (a)(4) requires the public
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone treatment because certified mail, return receipt requested, authority to provide notification of quiet
these whistle bans were not in effect to: All railroads operating over the zone establishment under § 222.39,
when Congress instructed FRA to public highway-rail grade crossings 222.41(a), or 222.41(b). This notification
address the needs of communities that within the quiet zone; the State agency shall be provided by certified mail,
had pre-existing whistle bans on responsible for highway and road safety; return receipt requested, to: All
October 9, 1996. and the State agency responsible for railroads operating over the public
Paragraph (a) provides that a public grade crossing safety. This requirement highway-rail grade crossings within the
authority may continue an Intermediate has been added to the final rule to quiet zone; the highway or traffic
Quiet Zone or Intermediate Partial Quiet ensure that railroads and State agencies control or law enforcement authority
Zone on an interim basis, provided are given an opportunity to provide having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic
notification of quiet zone continuation comment on proposed quiet zones. at grade crossings within the quiet zone;
is provided in accordance with § 222.43. Paragraph (a)(2) requires the public the landowner having control over any
It is, however, important to note that authority to provide notification of its private crossings within the quiet zone;
this paragraph only provides interim intent to continue a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone the State agency responsible for
authority to continue a quiet zone. or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone under highway and road safety; the State
agency responsible for grade crossing utilized. FRA also encourages the public state the date on which locomotive horn
safety; and the Associate Administrator. authority to provide a specific reference use at highway-rail grade crossings
FRA notes that paragraph (a) has been to the regulatory provision that would within the quiet zone shall cease, but in
revised in the final rule in response to provide the basis for quiet zone no event shall that date be earlier than
comments submitted by Kristian creation, if known. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) 21 days after the date of mailing. This
Foondle, who discovered a discrepancy states that the Notice of Intent shall requirement should ensure that
between the preamble and the interim provide the name and address of the railroads receive notification of quiet
final rule text, which failed to include person who will act as the point of continuation at least 21 days before the
the State agency responsible for grade contact during the quiet zone horn sounding requirements of this rule
crossing safety in the list of parties to be development process, as well as the take effect, so that railroads will have
notified. As it has always been FRA’s manner in which that person can be enough time to notify their locomotive
intention to include the State agency contacted. This designated person shall engineers of quiet zone locations.
responsible for grade crossing safety in accept comments, if any, on the Paragraph (c)(2) provides a list of
the list of parties that must receive proposed quiet zone from State agencies documents that must be provided in
notification, FRA has revised the final and/or railroads. Paragraph (b)(1)(v) each Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation.
rule accordingly. requires that the Notice of Intent The final rule has been revised to
Paragraph (b) addresses the Notice of include a list of all of the parties that require the public authority to submit
Intent that is required for New Quiet will receive notification in accordance copies of all documentation to each
Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones. The with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. party listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this
Notice of Intent has been added to the Paragraph (b)(2), which has been section. This revision should facilitate
final rule in response to comments from added to the final rule, establishes a 60- the transfer of information about the
State agencies and railroads requesting day comment period on the Notice of quiet zone to the parties that will be
a greater role in the quiet zone Intent. This comment period was added most affected by it.
development process. (Please refer to in response to comments requesting that Paragraph (c)(2)(i) states that the
the Section-by-Section analysis of the rule be revised to provide public authority must provide a list of
§ 222.39(b) for a discussion of these opportunities for State agencies and each public highway-rail grade crossing,
comments.) As the issuance of the railroads to provide input during the private highway-rail grade crossing, and
Notice of Intent will give State agencies quiet zone development process. Under pedestrian crossing within the quiet
and railroads an opportunity to provide paragraph (b)(2)(i), any party that zone, identified by both U.S. DOT
input to the public authority on the receives a copy of the Notice of Intent National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
proposed quiet zone, FRA strongly may submit information or comments Inventory Number and street or highway
encourages public authorities to provide about the proposed quiet zone to the name. This paragraph was revised in the
written notification of their intent to public authority during the 60-day final rule to include pedestrian
create quiet zones as early in the quiet period after the date on which the crossings. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) states that
zone development process as possible. Notice of Intent was mailed. Even Notice must contain a specific reference
Paragraph (b)(1) provides a list of though the public authority would be to the regulatory provision that provides
documents that must be included in the well advised to carefully consider any the basis for quiet zone continuation,
Notice of Intent. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) thoughtful and well-reasoned comments while paragraph (c)(2)(iii) requires that
states that the public authority must received, FRA will not require the the Notice contain a statement of the
provide a list of each public highway- public authority to take any action in time period within which restrictions
rail grade crossing, private highway-rail response. This 60-day comment period will continue to be imposed on the
grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing may terminate, under paragraph routine sounding of the locomotive
that would be included in the proposed (b)(2)(ii), when the public authority horn. This statement should indicate
quiet zone, identified by both U.S. DOT obtains either written comments or ‘‘no- whether restrictions are imposed on a
National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing comment’’ statements from each 24-hour basis or merely during the
Inventory Number and street or highway railroad operating over public grade nighttime hours. If restrictions are
name. This requirement, which was crossings within the proposed quiet imposed during the nighttime hours, the
revised in the final rule to include zone, the State agency responsible for statement must provide the specific
pedestrian crossings, will help parties grade crossing safety, and the State times at which the restrictions will
identify crossings that would be affected agency responsible for highway and begin and end.
by the proposed quiet zone. Paragraph road safety. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) requires the
(b)(1)(ii) states that the Notice of Intent Paragraph (c) addresses the Notice of public authority to submit, to each party
must contain a statement of the time Quiet Zone Continuation. The interim listed in paragraph (a)(2), an accurate
period within which restrictions would final rule required public authorities to and complete Grade Crossing Inventory
be imposed on the routine sounding of provide notice of the continuation of Form for each public highway-rail grade
the locomotive horn. (It should be noted Pre-Rule Quiet Zones, but the scope of crossing, private highway-rail grade
that New Partial Quiet Zones may only this requirement has been expanded in crossing, and pedestrian crossing that
restrict locomotive horn use between the final rule to include Pre-Rule Partial reflects conditions currently existing at
the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.) This Quiet Zones, Intermediate Quiet Zones the crossing. The interim final rule
requirement will help parties determine and Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones. required public authorities to submit an
the type of quiet zone that is being Paragraph (c)(1)(i) states that, in order to accurate and complete Grade Crossing
proposed. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) states prevent the resumption of locomotive Inventory Form for each public and
that the Notice of Intent shall contain a horn sounding on June 24, 2005, the private highway-rail grade crossing
brief explanation of the public Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation shall dated within six months of quiet zone
authority’s tentative plans for be served no later than June 3, 2005. designation or FRA approval. This
implementing improvements within the However, if the Notice of Quiet Zone paragraph has, however, been revised to
proposed quiet zone. This explanation Continuation is mailed after June 3, include pedestrian crossings. In
should contain information on the types 2005, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) states that the addition, the six-month limitation has
of SSMs and/or ASMs that may be Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation shall been removed based on comments
received from SEH, Inc., which asserted agencies and railroads are given an public authority during the 60-day
that the six-month requirement was opportunity to provide input on period after the date on which the
burdensome because some states and proposed crossing improvements before Notice of Detailed Plan was mailed.
railroads perform mass updates only a the detailed plan is filed. Even though the public authority would
few times a year. Therefore, under the Paragraph (d)(2) provides a list of be well advised to carefully consider
final rule, FRA will accept copies of documents that must be included in the any thoughtful and well-reasoned
accurate and complete Grade Crossing Notice of Detailed Plan. Paragraph comments received, FRA will not
Inventory Forms, even if the forms are (d)(2)(i) states that the public authority require the public authority to take any
more than six months old, provided must provide a list of each public action in response.
they reflect conditions that currently highway-rail grade crossing, private Paragraph (e) addresses the Notice of
exist at the crossing. highway-rail grade crossing, and Quiet Zone Establishment. As stated in
FRA would like to clarify that FRA is pedestrian crossing that will be paragraph (a)(4), FRA is requiring public
not requiring that Grade Crossing included in the quiet zone, identified by authorities to provide notice of quiet
Inventory Forms be submitted to, and both U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail zone establishment for New Quiet Zones
processed by, FRA’s contractor before Grade Crossing Inventory Number and and New Partial Quiet Zones
submission. Given the fact that it can street or highway name. Paragraph established under § 222.39, Pre-Rule
take up to three months to process a (d)(2)(ii) states that the Notice of Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA Detailed Plan shall contain a statement Zones that qualify for automatic
will accept copies of Grade Crossing of the time period within which approval under § 222.41(a) or 222.41(b),
Inventory Forms that have been restrictions would be imposed on the and Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule
submitted to FRA’s contractor for routine sounding of the locomotive Partial Quiet Zones that did not qualify
processing, provided all entries on the horn. This statement should indicate for automatic approval under § 222.41.
Grade Crossing Inventory Form have whether restrictions are imposed on a Paragraph (e)(1) governs the timing of
been completed. 24-hour basis or merely during the the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment.
Paragraph (c)(2)(v) requires the public nighttime hours. If restrictions are Paragraph (e)(1)(i) retains the interim
authority to provide the name and imposed during the nighttime hours, the final rule requirement that the Notice of
address of the person responsible for statement must provide the specific Quiet Zone Establishment shall provide
monitoring compliance with the times at which the restrictions will the date upon which routine locomotive
requirements of this part, as well as the begin and end. horn use at highway-rail grade crossings
manner in which that person can be Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) states that the
shall cease, but in no event shall the
contacted. Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) requires Notice of Detailed Plan shall contain a
date be earlier than 21 days after the
the public authority to provide a list of brief explanation of the public
parties that will receive notification in authority’s tentative plans for date on which the Notice was mailed.
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this implementing improvements within the Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) states that if the
section. Please note that this proposed quiet zone. This explanation public authority was required to provide
requirement has been revised in the should contain information on the types a Notice of Intent, in accordance with
final rule to require the public authority of SSMs and/or ASMs that may be paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
to provide a list of the names, as well utilized. FRA also encourages the public Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
as the addresses, of each party that will authority to provide a specific reference shall not be mailed less than 60 days
be notified in accordance with to the regulatory provision that would after the mailing of the Notice of Intent,
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. provide the basis for quiet zone unless the Notice of Quiet Zone
Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) requires each creation, if known. Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) Establishment contains a written
public authority to submit a statement states that the Notice of Detailed Plan statement affirming that written
from its chief executive officer. This must provide the name and address of comments and/or ‘‘no-comment’’
requirement has been revised in the the person who will act as the point of statements have been received from
final rule to require that the chief contact during the quiet zone each railroad operating over public
executive officer’s statement include a development process, as well as the grade crossings within the proposed
certification that the information manner in which that person can be quiet zone, the State agency responsible
submitted by the public authority is contacted. This designated person shall for grade crossing safety, and the State
accurate and complete to the best of his/ accept comments, if any, on the agency responsible for highway and
her knowledge and belief. proposed crossing improvements from road safety in accordance with
Paragraph (d) addresses the Notice of State agencies and/or railroads. paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. This
Detailed Plan that is required for Pre- Paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires that the requirement has been added to the rule
Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Notice of Detailed Plan include a list of to ensure that State agencies and
Quiet Zones that did not qualify for all of the parties that will receive railroads are given an opportunity to
automatic approval under § 222.41. The notification in accordance with provide comment on the Notice of
Notice of Detailed Plan was added to the paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Intent before the Notice of Quiet Zone
final rule in response to comments from Paragraph (d)(3) establishes a 60-day Establishment is issued.
State agencies and railroads requesting comment period on the Notice of Paragraph (e)(2) provides a list of
a greater role in the quiet zone Detailed Plan. This comment period was documents that must be provided in
development process. (Please refer to added in response to comments each Notice of Quiet Zone
the Section-by-Section analysis of requesting that the rule be revised to Establishment. The final rule has been
§ 222.39(b) for a discussion of these provide opportunities for State agencies revised to require the public authority to
comments.) and railroads to provide input during submit copies of all documentation to
Paragraph (d)(1) states that the Notice the quiet zone development process. each party listed in paragraph (a)(4) of
of Detailed Plan must be served no later Thus, any party that receives a copy of this section. This revision should
than four months before the filing of the the Notice of Detailed Plan may submit facilitate the transfer of information
detailed plan under § 222.41(c)(2). This information or comments about the about the quiet zone to the parties that
requirement should ensure that State proposed crossing improvements to the will be most affected by it.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) states that the crossing, private highway-rail grade which the Notice of Intent was mailed,
Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment crossing, and pedestrian crossing within paragraph (e)(2)(viii) states that the
shall include a list of each public the quiet zone that reflects the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
highway-rail grade crossing, private conditions existing at the crossing shall also contain a written statement, in
highway-rail grade crossing, and before any new SSMs or ASMs were accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii),
pedestrian crossing within the quiet implemented. (‘‘New’’ SSMs are those affirming that written comments and/or
zone, identified by both U.S. DOT SSMs that do not meet the definition of ‘‘no comment’’ statements have been
National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing ‘‘pre-existing SSMs.’’) The interim final received from each railroad operating
Inventory Number and street or highway rule required public authorities to over public grade crossings within the
name. This paragraph has been revised submit an accurate and complete Grade proposed quiet zone, the State agency
to include pedestrian crossings. Crossing Inventory Form for each public responsible for grade crossing safety,
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) states that Notice and private highway-rail grade crossing and the State agency responsible for
shall contain a specific reference to the dated within six months of quiet zone highway and road safety in accordance
regulatory provision that provides the designation or FRA approval. This with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
basis for quiet zone establishment. This paragraph has, however, been revised to Paragraph (e)(2)(ix) states that if the
paragraph has, however, been revised to include pedestrian crossings. In public authority was required to provide
require public authorities to provide addition, the six-month limitation has a Notice of Detailed Plan in accordance
greater specificity when citing § 222.41 been removed in response to comments with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
as the regulatory basis for quiet zone from SEH, Inc, which asserted that the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
establishment. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) also six-month requirement was burdensome shall contain a statement affirming that
contains additional documentation because some states and railroads the Notice of Detailed Plan was, in fact,
requirements that are linked to the perform mass updates only a few times provided in accordance with paragraph
specific regulatory provision cited in the a year. Therefore, under the final rule, (a)(3) of this section. This statement
Notice. If the Notice contains a specific FRA will accept copies of accurate and shall also state the date on which the
reference to § 222.39(a)(2)(i), complete Grade Crossing Inventory Notice of Detailed Plan was mailed.
222.39(a)(2)(ii), 222.39(a)(3), Forms, even if the forms are more than Paragraph (e)(2)(x) requires the public
222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii), six months old. authority to provide the name and
222.41(a)(1)(iv), 222.41(b)(1)(ii), Paragraph (e)(2)(vi) requires the address of the person responsible for
222.41(b)(1)(iii), or 222.41(b)(1)(iv), the public authority to submit, to each party monitoring compliance with the
Notice shall contain a copy of the FRA listed in paragraph (a)(4), an accurate, requirements of this part, as well as the
web page that reflects the quiet zone complete and current Grade Crossing manner in which that person can be
data upon which the public authority is Inventory Form for each public contacted. Paragraph (e)(2)(xi) requires
relying. On the other hand, if the Notice highway-rail grade crossing, private the public authority to provide a list of
includes a specific reference to highway-rail grade crossing, and parties that will receive notification in
§ 222.39(b), it shall contain a copy of pedestrian crossing within the quiet accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this
FRA’s notification of approval. If a zone that reflects SSMs and ASMs in section. Please note that this
diagnostic team review was required place upon establishment of the quiet requirement has been revised in the
under § 222.25 or 222.27, paragraph zone. SSMs and ASMs that cannot be final rule to require the public authority
(e)(2)(iii) states that the Notice shall fully described on the Inventory Form to provide a list of the names, as well
contain a statement from the public shall be separately described. This as the addresses, of each party that will
authority affirming that the State agency paragraph has been revised to include be notified in accordance with
responsible for grade crossing safety and pedestrian crossings. paragraph (a) of this section.
all affected railroads were provided an FRA would like to clarify that FRA is Paragraph (e)(2)(xii) requires each
opportunity to participate in the not requiring that Grade Crossing public authority to submit a statement
diagnostic team review. The Notice Inventory Forms be submitted to, and from its chief executive officer. This
shall also contain a list of processed by, FRA’s contractor before requirement has been revised in the
recommendations made by the submission. Given the fact that it can final rule to require that the chief
diagnostic team. take up to three months to process a executive officer’s statement include a
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv) requires that the Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA certification that the information
Notice contain a statement of the time will accept copies of Grade Crossing submitted by the public authority is
period within which restrictions will be Inventory Forms that have been accurate and complete to the best of his/
imposed on the routine sounding of the submitted to FRA’s contractor for her knowledge and belief.
locomotive horn. This statement should processing, provided all entries on the
indicate whether restrictions will be Grade Crossing Inventory Form have Section 222.45 When Is a Railroad
imposed on a 24-hour basis or merely been completed. Required To Cease Routine Use of
during the nighttime hours. If Paragraph (e)(2)(vii) states that if the Locomotive Horns at Crossings?
restrictions will be imposed during the public authority was required to provide This section was revised in the final
nighttime hours, the statement must a Notice of Intent, in accordance with rule to provide a more specific reference
provide the specific times at which the paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the to the provisions contained within
restrictions will begin and end. (It Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment § 222.43 that pertain to the Notice of
should be noted that New Partial Quiet shall contain a statement affirming that Quiet Zone Establishment.
Zones may only restrict locomotive horn the Notice of Intent was, in fact,
use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 provided in accordance with paragraph Section 222.47 What Periodic Updates
a.m.) (a)(1) of this section. This statement Are Required?
Paragraph (e)(2)(v) requires the public shall also state the date on which the The Southern California Regional Rail
authority to submit, to each party listed Notice of Intent was mailed. Authority submitted comments on this
in paragraph (a)(2), an accurate and If the Notice of Quiet Zone section recommending that the rule be
complete Grade Crossing Inventory Establishment was, however, mailed revised to require public authorities to
Form for each public highway-rail grade less than 60 days after the date on submit confirmation of dedicated
funding for non-engineering ASMs in updates to the State agency responsible Zones, or New Partial Quiet Zones that
their periodic updates. While FRA for grade crossing safety. Therefore, were established by having an SSM at
encourages public authorities to ensure State agencies that receive copies of the every public grade crossing or by
a dedicated funding source for their Grade Crossing Inventory Forms as part reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to
non-engineering ASMs, FRA is of the public authority notification the Risk Index With Horns. There is no
unwilling to require public authorities packages and periodic updates can need to perform annual risk reviews for
to do so. Should a lack of funding review these Forms and then notify FRA these types of quiet zones because the
negatively impact a non-engineering if any inaccurate data is discovered. If quiet zone risk level has been reduced
ASM, the violation rates within the substantial data errors are discovered, to a level that fully compensates for the
affected quiet zone should increase, FRA reserves the right to review quiet absence of the locomotive horn.
which in turn, should motivate the zone status under § 222.51(c). Paragraph (a)(2) has not been revised in
public authority to devote additional The North Carolina Department of the final rule.
resources to the ASM. In addition, FRA Transportation submitted comments Paragraph (b) addresses annual
reserves the right to review quiet zone recommending that this section be reviews of risk levels at crossings within
status under § 222.51(c), if the Associate revised to include penalties and/or Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule
Administrator perceives that the safety sanctions for parties that misrepresent Partial Quiet Zones. This paragraph has
systems and measures implemented data on the Grade Crossing Inventory been revised in the final rule to include
within the quiet zone do not fully Form. FRA has not revised the rule to Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. Paragraph
compensate for the absence of the include specific penalties or sanctions (b)(1) provides that FRA will annually
locomotive horn. for parties that misrepresent data. calculate the Quiet Zone Risk Index for
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section However, FRA reserves the right to refer two types of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones: each
have been revised in the final rule to any person for criminal prosecution, Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that qualified for
require public authorities to submit under 49 U.S.C. 21311, who knowingly automatic approval pursuant to
updated Grade Crossing Inventory and willfully provides false information §§ 222.41(a)(1)(ii) and 222.41(a)(1)(iii)
Forms for pedestrian crossings, in during the quiet zone application and/ and each Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone
addition to the updated Inventory or designation process. that qualified for automatic approval
Forms for public and private grade pursuant to §§ 222.41(b)(1)(ii) and
Section 222.51 Under What Conditions
crossings that were required under the 222.41(b)(1)(iii). Paragraph (b)(1) also
Will Quiet Zone Status Be Terminated?
interim final rule. provides that FRA will notify each
This provision is intended to ensure public authority of the Quiet Zone Risk
Section 222.49 Who May File Grade that quiet zones, while providing for Index for the preceding calendar year
Crossing Inventory Forms? quiet at grade crossings, also continue to for each such quiet zone in its
Paragraph (a) of this section was provide the level of safety for motorists jurisdiction. In addition, FRA will
revised in the final rule to clarify that and rail employees and passengers that notify each public authority if a relevant
Grade Crossing Inventory Forms existed before the quiet zones were first collision occurred at a grade crossing
required to be filed with the Associate established, or in the alternative, the within the quiet zone during the
Administrator in accordance with level of safety provided by the average preceding calendar year. (Again, it
§ 222.39 may also be filed by the public gated public crossing where locomotive should be noted that collisions
authority if, for any reason, such forms horns are routinely sounded. In order to occurring outside the time period
are not timely submitted by the State ensure this level of safety, FRA will within which the locomotive horn is
and railroad. However, paragraph (b) of review grade crossing safety data on at routinely sounded are not considered
this section has not been revised in the least an annual basis. Paragraphs (a) and ‘‘relevant collisions’’ for purposes of
final rule. (b) address annual FRA risk reviews of Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones.)
The Ohio Rail Development quiet zones established in comparison Paragraph (b)(2) addresses Pre-Rule
Commission submitted comments to the Nationwide Significant Risk Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
noting that the interim final rule did not Threshold, while paragraph (c) provides Zones that originally qualified for
require State agency review of the Grade for a review of quiet zone status at automatic approval pursuant to
Crossing Inventory Forms before FRA’s initiative. Paragraph (d) has been §§ 222.41(a)(1)(ii) and 222.41(b)(1)(ii).
submission. The Ohio Rail Development added to give public authorities the Under paragraph (b)(2)(i), a Pre-Rule
Commission asserted that such review ability to withdraw their quiet zone Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
would ensure that accurate data is status at any time, while addressing the Zone that qualified for automatic
provided on the Grade Crossing implications of withdrawing from a approval under § 222.41(a)(1)(ii) or
Inventory Form. The California PUC multi-jurisdictional quiet zone. 222.41(b)(1)(ii) may continue
also submitted comments asserting that Paragraphs (e) and (f) address the quiet unchanged if the Quiet Zone Risk Index,
public authorities should not be allowed zone termination process. as last calculated by FRA, remains at, or
to update the Grade Crossing Inventory Paragraph (a) addresses annual below, the Nationwide Significant Risk
Form. However, FRA has not revised the reviews of risk levels at crossings within Threshold. In addition, under paragraph
rule to require State agency review of New Quiet Zones. Paragraph (a)(1) (b)(2)(ii) of this section, if the Quiet
Grade Crossing Inventory Forms or to provides that FRA will annually Zone Risk Index as last calculated by
prohibit public authorities from calculate the Quiet Zone Risk Index for FRA is above the Nationwide
submitting updated Grade Crossing New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Significant Risk Threshold, but is lower
Inventory Forms. Sections 222.43 and Zones, if they were established in than twice the Nationwide Significant
222.47 of the rule, which requires comparison to the Nationwide Risk Threshold and no relevant
public authorities to submit Grade Significant Risk Threshold under collisions have occurred at crossings
Crossing Inventory Forms as part of § 222.39. FRA will also notify the public within the quiet zone within the five
their quiet zone notification packages or authority of the Quiet Zone Risk Index years preceding the annual risk review,
periodic updates, also require the public for the preceding calendar year. FRA the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule
authority to provide copies of these will not, however, perform routine Partial Quiet Zone may continue as
notification packages and periodic annual risk reviews for New Quiet though it originally received automatic
approval pursuant to § 222.41(a)(1)(iii) on public safety, or (3) significant risk time the QZRI rises above the
or 222.41(b)(1)(iii) of this part. with respect to the loss of life or serious Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) has not been revised personal injury exists within the quiet However, if the Associate Administrator
in the final rule. zone, the Associate Administrator will perceives that an existing quiet zone
Paragraph (b)(3) addresses Pre-Rule provide written notice of that contains an extraordinary level of risk,
Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet determination. This notice of due to a recent collision, a marked
Zones that originally qualified for determination shall be provided to the increase in train or vehicular traffic, or
automatic approval pursuant to public authority, all railroads operating a marked increase in train or vehicular
§§ 222.41(a)(1)(iii) and 222.41(b)(1)(iii). over public highway-rail grade crossings speeds, FRA reserves the right to review
Under paragraph (b)(3)(i), a Pre-Rule within the quiet zone, the highway or quiet zone status at its initiative.
Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet traffic control authority or law Paragraph (c)(3) provides an
Zone that qualified for automatic enforcement authority having control opportunity to provide comments on the
approval under §§ 222.41(a)(1)(iii) or over vehicular traffic at the crossings preliminary determination to the
222.41(b)(1)(iii) may continue within the quiet zone, the landowner Associate Administrator. After
unchanged if the Quiet Zone Risk Index, having control over any private considering the comments provided, the
as last calculated by FRA, remains crossings within the quiet zone, the Associate Administrator may require
below twice the Nationwide Significant State agency responsible for grade that additional safety measures be taken
Risk Threshold and there have been no crossing safety, and the State agency or that the quiet zone be terminated.
relevant collisions at any public grade responsible for highway and road safety. The final rule has been revised to
crossing within the quiet zone during The Associate Administrator will also specifically state that the Associate
the preceding calendar year. Paragraph publish a notice of determination in the Administrator will provide a copy of
(b)(3)(ii) of this section has not been Federal Register. his/her decision to the public authority
revised in the final rule. This paragraph has been revised in and all parties listed in paragraph (c)(2)
Paragraph (b)(4) of this section has the final rule to include those situations of this section. The public authority
been revised to substitute the term ‘‘Risk in which FRA becomes aware of may appeal the Associate
Index With Horns’’ for the phrase ‘‘a substantial errors in the documentation Administrator’s decision by submitting
level that fully compensates for the that was relied upon when the quiet a petition for reconsideration in
absence of the train horn.’’ zone was established. FRA made this accordance with § 222.57(c).
Asserting that one year of data may revision in response to comments Although very unlikely, conditions at
not be indicative of a trend, Metra submitted by the AAR, which suggested any particular crossing or quiet zone
submitted comments on this section, that FRA explicitly reserve the right to could pose such an imminent hazard
asserting that Pre-Rule Quiet Zone immediately terminate any quiet zone that the quiet zone termination
status should be maintained for at least that was improperly implemented. After procedures established by this section
three years regardless of changes to the considering this comment, FRA decided become contrary to public safety. Thus,
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. to reserve the right to terminate quiet paragraph (c)(3) specifically states that
However, FRA has not revised the rule zones that have been implemented on this section is not intended to limit the
to extend the time period between risk the basis of significantly misleading Administrator’s emergency order
reviews for Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. If a information that may adversely impact authority under 49 CFR part 211 or 49
public authority is concerned that public safety. Although action by FRA U.S.C. 20104, which provides statutory
fluctuations in the Nationwide under this section does not immediately authority to the Administrator to
Significant Risk Threshold may require terminate the quiet zone, as proposed by immediately issue emergency orders
additional improvements in the near the AAR, FRA retains emergency order ‘‘when an unsafe condition or practice,
future, then the public authority should authority to do so. It should also be or a combination of unsafe conditions
consider implementing improvements noted that FRA reserves the right to and practices, causes an emergency
within the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that will refer any person for criminal situation involving a hazard of death or
reduce the QZRI to a level at or below prosecution under 49 U.S.C. 21311 or 18 personal injury.’’
the Risk Index With Horns. By reducing U.S.C. 1001, or both, who knowingly Paragraph (d) was added to the final
the QZRI to the Risk Index With Horns, and willfully provides false information rule in response to comments received
the public authority can avoid annual during the quiet zone application and/ from the New Jersey Department of
risk reviews and any associated or designation process. Transportation which noted that the
uncertainty. FRA would like to provide interim final rule did not provide a
Paragraph (c) provides that the clarification of the standard that would process by which quiet zone status
Associate Administrator may, at any be applied for any quiet zone risk could be withdrawn. Under this
time, review the status of any quiet review in accordance with paragraph paragraph, any public authority that
zone. This section is included in the (c)(2)(iii) of this section. The DuPage participated in the establishment a quiet
rule to enable the Associate Mayors and Manager Conference and zone may, at any time, withdraw its
Administrator to deal with any the Chicago Area Transportation Study quiet zone status, even if the public
unforeseen and dramatic increase in risk submitted comments recommending authority is part of a multi-jurisdictional
that may arise in the future. Under this that the rule be revised to draw a quiet zone.
paragraph, if the Associate distinction between the standard of Paragraph (d)(2) establishes the
Administrator makes a preliminary ‘‘significant risk with respect to loss of process by which quiet zone status may
determination that (1) the safety systems life or serious personal injury’’ that may be terminated by the public authority.
and measures implemented within the be applied during FRA review of a quiet Under this paragraph, a public authority
quiet zone do not fully compensate for zone and the Nationwide Significant may terminate its quiet zone status by
the absence of the locomotive horn due Risk Threshold. After considering these providing written notice of quiet zone
to a substantial increase in risk, (2) comments, FRA would like to take this termination, by certified mail, return
documentation relied upon to establish opportunity to note that FRA review of receipt requested, to all railroads
the quiet zone contains substantial quiet zone status under paragraph (c) of operating the public highway-rail grade
errors that may have an adverse impact this section will not be triggered every crossings within the quiet zone, the
highway or traffic control authority or written commitment was received by rule be revised to provide credit for
law enforcement authority having FRA. communities that have installed SSMs
control over vehicular traffic at the Paragraph (e) establishes the since October 9, 1996. However, the
crossings within the quiet zone, the notification process that must be Chicago Department of Transportation,
landowner having control over any followed when a quiet zone is the Chicago Area Transportation Study
private crossings within the quiet zone, terminated. This process has been and the DuPage Mayors and Managers
the State agency responsible for grade revised in the final rule to require the Conference submitted comments
crossing safety, the State agency public authority to provide immediate asserting that any SSM, regardless of
responsible for highway and road safety, notification of quiet zone termination by
when it was installed, should result in
and the Associate Administrator. certified mail, return receipt requested,
quiet zone risk reduction. If a
Paragraph (d)(3) specifically addresses to all railroads operating over public
highway-rail grade crossings within the qualification ‘‘cut-off’’ date was
situations in which a public authority necessary, though, in order to provide
may wish to withdraw from a multi- quiet zone, the highway or traffic
control authority or law enforcement credit for some, but not all, SSMs that
jurisdictional quiet zone. Paragraph have already been installed, the date of
(d)(3)(i) states that the public authorities authority having control over vehicular
traffic at the crossings within the quiet November 2, 1994 would be
responsible for the remaining quiet
zone, the landowner having control over appropriate. After considering these
zones shall provide statements to the
Associate Administrator that certify that any private crossings within the quiet comments, FRA decided to provide risk
the Quiet Zone Risk Index for each zone, the State agency responsible for reduction credit for pre-existing SSMs
remaining quiet zone is at, or below, the grade crossing safety, the State agency regardless of the date on which the SSM
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold responsible for highway and road safety, was installed, so that all communities
or the Risk Index With Horns. These and the Associate Administrator. The that installed have SSMs can obtain risk
statements shall be provided, no later final rule has also been revised to reduction credit for having done so.
than six months after the notice of quiet require FRA to provide written
The final rule does not, however,
zone termination was mailed, to all notification to all parties listed in
provide credit for pre-existing
parties listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this paragraph (e)(1) of this section. This
provision was, however, added as a permanent grade crossing closures or
section. pre-existing grade separations because
safeguard, as the public authority
If any remaining quiet zone has a the risk level that existed at the original
retains primary responsibility for
Quiet Zone Risk Index in excess of the public grade crossing before it was
notifying all parties listed in paragraph
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold permanently closed or grade-separated
(e)(1) of the termination of a quiet zone.
and the Risk Index With Horns, the Paragraph (f) retains the requirement cannot be determined. Public
public authority responsible for that that railroads begin sounding the authorities should not be adversely
quiet zone shall submit a written locomotive horn at all public highway- affected by this exception, though,
commitment, to all parties listed in rail grade crossings within the former because the risk indices for public grade
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, to quiet zone within seven days after crossings that have been permanently
reduce the Quiet Zone Risk Index to the receiving notice of quiet zone closed or grade separated are not
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold termination. included in the calculation of the Quiet
or the Risk Index With Horns. Included
in this commitment statement shall be Section 222.53 What Are the Zone Risk Index.
a discussion of the specific steps to be Requirements for Supplementary and Paragraph (b) has also been revised in
taken by the public authority to reduce Alternative Safety Measures? the final rule to provide credit for pre-
the Quiet Zone Risk Index. This This section, through reference to existing modified SSMs, in the manner
commitment statement shall be Appendices A and B, lists acceptable specified by appendix B. The Chicago
provided to all parties listed under SSMs and ASMs. Paragraph (a) states Department of Transportation submitted
paragraph (d)(2) of this section no later that approved SSMs are listed in comments asserting that any ASM,
than six months after the date on which appendix A. This paragraph has also regardless of when it was installed,
the notice of quiet zone termination was been revised in the final rule to state should result in quiet zone risk
mailed. that, with the exception of permanent reduction credit. However, if a ‘‘cutoff’’
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) states that failure crossing closures, pre-existing SSMs can date must be chosen, the date on which
to comply with paragraph (d)(3)(i) or qualify for quiet zone risk reduction Public Law 103–440 was adopted
(d)(3)(ii) of this section (i.e., failure to credit in the manner specified by (November 2, 1994) would be
submit a certification or commitment appendix A. This revision has been appropriate. After considering these
statement) shall result in termination of made in response to comments comments, FRA revised the rule to
the remaining quiet zone(s) six months requesting that the final rule assign provide risk reduction credit for pre-
after the date on which the notice of quiet zone risk reduction credit for pre- existing modified SSMs, regardless of
quiet zone termination was mailed by existing SSMs. For example, Vydas the date on which the modified SSM
the withdrawing public authority. Juskelis, resident of Villa Park, Illinois, was installed. FRA has not, however,
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) states that failure to submitted comments requesting credit
complete implementation of SSMs and/ extended risk reduction credit for pre-
for the medians that the village had
or ASMs to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk existing non-engineering ASMs or
installed at two grade crossings in 1998
Index to a level at, or below, the and 2003. Under this final rule, if the engineering ASMs because the initial
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold medians installed by the Village of Villa risk level that existed at public grade
or the Risk Index With Horns in Park comply with the requirements set crossings when the non-engineering
accordance with the written forth in appendix A, the medians will ASM or engineering ASM was
commitment provided under paragraph qualify for quiet zone risk reduction implemented cannot be determined.
(d)(3)(ii) of this section shall result in credit. Paragraph (c) has not been revised in
termination of the remaining quiet zone The Village of Hinsdale, Illinois the final rule.
three years after the date on which the submitted comments suggesting that the
Section 222.55 How Are New § 222.51(c)(2). Upon receipt of a timely rate to the wayside horn. A study
Supplementary or Alternative Safety and proper petition, the Associate performed by the Texas Transportation
Measures Approved? Administrator will give the public Institute in May 2000, which compared
This section has not been revised in authority an opportunity to submit driver violation rates at a grade crossing
the final rule. additional documents and to request an equipped with a wayside horn, found
informal hearing. After reviewing the that the wayside horn was as effective
Section 222.57 Can Parties Seek additional materials and completing any as the locomotive horn. However, after
Review of the Associate Administrator’s hearing requested, the Associate almost five years, use of the wayside
Actions? Administrator shall issue a decision on horn did not result in a significant
This section details the right of parties the petition that will be administratively reduction in driver violation rates, when
to seek review of the Associate final. A copy of this decision will be compared to the pre-test, baseline driver
Administrator’s actions. served on each party listed in violation rate. FRA notes that the safety
Paragraph (a) of this section has been § 222.51(c)(2). measures that have been approved for
revised to provide a list of the parties Paragraph (d) has been added to the use as SSMs and have been assigned
final rule in response to comments effectiveness rates, when implemented,
that shall receive a copy of the petition
submitted by the Association of have a demonstrated effect on reducing
for review of the Associate
American Railroads requesting a formal crossing collision risk. Since the
Administrator’s decision to grant or
right to appeal FRA approvals of wayside horn has not demonstrated a
deny an application of approval of a
proposed quiet zones when a railroad significant effect on driver violation
new SSM or ASM.
believes that public safety will be rates, the final rule will continue to treat
Paragraph (b) provides a process by
adversely affected by the quiet zone. wayside horns as a one-to-one substitute
which a public authority may request
After considering these comments, FRA for the locomotive horn.
reconsideration of a decision of the
revised the final rule to provide a Paragraph (b) of this section has been
Associate Administrator to deny an
process by which a railroad may request revised in the final rule to provide a
application for approval of a quiet zone
reconsideration of a decision of the specific list of parties who shall receive
or to require additional safety measures
Associate Administrator to approve a a copy of the notice of wayside horn
as a condition of approval. Under the quiet zone application under installation. This paragraph has also
terms of this paragraph, the public § 222.39(b). Under the terms of this been revised to require that the notice
authority may file a petition for paragraph, a railroad may file a petition of wayside horn installation state the
reconsideration within 60 days of the for reconsideration within 60 days of date on which the wayside horn will
date of the Associate Administrator’s the Associate Administrator’s decision become operational, which shall be at
decision. The petition, which must be to approve a quiet zone application. The least 21 days after the notice of wayside
served upon all parties listed in petition, which must be served upon all horn installation is mailed.
§ 222.39(b)(3), must specify the grounds parties listed in § 222.39(b)(3), must Paragraph (c) has been modified in
for asserting that the proposed SSMs specify the grounds for asserting that the the final rule to allow a railroad or
and ASMs would not result in a Quiet proposed SSMs and ASMs would result public authority to provide written
Zone Risk Index that would be at or in a Quiet Zone Risk Index that would notification of wayside horn
below the Risk Index With Horns or the be at or below the Risk Index With installations at grade crossings that are
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. Horns or the Nationwide Significant located outside a quiet zone. Under the
Upon receipt of a timely and proper Risk Threshold. Upon receipt of a interim final rule, the public authority
petition, the Associate Administrator timely and proper petition, the was the only party authorized to
will give the public authority an Associate Administrator will give the provide this notification. FRA decided
opportunity to submit additional railroad an opportunity to submit to extend this authorization in the final
documents and to request an informal additional materials and to request an rule to include railroads, in order to
hearing. After reviewing the additional informal hearing. After reviewing any provide greater flexibility.
materials and completing any hearing additional materials and completing any This paragraph has also been revised
requested, the Associate Administrator hearing requested, the Associate in the final rule to require the railroad
shall issue a decision on the petition Administrator shall issue a decision or public authority to provide written
that will be administratively final. which shall be administratively final. notification of wayside horn installation
Paragraph (c) provides a process by to all railroads operating over the public
which a public authority may request Section 222.59 When May a Wayside highway-rail grade crossing, the
reconsideration of a decision of the Horn Be Used? highway or traffic control authority or
Associate Administrator to terminate This section addresses the law enforcement authority having
quiet zone status. This process has, requirements pertaining to wayside control over vehicular traffic at the
however, been revised in the final rule, horn installations at grade crossings. crossing, the State agency responsible
as filing a petition under this paragraph Paragraph (a) of this section has not for grade crossing safety, the State
will no longer stay the termination of been revised in the final rule. The agency responsible for highway and
quiet zone status, unless the Associate Chicago Area Transportation Study road safety, and the Associate
Administrator publishes a notice in the submitted comments recommending Administrator. Under the interim final
Federal Register that specifically stays that the rule be revised to provide risk rule, the public authority was required
the effectiveness of his/her decision to reduction credit for wayside horn to provide written notification to the
terminate quiet zone status. Under the installations within quiet zones. Since Associate Administrator and each
terms of this paragraph, a public wayside horns have an effect that is railroad operating over the grade
authority may file a petition for similar to the locomotive horn, the crossing. FRA has expanded this list of
reconsideration within 60 days of the Chicago Area Transportation Study notified parties to ensure that all
date of the Associate Administrator’s recommended that an effectiveness rate affected parties are notified of wayside
decision. The petition must specify the of 66.8 percent be assigned to wayside horn installations outside quiet zones.
grounds for the requested relief and be horns. FRA has not, however, revised Paragraph (d) retains the interim final
served upon all parties listed in the rule by assigning an effectiveness rule requirement that a railroad
operating over a grade crossing Lake, Wisconsin submitted comments rates have not been added to the final
equipped with an operational wayside recommending that extended gate arms rule.
horn installed within a quiet zone be tested and approved by FRA as SSMs
pursuant to this section shall cease because they effectively prevent Temporary Closure of a Public
routine locomotive horn use at the grade motorists from driving around lowered Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
crossing. This paragraph has, however, gates and they cost considerably less The requirements pertaining to this
been revised in the final rule, with than 4-quadrant gates. Laurie and Greg SSM have been modified in the final
respect to its treatment of grade Teran, residents of Acton, rule. Requirement ‘‘a’’ has been
crossings that are equipped with Massachusetts, submitted comments modified to state that the closure system
wayside horns, but located outside of a urging FRA to accommodate local
quiet zone. Under the interim final rule, must completely block highway traffic
solutions for high grade crossing risk by
railroads could cease routine locomotive on all approach lanes to the crossing.
allowing safety gates with 3⁄4-length
horn use at these grade crossings This modification was made in response
arms to be used as Alternative Safety
through agreement with the public Measures. On the other hand, the North to comments received from the Ohio
authority. This paragraph has, however, Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Development Commission
been revised in the final rule to require submitted comments asserting that the suggesting that the rule be revised to
railroads to cease routine locomotive use of articulated and longer gate arms make it clear that closure devices
horn use on the operational date should not be permitted as an SSM, in should be provided for each approach to
specified in the notice of wayside horn light of studies that have demonstrated the crossing, including one-way streets.
installation, which shall be provided decreased effectiveness from the use of Requirement ‘‘b’’, which has been added
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. these devices. to the final rule, pertains to adjacent
After considering these comments, pedestrian crossings. FRA received
Appendix A—Supplementary Safety
Measures FRA did not revise the rule by adding comments from the AAR and the Ohio
elongated gate arms to the list of Rail Development Commission
Appendix A provides a list of SSMs recommending that the final rule be
approved SSMs because of the lack of
that have been determined by FRA to revised to require closure of pedestrian
demonstrated effectiveness of these
effectively compensate for the lack of crossings and adjacent sidewalks
devices. However, public authorities
the locomotive horn. This list of whenever the highway-rail grade
who wish to add elongated gate arms to
approved SSMs has been expanded to
the list of approved SSMs are crossing is temporarily closed. After
include permanent closures of public
encouraged to follow the procedures set considering these comments, FRA
highway-rail grade crossings, as
discussed herein. However, barrier gates forth in § 222.55 for obtaining FRA added requirement ‘‘b’’ to the final rule,
have not been added to the list of approval to demonstrate the which requires that the closure system
approved SSMs. FRA received effectiveness of these traffic control completely block adjacent pedestrian
comments from Universal Safety measures. crossings. Requirement ‘‘c’’ has also
Response, Inc. recommending that the Appendix A has also been revised in been revised in the final rule by
rule be revised to allow ‘‘smart’’ the final rule to set forth the procedures requiring a specified crossing closure
barriers, such as the GRAB-sp (Ground by which public authorities can receive period (10 p.m. until 7 a.m.) within New
Retractable Automobile Barrier), to credit for certain pre-existing SSMs. Partial Quiet Zones. This revision has
qualify as approved SSMs. FRA notes (For a discussion of the comments been made in response to comments
that barrier gates are currently treated as received on this issue, please refer to the submitted by the AAR, which urged
Gates with Medians for purposes of preamble discussion of § 222.53.) An FRA to establish uniform closure
quiet zone risk reduction credit. explanatory note has also been added at periods for temporary crossing closures
However, public authorities who are the beginning of this appendix, which in order to minimize locomotive
interested in obtaining a higher states that the SSM effectiveness rates engineer confusion.
effectiveness rate for a proposed barrier are subject to adjustment as research
and demonstration projects are Requirements ‘‘d’’ through ‘‘f’’ have
gate system may submit supporting not been revised in the final rule.
documentation to the Associate completed and data is gathered and
refined. This explanatory note, which However, requirement ‘‘g’’, which
Administrator for consideration.
was derived from language in the requires that the closure system be
FRA also received a number of
comments from individuals and preamble to the interim final rule, has equipped with a monitoring device that
organizations, who submitted comments been added to the final rule text to make contains an indicator that is visible to
recommending that the rule be revised it clear that the effectiveness rates of the the train crew prior to entering the
to include extended gate arms which SSMs listed in appendix A are subject crossing, has been added to the final
completely block the intersection in the to change. FRA received comments on rule. The Ohio Rail Development
list of approved SSMs as a cost-effective this issue from the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the North Carolina
substitute for 4-quadrant gate systems. Authority and the New York Department of Transportation submitted
Terence Daugherty, Village Council Department of Transportation comments recommending that the rule
President in Russia, Ohio, submitted suggesting that the interim final rule be be revised to require that temporary
comments expressing disappointment revised to include a periodic review of closure systems be equipped with
that gates which completely block the SSM effectiveness rates. FRA intends to monitoring/indicator devices that
intersection on the ingress side have not revise the SSM effectiveness rates in the illuminate and are visible to the train
been included in the final rule. The Rice future, as more data on SSM crew whenever the quiet zone is in
Lake Homeowners Association in effectiveness rates becomes available effect and the closure system has been
Chesterton, Indiana, submitted through research and demonstration deployed. After considering these
comments asserting that extended gate projects, as well as real-world comments and the positive effect that
arms should be considered by FRA as a experience with SSM implementation the monitoring/indicator device would
cost-effective option for quiet zone risk inside quiet zones. However, formal have on crossing safety, FRA revised the
reduction credit. The Village of Silver periodic reviews of SSM effectiveness final rule accordingly.
Four-Quadrant Gate System Maintenance Manager for the City of FRA received comments on
This section has not been revised in Malibu, California, which had installed requirements ‘‘b’’ and ‘‘c’’. The Florida
the final rule. these devices on the Pacific Coast Department of Transportation submitted
FRA received comments on the Highway to discourage drivers from comments reiterating its position that
effectiveness rates assigned to four- making left turns at inappropriate 100-foot medians may not provide a
quadrant gate systems in the interim locations. Mr. Calvin asserted that sufficient deterrent effect. In support of
final rule. The Ohio Rail Development motorists drove over the surface- this position, the Florida Department of
Commission submitted comments mounted tubular delineators at such a Transportation asserted that 200-foot
asserting that the lower effectiveness high rate that the majority of the devices medians are more effective on heavily
rate assigned to 4-quadrant gate systems had to be replaced annually. Once the traveled, multi-lane urban roadways.
with vehicle presence detection acts as surface-mounted tubular delineators Therefore, the Florida Department of
were removed and replaced with Transportation recommended that
a disincentive against their use, even
medians equipped with wide vertical traffic volume and the number of
though vehicle presence detection can
markers, there was a dramatic reduction roadway lanes be evaluated when
be critical to the safe operation of the 4-
in associated maintenance costs. determining desirable median length.
quadrant gate system. Railroad Controls
The increased maintenance As stated in the Interim Final Rule, FRA
Limited submitted similar comments
responsibility associated with surface- agrees that use of 200-foot medians will
requesting that FRA reconsider its
mounted tubular delineators was also often be recommended when
position on this issue and acknowledge
discussed in comments from the Ohio practicable. However, FRA is merely
that 4-quadrant gate systems that
Rail Development Commission, which prescribing a minimum 100-foot median
incorporate vehicle presence detection
asserted that traffic lane delineators length requirement. Public authorities
provide a greater degree of safety to may choose to install longer medians at
roadway users. After considering these should not be allowed as channelization
devices because they are easy to drive their discretion.
comments, FRA did not revise the With respect to requirement ‘‘c’’, FRA
effectiveness rates assigned to four- through and can be easily broken.
Richard Doll, Sr., Signal Systems received comments from the City of
quadrant systems equipped with vehicle Orange, California recommending that
presence detection because the vehicle Engineer for the Town of Greenwich,
Connecticut, submitted comments the rule be revised to allow commercial
presence detection system provides a driveways within 60 feet of the crossing
potential opportunity for motorists to suggesting that FRA revert back to the
language within the NPRM, which only gate arm, provided they are equipped
circumvent the grade crossing warning with directional signs and positive
system. However, FRA notes that the allowed the use of mountable curbs as
approved channelization devices. barricades (i.e., ‘‘Pork Chop’’ medians).
rule assigns a higher effectiveness rate The City of Orange, California also
(.92) to four-quadrant gate systems After considering these comments,
asserted that low-volume commercial
equipped with vehicle presence FRA decided to revise the definition of
driveways should not be considered to
detection, if traffic channelization channelization devices to exclude
be intersections for purposes of this
devices at least 60 feet in length are also surface-mounted tubular delineators,
rule. However, given the unique
installed at the crossing. FRA also notes given the maintenance responsibility
characteristics of each highway-rail
that more extensive use of 4-quadrant associated with these devices and the
grade crossing, FRA would prefer to
gates, which has begun to take place impact that inadequate maintenance
review public authority applications for
only over the past several years, will would have on the effectiveness of these
the use of these modified SSMs on a
provide additional data that may permit devices. FRA decided to adopt an
crossing-by-crossing basis. Therefore,
an adjustment in the effectiveness rate approach similar to that recommended
requirement c has not been revised in
within a reasonably short period. by the North Carolina Department of
the final rule.
Transportation of requiring permanent
Gates With Medians or Channelization raised longitudinal channelizers as a One Way Street With Gate(s)
Devices component of approved median SSMs. Only minor revisions have been made
The definition of channelization FRA notes that it would be highly to the list of requirements for this SSM.
devices has been revised in the final advisable to use raised longitudinal Requirements ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘c’’ have not
rule to exclude surface-mounted tubular channelizers that are at least four inches been revised in the final rule. However,
delineators, in response to comments high. Thus, under the final rule, vertical requirement ‘‘d’’ has been revised to
expressing concern with the panels and tubular delineators can only include Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones.
effectiveness of these devices. In be used as approved SSMs, if they are Requirement ‘‘d’’ has also been revised
particular, FRA notes that the North affixed to raised longitudinal to provide clarification of the
Carolina Department of Transportation channelizers or non-traversable curbs. circumstances under which the
submitted comments recommending The requirements pertaining to this installation of constant warning time
that the rule prohibit the use of tube- SSM have not been substantially revised devices and power-out indicators would
type delineators that adhere directly to in the final rule. However, edits have be required.
the roadway surface as approved been made to requirement ‘‘e’’ in order
channelization devices. These to correct a typographical error and Permanent Closure of a Public Highway-
comments were especially troubling provide further clarification on when Rail Grade Crossing
because FRA relied upon the positive constant warning time devices must be FRA has added permanent grade
results of a traffic study conducted in installed. The final rule states that crossing closures to the list of approved
Charlotte, North Carolina when it constant warning time devices are SSMs in appendix A. Under the interim
allowed surface-mounted traffic required when existing warning systems final rule, public authorities could
delineators to be used as approved are renewed or when new automatic receive credit for permanently closing a
SSMs under the interim final rule. warning systems are installed, unless public grade crossing by including the
FRA also received negative comments conditions at the crossing would crossing to be closed in the calculation
on the use of surface-mounted tubular prevent the proper operation of these of the Risk Index With Horns. However,
delineators from Richard Calvin, devices. the public authority could not include
the crossing in the calculation of the current risk indices for the other grade Appendix B—Alternative Safety
Quiet Zone Risk Index. As a result, the crossings within the proposed quiet Measures
public authority could benefit from an zone, in order to calculate the new Risk Appendix B addresses three types of
increased Risk Index With Horns, but Index With Horns for the proposed quiet ASMs: modified SSMs, non-engineering
could not directly reduce the Quiet zone. A public authority can then ASMs, and engineering ASMs. Modified
Zone Risk Index by permanently closing choose to establish a New Quiet Zone or SSMs are SSMs that do not fully comply
a public crossing. New Partial Quiet Zone in comparison with the provisions listed in appendix
FRA received comments on this issue to either the new Risk Index With Horns A. As provided in section I.B. of this
from the DuPage Mayors and Managers or the Nationwide Significant Risk appendix, public authorities can obtain
Conference, the Chicago Department of Threshold. risk reduction credit for pre-existing
Transportation, and the Chicago Area Section C sets forth the procedure by
modified SSMs under the final rule.
Transportation Study requesting that which a community seeking to continue
Non-engineering ASMs are programmed
FRA reconsider this issue and allow a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule
public authorities to include a crossing Partial Quiet Zone can receive quiet enforcement, public education and
to be closed in the calculation of the zone risk reduction credit for pre- awareness, and photo enforcement that
Quiet Zone Risk Index. After existing SSMs located within the quiet may be used to reduce risk in the
considering these comments and taking zone. (Again, it should be noted that a creation of a quiet zone. Engineering
note of the fact that the interim final public authority cannot receive credit ASMs are engineering improvements,
rule assigned an effectiveness rate of for pre-existing permanent crossing other than modified SSMs, that reduce
one to temporary crossing closures, FRA closures or grade separations.) The risk at highway-rail grade crossings.
decided to include permanent grade public authority should first calculate Examples of engineering ASMs include
crossing closures in the list of approved the current risk index for the grade engineering improvements to geometric
SSMs and to assign an effectiveness rate crossing that is equipped with a pre- conditions and sight lines at the
of one to this new SSM. However, the existing SSM. This current risk index crossing.
public authority must remember to should then be reduced to reflect the Modified SSMs
adjust upward the traffic counts of risk reduction that could have been
adjacent crossings, in order to reflect the achieved if locomotive horns had been Section I.A. of this appendix, which
diversion of traffic from the newly routinely sounded at the crossing. Based contains a discussion of modified SSMs
closed crossing. on FRA analysis of the effect of the and the process by which modified SSM
locomotive horn on various crossing effectiveness rates can be determined,
Credit for Pre-Existing SSMs has not been revised in the final rule.
types, the following risk reduction
Sections B and C of this appendix percentages shall be applied: (a) Risk However, sections I.B. and I.C. of this
have been added to the final rule to indices for passive crossings shall be appendix have been added to the final
address quiet zone risk reduction credit reduced by 43%; (b) Risk indices for rule to address quiet zone risk reduction
for pre-existing SSMs. The procedures grade crossings equipped with credit for pre-existing modified SSMs.
set forth in these sections provide quiet automatic flashing lights shall be The procedures set forth in these
zone risk reduction credit by inflating reduced by 27%; and (c) Risk indices for sections provide quiet zone risk
the Risk Index With Horns. This reflects gated crossings shall be reduced by reduction credit by inflating the Risk
an assumption that the Risk Index With 40%. Index With Horns. This reflects an
Horns would have been higher if the This reduced risk index should then assumption that the Risk Index With
pre-existing SSMs were never be increased by dividing it by one Horns would have been higher if the
implemented. As discussed in the minus the SSM effectiveness rate, in pre-existing modified SSMs were never
preamble discussion of § 222.53, FRA order to calculate what the risk index implemented. As discussed in the
decided to provide credit for pre- would have been if locomotive horns preamble discussion of § 222.53, FRA
existing SSMs after receiving comments routinely sounded, but no SSM had ever decided to provide credit for pre-
on this issue from individuals and been implemented, at the grade existing modified SSMs after receiving
organizations in the Chicago Region. crossing. comments on this issue from the
Section B sets forth the procedure by Since locomotive horns have been Chicago Department of Transportation.
which a community seeking to create a silenced at the other grade crossings Section I.B. sets forth the procedure
New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet within the quiet zone, the public by which a community seeking to create
Zone can receive quiet zone risk authority will also have to reduce the a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet
reduction credit for pre-existing SSMs current risk indices for the other grade Zone can receive quiet zone risk
located within the proposed quiet zone. crossings to reflect the risk reduction reduction credit for pre-existing
(It should, however, be noted that a that could have been achieved if modified SSMs located within the
public authority cannot receive credit locomotive horns had been routinely proposed quiet zone. Under this section,
for pre-existing permanent crossing sounded at those grade crossings. Please a public authority is instructed to
closures or pre-existing grade refer to step two for the list of approved calculate the current risk index for the
separations.) Under this section, a risk reduction percentages by crossing grade crossing that is equipped with a
public authority is instructed to type. pre-existing modified SSM. Once the
calculate the current risk index for the These new reduced risk indices public authority obtains FRA approval
grade crossing that is equipped with a should then be averaged with the new of the estimated effectiveness rate for
pre-existing SSM. This current risk risk index for the grade crossing the pre-existing modified SSM, the
index will then be increased by dividing equipped with a pre-existing SSM, in current risk index for the crossing
the index by one minus the SSM order to calculate the new Risk Index should be increased by dividing the
effectiveness rate, in order to calculate With Horns for the quiet zone. A public index by one minus the FRA-approved
what the risk index for the grade authority can then choose to establish estimated effectiveness rate for the pre-
crossing would have been if the SSM the quiet zone in comparison to the new existing modified SSM, in order to
had never been implemented. This new Risk Index With Horns or the calculate what the risk index for the
risk index is then averaged with the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. grade crossing would have been if the
pre-existing modified SSM had never establish the quiet zone in comparison in the range of improvements that could
been implemented. This new risk index to the new Risk Index With Horns or the qualify for SSM or ASM status. Noting
is then averaged with the current risk Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. that the interim final rule contained a
indices for the other grade crossings limited range of safety measures that
Non-Engineering ASMs
within the proposed quiet zone, in order could be applied to a grade crossing for
to calculate the new Risk Index With The final rule adds a new quiet zone risk reduction credit, the
Horns for the proposed quiet zone. A recordkeeping requirement for all non- Northwest Municipal Conference
public authority can then choose to engineering ASMs. FRA received submitted comments suggesting that the
establish a New Quiet Zone or New comments on the interim final rule rule be revised to provide credit for
Partial Quiet Zone in comparison to which expressed concern that non- improvements that address underlying
either the new Risk Index With Horns engineering ASMs are not effective geometric conditions that are a source of
or the Nationwide Significant Risk substitutes for the routine use of the risk at grade crossings. The Village of
Threshold. locomotive horn. The North Carolina Andover, Massachusetts submitted
Section I.C. sets forth the procedure Department of Transportation submitted comments that strongly encouraged FRA
by which a community seeking to comments asserting that enforcement to allow communities to qualify for
continue a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre- programs require constant application quiet zone status on the basis of cost
Rule Partial Quiet Zone can receive and significant resource allocation to effective safety measures that are
quiet zone risk reduction credit for pre- generate significant safety benefits. The tailored to the risks and circumstances
existing modified SSMs located within Metropolitan Transit Authority of each individual grade crossing. The
the quiet zone. The public authority submitted similar comments and City of Cumberland, Maryland
should first calculate the current risk expressed concern that, over time, submitted comments noting that there
index for the grade crossing that is resources may be allocated to other are a myriad of improvements that
equipped with a pre-existing SSM. This issues, resulting in inconsistent could ‘‘substitute for the sounding of a
current risk index should then be enforcement at crossings. In response to train horn’’, such as sight distance and
reduced to reflect the risk reduction that these comments, FRA revised the final geometric improvements, Intelligent
could have been achieved if locomotive rule to require the public authority to Transportation Systems, and operational
horns had been routinely sounded at the retain all records pertaining to improvements. Noting that the interim
crossing. Based on FRA analysis of the monitoring or sampling efforts at grade final rule did not provide credit for
effect of the locomotive horn on various crossings within quiet zones, which are relatively obvious safety improvements
crossing types, the following risk subject to non-engineering ASMs, for a such as geometric changes and
reduction percentages shall be applied: period of not less than five years. These improvements to sight lines, the
(a) Risk indices for passive crossings records shall also be made available, Chicago Area Transportation Study
shall be reduced by 43%; (b) Risk upon request, to FRA as provided by 49 submitted comments recommending
indices for grade crossings equipped U.S.C. 20107. that the final rule provide credit for the
with automatic flashing lights shall be FRA received comments from the City on-site review of safety problems and
reduced by 27%; and (c) Risk indices for of Elmhurst, Illinois recommending that the professional use of engineering
gated crossings shall be reduced by the rule be revised to provide credit for judgment to address actual safety
40%. past education and enforcement problems. In response to these
Once the public authority obtains initiatives. Noting that it has worked on comments, FRA added a new category
FRA approval of the estimated education and enforcement initiatives to appendix B to make it clear that
effectiveness rate for the pre-existing for over a decade, the City of Elmhurst, engineering improvements such as those
modified SSM, the reduced risk index Illinois asserted it would be penalized which address underlying geometric
for the crossing should be increased by under the approach taken in the interim conditions can qualify for quiet zone
dividing it by one minus the FRA- final rule because it would be very risk reduction credit as ASMs. However,
approved estimated modified SSM difficult to further reduce the violation if the Engineering ASM consists of
effectiveness rate. This will calculate rate. FRA has not, however, revised the vegetation clearance to improve sight
what the risk index would have been if rule to provide credit for prior non- lines, the quiet zone application should
locomotive horns routinely sounded, engineering initiatives because it would include a plan for periodic vegetation
but no modified SSM had ever been be nearly impossible to determine the clearing that will ensure the
implemented, at the grade crossing. baseline violation rate that existed continuation of unobstructed sight lines
Since locomotive horns have been before the non-engineering measures at the crossing.
silenced at the other grade crossings were undertaken. Public authorities can determine the
within the quiet zone, the public The discussion of Public Education effectiveness of an Engineering ASM as
authority will also have to reduce the and Awareness programs has also been follows:
current risk indices for the other grade revised to correct a typographical error 1. The first step in assessing the
crossings to reflect the risk reduction in requirement ‘‘b’’. effectiveness of an Engineering ASM is
that could have been achieved if to establish the quarterly (3 months)
locomotive horns had been routinely Engineering ASMs baseline violation rate for the crossing at
sounded at those grade crossings. Please The final rule adds a new category of which the Engineering ASM will be
refer to step two for the list of approved ASMs to appendix B. This category applied. A violation in this context
risk reduction percentages by crossing consists of engineering improvements refers to a motorist not complying with
type. that fall outside the scope of modified the automatic warning devices at the
These new reduced risk indices SSMs. Examples of engineering ASMs crossing (not stopping for the flashing
should then be averaged with the new include improvements to the geometric lights and driving over the crossing after
risk index for the grade crossing conditions and/or sight lines at the the gate arms have started to descend,
equipped with a pre-existing modified grade crossing. or driving around the lowered gate
SSM, in order to calculate the new Risk This new category of ASMs has been arms). A violation does not have to
Index With Horns for the quiet zone. A added to the final rule in response to result in a traffic citation for the
public authority can then choose to comments requesting greater flexibility violation to be considered.
Violation data may be obtained by any Example. The baseline rate for a crossing Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
method that can be shown to provide a was 60 violations per 100 gate activations. value.
statistically valid sample. This may After implementation of the Engineering
ASM, the new violation rate for the next Appendix D—Determining Risk Levels
include the use of video cameras, other
quarter was 20 violations per 100 gate This appendix has been revised to
technologies (e.g. inductive loops), or activations. The violation rate reduction
manual observations that capture driver reflect the revised data set used to
would be 66% (.66).
behavior when the automatic warning calculate the current Nationwide
devices are operating. In the event that 4. Using the Engineering ASM Significant Risk Threshold.
data is not collected continuously effectiveness rate, determine the Quiet Appendix E—Requirements for Wayside
during the quarter, sufficient detail must Zone Risk Index. If and when the Quiet Horns
be provided in the application in order Zone Risk Index for the proposed quiet
zone has been reduced to a risk level at Appendix E sets forth the minimum
to validate that the methodology used
or below the Risk Index With Horns or requirements for wayside horn use at
results in a statistically valid sample.
the Nationwide Significant Risk highway-rail grade crossings. One such
FRA recommends that at least a
Threshold, the public authority may requirement, the minimum required
minimum of 600 samples (one sample
apply to FRA for approval of the quiet sound level, has been revised in the
equals one gate activation) be collected
zone. Upon receiving written approval final rule.
during the baseline and subsequent The interim final rule established a
quarterly sample periods. The sampling of the quiet zone application, the public
minimum required sound level of 96
methodology must take measures to authority may then proceed with
dB(A), when measured 100 feet from the
avoid biases in their sampling notification and implementation of the
wayside horn in the direction in which
technique. Potential sampling biases quiet zone.
it has been installed. However, the
could include: sampling on certain days 5. Violation rates must be monitored Village of Mundelein, Illinois submitted
of the week but not others, sampling for the next two calendar quarters. comments asserting that a wayside horn
during certain times of the day but not Unless otherwise provided in FRA’s sound level of 92 dB(A) matches the
others, sampling immediately after notification of quiet zone approval, if sound level produced by a locomotive
implementation of an ASM while the the violation rate for these two calendar horn that has been set to 111 dB(A).
public is still going through an quarters does not exceed the violation Since the interim final rule established
adjustment period, or applying one rate used to determine the effectiveness a maximum sound level of 110 dB(A)
sample method for the baseline rate and rate that was approved by FRA, the for locomotive horns, the Village of
another for the new rate. One possible public authority may cease violation Mundelein argued that the minimum
approach to avoid sampling bias would rate monitoring. sound level for wayside horns should be
be to break a three-month observation Example. Continuing with the above reduced from 96 dB(A) to 92 dB(A), as
period into many time slots and then example, the monitoring during the two measured 100 feet from the track. The
randomly selecting these slots for calendar quarters following implementation City of Roseville, California, which has
sampling. The baseline violation rate of the quiet zone showed that the violation a wayside horn that has been set to 92
should be expressed as the number of rate never exceeded 20 violations per 100 dB(A), submitted similar comments
violations per gate activations in order gate activations. Since the notification of asserting that an increase of 4 dB(A) (to
to normalize for unequal gate quiet zone approval did not include any
conditions requiring additional violation rate
meet the minimum sound level required
activations during subsequent data by the interim final rule) would negate
monitoring, the public authority may cease
collection periods. The application much of the noise reduction benefits
violation report monitoring.
should include enough detail on the that are currently enjoyed by its
method used to collect and assess the 6. In the event that the violation rate residents. Noting that all existing
data to ensure that the results will over either of the next two calendar wayside horn installations in Illinois,
provide a statistically valid result. quarters is greater than the violation rate Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, are set at
While it is not mandatory, public used to determine the effectiveness rate 92 dB(A), as measured 100 feet from the
authorities are encouraged to provide that was approved by FRA, the public crossing, Hanson Wilson Incorporated
FRA with its sampling methodology for authority may continue the quiet zone submitted comments asserting that the
comment prior to actually collecting the for a third calendar quarter. However, if interim final rule required wayside
data. This will enable FRA to provide the third calendar quarter violation rate horns to provide a louder alarm on
comments to ensure that the sampling is also greater than the rate used to roadway approaches than the
methodology is adequate. determine the effectiveness rate that was locomotive horn.
2. The Engineering ASM should be approved by FRA, a new effectiveness Railroad Controls Limited submitted
initiated at the crossing. During this rate must be calculated and the Quiet comments asserting that the sound level
time period, the sounding of train horns Zone Risk Index re-calculated using the of wayside horns should be measured
will continue. Train horns will not be new effectiveness rate. If the new Quiet from a location 100 feet from the
silenced until the quiet zone application Zone Risk Index exceeds the Risk Index crossing, as opposed to a location 100
has been formally approved by FRA. With Horns or the Nationwide feet from the wayside horn. Noting that
Significant Risk Threshold, the all studies completed to date have
3. In the calendar quarter following procedures for dealing with established wayside horn sound levels
initiation, a new violation rate should unacceptable effectiveness after in reference to the track, as opposed to
be determined (using the same establishment of a quiet zone should be the horn location, Railroad Controls
methodology as in paragraph a) and followed. Limited asserted that grade crossings at
compared to the baseline violation rate
Appendix C—Guide To Establishing severely skewed crossing angles could
for the crossing. The violation rate
Quiet Zones create situations in which the wayside
reduction for the crossing should then
horn must be installed 50 feet or greater
be determined by the following formula:
This appendix has been revised to from the centerline of the track. This
Violation rate reduction = (new incorporate changes made to the rule could result in wayside horn sound
rate¥baseline rate)/baseline rate text and to reflect the current level measurements being taken from a
location 150 feet or greater from the which could subject a railroad to selection. If the maximum sound level
track. In the alternative, sound level standard penalties of $5,000 and willful was increased to 111 dB(A), the
measurements taken 100 feet from the penalties of $7,500, is now listed as a Association of American Railroads
track would provide a more accurate violation of § 222.59(d). Lastly, the asserted that five-chime locomotive
measurement of the audible warning footnote to this appendix has been horns located in the mid-body section of
provided to motorists approaching the revised to reflect the increased the locomotive could be expected to
crossing. maximum civil penalty ($27,000) which meet this requirement without
After reviewing its previous analysis can be assessed by FRA when a grossly modification, which could have a
of the alerting power of a wayside horn, negligent violation or pattern of significant impact on the regulatory
FRA determined that a wayside horn set repeated violations has created an burdens associated with this rule.
to 92 dB(A) would provide a imminent hazard of death or injury or After considering these comments and
comparable audible warning. Therefore, has actually caused death or injury. reviewing its rationale for the 110 dB(A)
FRA revised the final rule by reducing maximum sound level requirement,
the minimum required sound level for Section 229.129 Audible Warning FRA decided to retain the 110 dB(A)
wayside horns to 92 dB(A). In addition, Device maximum sound level requirement.
FRA revised the final rule to require that Paragraph (a) of this section requires FRA’s analysis indicates that there is a
wayside horn sound level that each lead locomotive be equipped 95% likelihood that a locomotive horn
measurements be taken from a location with an audible warning device that set to 108 dB(A) will be detected by
100 feet from the centerline of the produces a minimum sound level of 96 motorists approaching a grade crossing.
nearest track. dB(A) and a maximum sound level of Therefore, FRA considers 108 dB(A) to
110 dB(A) at 100 feet forward of the be the optimal sound level for the
Appendix F—Diagnostic Team locomotive in its direction of travel. The locomotive horn. FRA added a 2 dB(A)
Considerations device shall be conveniently operated tolerance to the 108 dB(A) standard, in
Appendix F contains lists of issues from the engineer’s usual position order to account for measurement
that should be considered during during operation of the locomotive. uncertainty and fluctuations in horn
diagnostic team reviews of grade FRA received a number of comments sound level output. Given the strong
crossings that have been proposed for asserting that the maximum sound level concerns about potential noise exposure
inclusion within a quiet zone. In the of 110 dB(A) was too high. City expressed by local communities, FRA
interim final rule, this appendix Councilman James Moore, representing remains unconvinced that the
contained a list of issues that should be Northwood, Ohio, submitted comments additional noise exposure that would
considered when reviewing any noting that OSHA has deemed noise result from a 111 dB(A) maximum
highway-rail grade crossing that is levels above 80 dB(A) to be hazardous sound level, plus or minus an additional
proposed for inclusion within a quiet to your hearing. Margaret Petitjean, a 2 dB(A) tolerance for measurement
zone, as well as a list of issues that commenter from Menlo Park, California, uncertainty, is justifiable.
should be considered during diagnostic noted that the Environmental Protection FRA also decided to retain the
team reviews of private crossings in Agency has compiled scientific minimum horn sound level of 96 dB(A),
accordance with § 222.25. A third list of information about the effects of noise which is already 12 dB(A) lower than
issues has been added in the final rule, exposure and defined 60 dB(A) as an the optimal locomotive horn sound
which addresses diagnostic team acceptable sound level for residential level of 108 dB(A). A locomotive horn
reviews of pedestrian crossings required noise exposure. The City of Rocky River, set to the optimal sound level of 108
by § 222.27. Ohio suggested that the maximum dB(A) would have a sound level of
A minor revision has also been made sound level be reduced to 65 dB(A), approximately 95 dB(A) at the motorist
to this appendix, in order to clarify that which would be consistent with the decisionmaking point (50 feet in
engineering personnel from the State noise exposure experienced by advance of the grade crossing). If FRA
agency responsible for grade crossing communities around airports. At a reduced the minimum sound level for
safety should also be invited to February 2004 meeting in Western locomotive horns by 4 dB, for example,
participate in diagnostic team reviews of Springs, Illinois, Alderman Ginger the locomotive horn sound level would
grade crossings proposed for inclusion Rugai, who represents Chicago’s 19th be drastically reduced to approximately
within a quiet zone. Ward, suggested that 85 dB(A) be 79 dB(A) at the motorist decision-
adopted as the maximum sound level making point. Despite the benefits in
Appendix G—Schedule of Civil for locomotive horns. decreased noise exposure that might
Penalties On the other hand, FRA received result from such a reduction, FRA is
Appendix G contains the list of civil comments from the railroad industry unwilling to reduce the minimum
penalties that can be assessed for stating that the maximum sound level of required sound level, given the
specific violations of Part 222. The list 110 dB(A) was too low. The Florida East corresponding reduction in horn
of civil penalties has been modified to Coast Railway asserted that a maximum effectiveness.
state that routine sounding of the sound level of 111 dB(A), which was Paragraph (b) provides a schedule for
locomotive horn more than 1⁄4-mile in originally proposed in the NPRM, locomotive horn testing. This schedule
advance of public highway-rail grade should be reinstated. The Association of has been adjusted in the final rule to
crossings and at highway-rail grade American Railroads submitted similar correspond to the final rule effective
crossings located within quiet zones comments urging FRA to adopt a date. Locomotives built on or after June
could subject the operating railroad to maximum sound level of 111 dB(A). 24, 2005 must be tested and brought
standard civil penalties of $5,000 and Asserting that no explanation was into compliance with this section.
willful civil penalties of $7,500. A provided in the interim final rule for the However, paragraph (b) of this section
minor modification has also been made selection of the 110 dB(A) maximum has been revised in response to
to this list in the final rule to correct a sound level, the Association of comments which recommended that the
typographical error. Routine sounding American Railroads asserted that FRA rule be revised to allow for locomotive
of the locomotive horn at a grade appears to have acted in a somewhat horn certification. The AAR submitted
crossing equipped with a wayside horn, arbitrary manner when making this comments which noted that, if a
certification process were used, only a final rule for existing locomotives were conditions. FRA received comments
limited number of tests would be burdensome. Therefore, locomotives from the GM Electro Motive Division,
necessary under the rule. GM Electro built before June 24, 2005 must be tested General Electric, and the AAR which
Motive Division submitted comments and brought into compliance with this asserted that the required parameters for
recommending that the rule allow the section by June 24, 2010. However, the optimal horn testing conditions would
locomotive horn manufacturer to certify final rule retains the requirement that have a significant adverse impact on
the horn sound level output, while the horns must be tested and brought into locomotive manufacturers. In particular,
locomotive manufacturer would certify compliance with this section whenever the GM Electro Motive Division asserted
that proper air supply is being provided a locomotive is rebuilt (as determined in that the temperature and humidity
to the horn mounting interface. On the accordance with 49 CFR 232.5). requirements contained within the
other hand, General Electric submitted Paragraph (c) specifies the testing and interim final rule would prohibit horn
comments recommending a recordkeeping requirements and testing at its Ontario facility for an
combination of type testing of the horn measurement procedures. This average of 62 days out of the year.
on the locomotive and laboratory testing paragraph has been revised in the final General Electric also submitted
for each horn produced. A type rule in order to reduce any adverse comments asserting that it would be
locomotive for the purpose of this rule impact that may have been associated forced to reduce its production of new
would be defined as all locomotives with the testing requirements and locomotives, due to the parameters
utilizing the same horn model, measurement procedures contained imposed by interim final rule for
configuration, and location, the same air within the interim final rule. However, acceptable horn testing conditions.
pressure and delivery system, and the paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) have not MotivePower, a manufacturer of
same locomotive roof configuration been revised. commuter and switcher locomotives,
including the location of other roof Paragraph (c)(5) has been revised in submitted comments asserting that the
mounted apparatus and devices. Once a response to comments that the clearance minimum temperature requirements for
specific type of locomotive has been restrictions contained within the locomotive horn testing could be
successfully tested to show compliance, interim final rule were impracticable. problematic, as daytime temperatures at
on-going validation would be limited to Asserting that many, if not most, their location may not reach 32 degrees
quantified testing of the horn sound railroads would be unable to meet the Fahrenheit during the wintertime.
level in a laboratory, preferably at the interim final rule minimum clearance Therefore, MotivePower proposed that a
horn supplier’s factory, and a non- requirements of 400 feet to the front of standard set of data be taken and kept
quantified functional test of the horn on the locomotive and 200 feet to the side on record for each type of locomotive
the locomotive prior to shipment. of the locomotive and horn, the and locomotive horn. This data set
After considering these comments, Association of American Railroads could then be used to calibrate horn
FRA has revised paragraph (b)(1) to recommended that the minimum sound level measurements taken at
allow type testing of new locomotives clearance requirements be revised to temperature and humidity levels
through a method similar to that which allow 200 foot clearances to the front of outside of those levels required by
was proposed by General Electric. the locomotive and 100 foot clearances paragraph (c)(6) of the rule.
Under paragraph (b)(1), railroads and to the side of the locomotive and horn. FRA has attempted to alleviate the
locomotive manufacturers will be After considering these comments, FRA potential impact of the rule’s horn
allowed to use acceptance sampling to revised the minimum clearance testing requirements by allowing type
determine whether new locomotives requirements in the final rule to allow testing for new locomotives. However,
meet the standards prescribed on this 200 foot clearances to the front and FRA made additional modifications in
section. However, all sampling shall be sides of the locomotive, even though the final rule by expanding the
performed on locomotive horns that FRA strongly recommends that 400 foot parameters for acceptable horn testing
have already been installed on the clearances to the front of the conditions. The acceptable ambient
locomotive. Thus, acceptance sampling locomotive, where practicable. temperature range has been expanded in
of locomotive horns prior to installation FRA did not fully adopt AAR’s the final rule to include temperatures
is not permitted under this section. recommendation out of concern with between 32 and 104 degrees Fahrenheit
Paragraph (b)(1) requires that the the increased error that may result from (0 to 40 degrees Celsius) inclusively.
acceptance sampling scheme used by the introduction of large, reflective Paragraph (c)(7) has been revised in
the railroad must have a probability of structures in close proximity to the response to comments requesting
.05 or less of rejecting a lot with a testing microphone. Therefore, FRA modifications in the horn testing
proportion of defectives equal to an adopted an approach comparable to ISO protocol for cab-mounted and low-
AQL of 1% or less, as set forth in 7 CFR 3095 (‘‘Measurement of noise emitted by mounted horns. Noting that the
part 43. railbound vehicles’’), which calls for at locomotive horn has been placed at the
Locomotives built before June 24, least 57.7 meters (or 189 feet) clear of bottom of its locomotive fleet, the
2005 cannot be type tested to ensure large reflecting objects around a Southern California Regional Rail
compliance, but an additional year has stationary locomotive. Yard test Authority suggested that the rule be
been provided for the testing of these facilities that are already in compliance revised by requiring the testing of
locomotives under the final rule. Even with ISO 3095 should also be in higher-mounted horns at 15 feet above
though the City of Fresno, California compliance with the final rule, so this the rail and lower-mounted horns at
submitted comments urging FRA to modification to the minimum clearance four feet above the rail. In a similar vein,
advance the compliance date for requirements should reduce any Caltrain submitted comments noting
existing locomotives to December 31, financial or operational burdens that its locomotive horns have been
2006, FRA decided to provide an associated with the original clearance relocated to a position that is four feet
additional year for the testing of existing requirements contained within the above the rail. Therefore, Caltrain
locomotives to alleviate concerns interim final rule. suggested that the rule be revised to
expressed by the Association of Paragraph (c)(6) has been revised to accept horn measurements taken at
American Railroads that the testing provide more flexibility in the points between four and fifteen feet
requirements set forth in the interim parameters for acceptable horn testing above the rail. The Association of
American Railroads also submitted considering these comments, FRA the number of persons that would be or
comments recommended that the rule agreed that 10-second sound level currently are severely affected by the
be revised to allow testing between four measurements should be sufficient, sounding of train horns, FRA estimated
and fifteen feet above the ground and once the locomotive horn reaches a the costs and benefits of the actions that
within eight and fifteen feet from the stable sound level. Therefore, the final communities would take in response to
center line of the track to accommodate rule was revised to allow six 10-second this rule. FRA believes that many
cab-mounted horns. After reviewing sound level measurements after output communities will take advantage of the
these comments, FRA revised the rule to from the locomotive horn system many options available to establish
allow testing of cab-mounted and low- reaches a stable level. quiet zones. Some existing whistle ban
mounted horns from a position four feet Paragraph (c)(10) has been revised in crossings may not be included in quiet
above the rail. the final rule to provide more specific zones. FRA also estimated the costs
Paragraph (c)(7) has also been revised recordkeeping requirements. The final associated with the maximum horn
in response to comments from the rule requires railroads to record horn sound level requirements.
Association of American Railroads type, the location of horn testing, air The table below presents estimated
requesting that the rule permit testing flow and sound level measurements, in twenty-year monetary costs associated
with the microphone positioned off addition to the date and manner of with complying with the requirements
from the track center to facilitate the use testing. In addition, the person who contained in the Final Rule using a 7
of permanent testing equipment. If performs horn testing is now required to percent discount rate.
testing of locomotive horns must take sign the record, which shall be retained
place directly in front of the locomotive, by the railroad, at a location of its TOTAL TWENTY-YEAR COSTS
the Association of American Railroads choice, until a subsequent locomotive (PV, 7%) 3
argued that railroads would be unable to horn test is completed. The locomotive
use permanent testing equipment as the horn test record shall be made available Maximum Horn Sound Level $3,136,020
equipment would obstruct train to FRA upon request. Relocations Due to Resump-
movements down the track. By allowing Paragraph (d) has not been revised. tion of Horn Sounding ....... 1,676,663
microphone positions offset from the Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Na-
FRA received comments from NJ Transit
center of the track, however, the use of tionwide, Excluding Chi-
recommending that this paragraph be cago Area .......................... 14,827,438
permanent testing equipment to revised to exclude light rail systems Intermediate Quiet Zones ..... 4,790,469
measure sound levels would become operating on the general railroad system New Quiet Zones .................. 16,261,900
feasible and a more realistic pursuant to an FRA-approved Temporal Annual Update of NSRT/
measurement of motorist perception Separation Plan. In the alternative, NJ QZRIs and Notification ...... 25,426
could be obtained. Therefore, the Transit asserted that safety standards for
Association of American Railroads Total Twenty-Year Costs associated with
audible warning sound levels on light implementation of this rule are estimated to
recommended that the rule be revised to rail operations could be adopted total $40,717,916 (PV, 20 Years, 7%).
allow microphone placement at an angle through the State safety oversight
up to 45 degrees from the center line of In general there has been a downward
process. FRA has not, however, revised trend in collisions at grade crossings
the track. this paragraph to exclude all light rail
After considering these comments and nationwide due to the implementation
operations on the general railroad of various private and public safety
reviewing its analysis on this issue, FRA system. Therefore, railroads that
concluded that there is a three to six dB initiatives such as Operation Lifesaver
conduct light rail operations on the and other public education and
drop in sound level when the general railroad system pursuant to an
microphone is positioned at an angle of awareness campaigns. Costs presented
FRA-approved Temporal Separation in this analysis may be overstated to the
45 degrees from the center of the track.
Plan must file a waiver under § 222.15 extent that such initiatives would lead
However, there is less than a 1.5 dB
to obtain relief from the application of to the eventual implementation of some
drop in sound level when the
this provision. After reviewing the of the same or equivalent safety
microphone is positioned at an angle of
underlying circumstances, FRA may measures that this rule requires for the
less than 30 degrees from the center of
then grant relief on a case-by-case basis. establishment of quiet zones. In such
the track. Therefore, FRA revised the
final rule to allow locomotive horn 17. Regulatory Impact cases, this rule may be merely
testing, using a microphone positioned accelerating implementation and the
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT rate of expenditures.
at an angle up to 20 degrees from the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures The direct safety benefit of this Final
center of the track, in order to facilitate
the use of permanent testing equipment. This Final Rule has been evaluated in Rule is the reduction in casualties that
Paragraph (c)(8) has not been revised. accordance with existing policies and result from collisions between trains
However, paragraph (c)(9) has been procedures and is considered to be and highway users at public at-grade
revised in the final rule to allow shorter significant under both Executive Order highway-rail crossings. Implementation
horn sounding events. Under the 12866 and DOT policies and of this rule will ensure that (1)
interim final rule, railroads were procedures. FRA has prepared and locomotive horns are sounded to warn
required to take at least six 20-second placed in the docket a regulatory highway users of approaching trains; or
sound level readings after the evaluation of the rule. Following is a (2) rail corridors where train horns do
locomotive horn reached a stable sound summary of the findings. not sound will have a level of risk that
level in order to determine the average FRA identified 1,598 existing whistle
3 Present Value (PV) provides a way of converting
locomotive horn sound level. However, ban or no-horn crossings that would future benefits and costs into equivalent dollars
the Association of American Railroads qualify for inclusion in Pre-Rule Quiet today so that benefit and cost streams that involve
submitted comments recommending Zones. FRA also identified 372 potential different time paths may be compared. The formula
that the rule be revised to reduce the New Quiet Zone crossings and 71 used to calculate these flows is: 1/(1+I)t where ‘‘I’’
is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Per
duration of the sound level readings to potential Intermediate Quiet Zone guidance from the Office of Management and
six to ten seconds, in order to reduce crossings. Using information available Budget, a discount rate of .07 is used in this
unnecessary noise exposure. After about the crossing characteristics and analysis.
is no higher than the average risk level Because such events are rare, FRA has or exterior square footage increase the
at gated crossings nationwide where not attempted to estimate the value of value of residential properties.
locomotive horns are sounded regularly; avoiding events in which a highway-rail Likewise, neighborhood characteristics
or (3) the effectiveness of horns is collision results in a derailment, with are expected to influence property
compensated for in rail corridors where harm to persons on the train or release prices. For example, homes that are in
train horns do not sound. of hazardous materials into the relatively close proximity to noxious
FRA has reviewed trends in collision community. activities such as hazardous waste sites,
rates for whistle ban crossings going Maximum horn sound level incinerators, etc. have been shown to
back to 1980 and believes that collision requirements will limit community have lower values, other things equal.
rates over the twenty-years that this disruption by not allowing horns to be Thus, a carefully designed hedonic
analysis covers will be no higher than sounded any louder than necessary to model can be used to implicitly value
4 percent. The following table presents provide motorists with adequate locational attributes that have no
anticipated twenty-year safety benefits warning of a train’s approach. The explicit market price.
expressed in monetary terms assuming benefit in noise reduction due to this The effects of the sounding of
that collisions decline at an average rate change in maximum horn loudness is locomotive horns on property values
of 4 percent annually and using a 7 not readily quantifiable. have been studied recently in response
percent discount rate. Another unquantified benefit of this to the NPRM. While initial results are
rule is elimination of some locomotive available, unfortunately they are not
TOTAL TWENTY-YEAR SAFETY horn noise disruption to some railroad conclusive. David E. Clark performed
BENEFITS MONETIZED (PV, 7%) employees and those who may reside one study for the FRA, and
near industrial areas served by railroads. Schwieterman and Baden of the
Maximum Sound Locomotive horns will no longer have to Chaddick Institute performed the other.
Level ...................... Not Quantifiable be sounded at individual highway-rail According to Clark, the study performed
Casualties Prevented grade crossings at which the maximum for FRA was ‘‘just a first step in
(Cancellation of W- authorized operating speed for that understanding how train whistles
Bans) ..................... $5,810,789 segment of track is 15 miles per hour or influence local property values.’’
Pre-Rule QZs Nation- less and properly equipped flaggers (as Schwieterman and Baden of the
wide (Excluding defined in by 49 CFR 234.5, but who for Chaddick Institute emphasize that their
Chicago Area) ....... 26,422,526
Intermediate Quiet
purposes of this rule can also be crew ‘‘report is a preliminary assessment of a
Zones .................... 6,302,667 members) provide warning to motorists. complex issue. Some of our findings are
New Quiet Zones ...... 18,602,675 This rule will allow engineers, who speculative in nature.’’ Those who have
were probably already exercising some studied the issue agree that further
Total ................... 57,138,657 level of discretion as to the duration and study is needed to reach a better
sound level of locomotive horn understanding of the true effects of
In terms of collisions and casualties, sounding, to stop sounding the horn locomotive horn sounding on property
over the next twenty years, FRA under these circumstances at no values. Clark concluded that there is
anticipates implementation of this rule additional cost. little indication that the decision of a
will result in the prevention of 95 This analysis does not quantify the railroad to ignore whistle bans (and thus
collisions, 8 fatalities, and 46 injuries. benefit of eliminating community sound the locomotive horn) had any
In addition to the prevention of disruption caused by the sounding of permanent and appreciable influence on
casualties, FRA estimates that, over the train horns, nor does it quantify costs the housing values in the three
next twenty years, this collision from increased noise at crossings where communities analyzed. Clark offers two
prevention will result in a reduction of horns will sound where they were explanations for the lack of effect on
approximately $300,000 in highway previously silent. property values. First, those buying
vehicle, railroad equipment, and track In an effort to determine the costs to property within the audible range of a
damage. a community associated with the highway-rail grade crossing likely
This analysis covers the first twenty locomotive horn, FRA examined the consider the possibility that train
years of the rule and includes some effects of sounding of locomotive horns whistles may be sounded at the crossing
compliance costs that will be incurred on property values. This effort was in the future. Second, the railroad’s
towards the end of the period. Unlike based on the assumption that property action generated dynamic changes in
the benefits associated with costs values reflect concerns of property the composition of residents that served
incurred in the early years of the rule, owners that are often subjective and to mitigate the initial impact of the
much of the twenty-year stream of otherwise difficult to quantify. For a full action. Residents most sensitive to the
benefits associated with these costs is discussion of the effects of sounding sounding of locomotive horns moved
not captured in this analysis. Safety locomotive horns on property values, away and were replaced with those less
benefits are understated to the extent see appendix A to the Regulatory sensitive to such sounding.
that many years of safety benefits Evaluation. The Chaddick Institute study
resulting from safety measures Research shows that residential evaluated the probable costs of the noise
implemented in out-years are not property markets are influenced by a generated by locomotive horns at grade
included. variety of factors including structural crossings in the Chicago area. The study
Some of the unquantified benefits of features of the property, local fiscal concluded that the region would
this Final Rule include reductions in conditions, and neighborhood experience significant losses in property
freight and passenger train delays, both characteristics. Hedonic housing price value from sounding of horns at
of which can be very significant when models treat a property as a bundle of crossings currently subject to whistle
grade crossing collisions occur, and characteristics, with each individual bans. The study also concluded that
collision investigation efforts. Although characteristic generating an influence on even if property values do not fall,
these benefits are not quantified in this the price of the property. For example, homeowners that are forced to move
analysis, their monetary value is additional structural characteristics away may incur other real economic
significant. such as bathrooms, bedrooms, interior costs. For the reasons discussed in
appendix A to the Regulatory on nearby property values versus effects every crossing is excessive and an
Evaluation, FRA has concluded that it is of grade crossings on property values, infringement on community quality of
not likely that the overall costs FRA believes that results from hedonic life, and therefore have enacted ‘‘whistle
associated with sounding the horns studies of airport and highway noises on bans’’ that prevent the trains from
where they are not currently sounded property values are not directly sounding their whistles entirely, or
will be as high as the Chaddick Institute transferable to locomotive horn noise during particular times (usually at
study concludes. effects on property values. night). Some communities would like to
Although there are airport and It is important to note that since this establish ‘‘quiet zones’’ where train
highway hedonic property value rule is permissive as to the horns would not be routinely sounded,
studies, FRA has not applied them to establishment of quiet zones, but are awaiting issuance of this rule to
grade crossings for a number of reasons. communities will establish quiet zones do so. FRA is concerned that with the
The types of noise experienced by to the extent that the perceived benefit increased risk at grade crossings where
residents near highways and airports of elimination of the train horn train whistles are not sounded, or
can be different from that experienced disruption coupled with the safety another means of warning utilized,
by residents near highway-rail grade benefit of any safety enhancements collisions and casualties may increase
crossings. Highways and airports where exceeds the costs of compliance significantly. The rule contains low risk
noise is an issue have higher daily associated with the requirements for based provisions for communities to
volumes of motor vehicle and aircraft establishing New Quiet Zones. establish quiet zones. Some crossing
traffic than grade crossings with whistle FRA is confident that the benefits in corridors may already be at risk levels
bans. The noise produced by locomotive terms of lives saved and injuries that are permissible under this rule and
horns at crossings is also generally more prevented will exceed the costs imposed would not need to reduce risk levels any
intermittent than that produced at on society by this rule. further to establish quiet zones.
airports and highways. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Otherwise, communities establishing
The effect of highways and airports on Pre-Rule Quiet Zones may implement
nearby property values can also be very The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a review sufficient safety measures along whistle-
different than that of highway-rail at- ban corridors to reduce risk to
grade crossings on nearby property of final rules to assess their impact on
small entities unless the Secretary permissible levels. In addition to having
values. For instance, airports are a permissible risk levels, all crossings in
source of employment for residents in certifies that a final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a New and Intermediate Quiet Zones will
the community. Although airport have to be equipped with gates and
employees may not desire to reside in substantial number of small entities.
Data available to FRA indicates that this flashing lights. If a community elects to
properties immediately adjacent to simply follow the mandate, horn
airports, they probably want to reside rule may have minimal economic
impact on a substantial number of small sounding will resume and there will be
relatively close by. Few highway users
entities (railroads) and possibly a a noise impact on small businesses that
desire to reside in properties
significant economic impact on a few exist along crossings where horns are
immediately adjacent to highways,
small entities (government jurisdictions not currently routinely sounded. If a
however many probably want to reside
and small businesses). However, there is community elects to implement
close enough to have easy access to
no indication that this rule will have a sufficient safety measures to comply
highways. Such situations may greatly
significant economic impact on a with the requirements for establishing a
influence the magnitude of difference
substantial number of small entities. quiet zone, then the governmental
between property values of residences
The Small Business Administration jurisdiction will be impacted by the cost
immediately adjacent to highways and
airports compared to property values of (SBA) did not submit comments to the of such program or system. To the
residences that are still very close to docket for this rulemaking in response extent that potential quiet zone crossing
highways and airports yet not adjacent. to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility corridors already have average risk
Since there generally is no incentive to Assessment that accompanied the levels permissible under this rule, and,
residing near highway-rail at-grade NPRM or the Regulatory Flexibility in the case of New and Intermediate
crossings (unless there happens to be a Assessment that accompanied the Quiet Zones, every crossing is equipped
commuter rail station nearby) the Interim Final Rule. FRA certifies that with gates and flashing lights,
difference in property values between this rule will not have a significant communities will only incur
residences immediately adjacent to economic impact on a substantial administrative costs associated with
grade crossings and those a little further number of small entities. establishing and maintaining quiet
away is probably not as great. FRA has performed a Final Regulatory zones.
Studies of airport and highway noise Flexibility Assessment (FRFA) on small The costs of implementing this Final
compare property values of residences entities that potentially can be affected Rule will predominately be on the
adjacent to the source of noise to by this Final Rule. The FRFA is governmental jurisdictions of
property values of residences that are summarized in this preamble as communities some of which are ‘‘small
near but not adjacent to the source of required by the Regulatory Flexibility governmental jurisdictions.’’ As defined
noise. To isolate the effect of the noise Act. The full FRFA is included in the by the SBA this term means
itself and thereby make these studies Regulatory Evaluation, which is governments of cities, counties, towns,
more relevant to the highway-rail grade available in the public docket of this townships, villages, school districts, or
crossing context, the effect of the proceeding. special districts with a population of
incentive for residing nearby, versus This is essentially a safety rule that less than fifty thousand. The most
adjacent to, would have to be removed implements as well as minimizes the significant impacts from this rule will
from the studies of airport and highway potential negative impacts of a be on about 260 governmental
noise. Given the differences in (1) types Congressional mandate to blow train jurisdictions whose communities
of noise produced by highway vehicles whistles and horns at all public currently have either formal or informal
and aircraft versus locomotive horns crossings. Some communities believe whistle bans in place. FRA estimates
and (2) effects of highways and airports that the sounding of train whistles at that approximately 70 percent (i.e. 193
communities) of these governmental governmental jurisdiction. Other where the noise from the whistle
jurisdictions are considered to be small alternatives include ‘‘gates with median blowing could be considered to be
entities. barriers’’ which are estimated to cost nuisance and bad for business. Concerns
FRA has recently published final a between $13,000 and $15,000 for simple have been advanced by owners and
policy which establishes ‘‘small entity’’ installations; upgrade two-quadrant gate operators of hotels, motels and some
as being railroads which meet the line systems to four-quadrant gate systems at other establishments as a result of
haulage revenue requirements of a Class an estimated cost of $100,000–$300,000 numerous town meetings and other
III railroad. As defined by 49 CFR plus annual maintenance costs of outreach sessions in which FRA has
1201.1–1, Class III railroads are those $2,500–$3,000; and ‘‘Photo participated during development of this
railroads who have annual operating enforcement’’ which is estimated to cost rule. If supplementary safety measures
revenues of $20 million per year or less. $28,000–$65,500 per crossing, and have are implemented to create a quiet zone
Hazardous material shippers or annual maintenance costs of $6,600– then such small entities should not be
contractors that meet this income level $24,000 per crossing. Finally, FRA has impacted. FRA held 12 public hearings
will also be considered as small entities. not limited compliance to the lists nationwide following issuance of the
FRA is using this definition of small provided in appendix A or appendix B NPRM and requested comments to the
entity for this rulemaking. The FRA of the rule. The rule provides for docket from small businesses that feel
believes that approximately 640 small supplementary safety measures that they will be adversely impacted by the
railroads would be minimally impacted might be unique or different. For such requirements contained in the NPRM.
by train horn sound level testing an alternative, an analysis would have FRA received no comments in response.
requirements contained in this rule. In to accompany the option that would
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
addition, some small businesses that demonstrate that the number of
operate along or nearby rail lines that motorists that violate the crossing is The information collection
currently have whistle bans in place equivalent of less than that of blowing requirements in this final rule have been
that potentially may not after the the whistle. FRA intends to rely on the submitted for approval to the Office of
implementation of this rule, could be creativity of communities to formulate Management and Budget (OMB) under
moderately impacted. solutions which will work for that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Alternative options for complying community. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The sections that
with this rule include allowing the train FRA does not know how many small contain the new information collection
whistle to be blown. This alternative has businesses are located within a distance requirements and the estimated time to
no direct costs associated with it for the of the affected highway-rail crossings fulfill each requirement are as follows:
Respondent uni- Total annual re- Average time per Total annual bur- Tot. annual burden
CFR Section verse sponses response den hours cost
222.11—Penalties ............................... 340 Public Authori- 5 false reports/rcd 2 hours ................. 10 hours ............... $370
ties.
222.15—Petitions for Waivers ............ 340 Public Authori- 5 petitions ............ 4 hours ................. 20 hours ............... 740
ties.
222.17—Applications To Be Recog- 68 State Agencies 13 applications ..... 8 hours ................. 104 hours ............. 6,344
nized as a State Agency.
222.39—Establishment of Quiet
Zones:
—Public Authority Application to 340 Public Authori- 105 Applications ... 80 hours ............... 8,400 hours .......... 512,400
FRA. ties.
—Diagnostic Team Reviews 340 Public Authori- 53 reviews ............ 32 hours ............... 1,696 hours .......... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
ties.
—Updated Crossing Inventory 340 Public Authori- 302 forms ............. 1 hour ................... 302 hours ............. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Form. ties.
—60-Day Comment Period: Cop- 340 Public Authori- 630 copies ........... 10 minutes ........... 105 hours ............. 6,405
ies of Quiet Zone Application. ties.
—Comments on Applications ...... 340 Public Authori- 2 comments ......... 2.5 hours .............. 5 hours ................. 185
ties.
222.41—Pre-Rule Quiet Zones Which 262 communities/ 262 notices + 40 hours + 10 min. 10,742 hours ........ 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Qualify For Automatic Approval— Pub. Auth.. 1572 notifica-
Notices/Notice Copies. tions.
—Certifications ............................. 262 communities/ 262 certifications .. 5 minutes ............. 22 hours ............... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Pub. Auth..
—Updated Grade Crossing In- 200 communities/ 1,182 Forms ......... 1 hour ................... 1,182 hours .......... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
ventory Forms. Pub. Auth..
—Pre-Rule Quiet Zones That Will 103 Communities 103 notices + 618 40 hours + 10 min. 4,223 hours .......... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Not Be Established By Auto- notifications.
matic Approval.
—Certifications ............................. 103 Communities 103 certifications .. 5 minutes ............. 9 hours ................. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
—Updated Crossing Inventory 103 Communities 416 Forms ............ 1 hour ................... 416 hours ............. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Forms.
222.42—Intermediate Quiet Zones 3 Communities ..... 3 notices + 18 no- 40 hours + 10 min. 123 hours ............. 7,503
and Intermediate Partial Quiet tifications.
Zones—Notices/Notifications.
Respondent uni- Total annual re- Average time per Total annual bur- Tot. annual burden
CFR Section verse sponses response den hours cost
—Updated Grade Crossing In- 3 Communities ..... 71 Forms .............. 1 hour ................... 71 hours ............... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
ventory Forms.
222.43—Notice and Other Information 99 Communities ... 99 notices + 594 40 hours + 10 min. 4,059 hours .......... 247,599
Required to Establish a Quiet Zone. notifications.
—Updated Grade Crossing In- 302 Communities 376 Forms ............ 1 hour ................... 376 hours ............. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
ventory Forms.
—60-Day Comment Period on 715 Railroads/ 70 comments ....... 4 hours ................. 280 hours ............. 10,360
Notices of Intent. State Agencies.
—Notice of Intent to Continue 177 Communities 177 notices + 1 hour + 10 min. .. 354 hours ............. 21,594
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Partial 1,062 notifica-
Quiet Zone. tion.
—Updated Grade Crossing In- 177 Communities 1,100 Forms ......... 1 hour ................... 1,100 hours .......... 67,100
ventory Forms.
—Certifications Continuing Quiet 177 Communities 177 certifications .. 5 minutes ............. 15 hours ............... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Zones.
—Certifications Establishing 97 Communities ... 97 certifications .... 5 minutes ............. 8 hours ................. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Quiet Zones.
222.47—Periodic Updates:
—Quiet Zones Which Do Not 200 Public Authori- 9 Affirmations + 54 30 minutes + 2 6 hours ................. 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Have Supplementary Safety ties. Copies. min.
Measures at Each Public
Crossing.
—Updated Crossing Inventory 200 Public Authori- 45 Forms .............. 1 hour ................... 45 hours ............... 0 (Cost incl. RIA)
Forms. ties.
222.51—Review of Quiet Zone Sta- 9 Public Authori- 2 statements ........ 5 hours ................. 10 hours ............... 610
tus—Public Authority Written State- ties.
ments/Commitments.
—Review at FRA’s Initiative— 3 Public Authori- 60 comments ....... 30 minutes ........... 30 hours ............... 1,830
Comments. ties.
222.55—Approval of New SSMs or 265 Interested 1 letter .................. 30 minutes ........... 1 hour ................... 61
ASMs—Letters. Parties.
—Comments ................................ 265 Interested 5 comments ......... 30 minutes ........... 3 hours ................. 183
Parties.
—Demo of New SSM/ASM & Ap- 265 Interested 1 letter .................. 30 minutes ........... 1 hour ................... 61
proval Application. Parties.
222.57—Review of Assoc. Adminis- 265 Public Authori- 1 petition + 6 peti- 1 hour + 2 min. .... 1 hour ................... 61
trator’s Actions. ties/Int. Parties. tion copies.
—Petition For Reconsideration by 200 Public Authori- 1 petition + 6 peti- 5 hours + 2 min. .. 5 hours ................. 305
Pub. Authority. ties. tion copies.
—Additional Documents/Materials 200 Public Authori- 1 document .......... 2 hours ................. 2 hours ................. 122
ties.
—Request For Informal Hearing 200 Public Authori- 1 letter .................. 30 minutes ........... 1 hour ................... 61
ties.
222.59—Use of Wayside Horns—No- 200 Public Authori- 10 notices + 60 5 hours + 10 min. 60 hours ............... 3,660
tices/Copies. ties. notice copies.
Appendix B: Non-Engineering ASMs:

—Records For Programmed En- 200 Public Authori- 20 records ............ 500 hours ............. 10,000 hours ........ 610,000
forcement/Public Educ.. ties.
—Records For Photo Enforce- 200 Public Authori- 20 records ............ 9 hours ................. 180 hours ............. 10,980
ment. ties.
229.129—Audible Warning Devices— 684 Railroads ....... 23,230 records ..... 1 hour ................... 23,230 hours ........ 859,510
Testing Reports or Records.
—Retests of Locomotive Horns— 684 Railroads ....... 650 records .......... 1 hour ................... 650 hours ............. 24,050
Records.
All estimates include the time for package submitted to OMB, contact publication of this document in the
reviewing instructions; searching Robert Brogan at 202–493–6292. Federal Register.
existing data sources; gathering or OMB is required to make a decision FRA cannot impose a penalty on
maintaining the needed data; and concerning the collection of information persons for violating information
reviewing the information. For requirements contained in this final rule collection requirements which do not
information or a copy of the paperwork between 30 and 60 days after display a current OMB control number,
if required. FRA intends to obtain
current OMB control numbers for any the Act and to provide insight to FRA. As noted, this rulemaking is required
new information collection FRA received comments from by 49 U.S.C. 20153. The statute both
requirements resulting from this representatives of Portland, Maine; requires that the Department issue this
rulemaking action prior to the effective Maine Department of Transportation; rule and sets out clear guidance as to the
date of a final rule. The OMB control Acton, Massachusetts; Wisconsin’s structure of such rule. The statute
number, when assigned, will be Office of the Commissioner of Railroads; clearly and unambiguously requires the
announced by separate notice in the a Wisconsin State representative; a Department to issue rules requiring
Federal Register. Massachusetts State senator; the Town locomotive horns to be sounded at every
of Ashland, Massachusetts; Bellevue, public grade crossing. The Department
D. Environmental Impact
Iowa; and the mayor of Batavia, Illinois. has no discretion as to this aspect of the
A Record of Decision has been Since passage of the Act in 1994, FRA rule. The statute also makes clear that
prepared and is available in the public has consulted and briefed the Federal government must have a
docket. representatives of the American leading role in establishing the
E. Federalism Implications Association of State Highway and framework for providing exceptions to
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the the requirement that horns sound at
Executive Order 13132, entitled, National League of Cities, National every public crossing. While some
‘‘Federalism,’’ issued on August 4, 1999, Association of Regulatory Utility States and communities expressed
requires that each agency ‘‘in a Commissioners, National Conference of opposition to Federal involvement in
separately identified portion of the State Legislatures, and others. this area which historically has been
preamble to the regulation as it is to be Additionally we have provided subject to State regulation, the majority
issued in the Federal Register, provides extensive written information to all of State and local community
to the Director of the Office of United States Senators and a large commenters recognized and accepted
Management and Budget a Federalism number of Representatives with the the statutorily required Federal
summary impact statement, which expectation that the information would involvement. Of concern to many of
consists of a description of the extent of be shared with interested local officials these commenters, however, was the
the agency’s prior consultation with and constituents. issue as to whether States or local
State and local officials, a summary of Prior to issuance of the NPRM, FRA communities should have primary
the nature of their concerns and the had been in close contact with, and has responsibility for creation of quiet
agency’s position supporting the need to received many comments from Chicago zones. As further discussed in the
issue the regulation, and a statement of area municipal groups representing section-by-section analysis regarding
the extent to which the concerns of suburban areas in which, for the most ‘‘Who may establish a quiet zone?’’,
State and local officials have been met. part, locomotive horns are not routinely States generally felt that they should
* * *’’ sounded. The Chicago area Council of have a primary role in establishing quiet
FRA has complied with E.O. 13132 in Mayors, which represents over 200 zones and in administering a quiet zone.
issuing this rule. FRA consulted cities and villages with over four Comments from local governments
extensively with State and local officials million residents outside of Chicago, tended to support the contrary view that
prior to issuance of the NPRM, and we provided valuable information to FRA local political subdivisions should
have taken very seriously the concerns as did the West Central Municipal establish quiet zones. A review of
and views expressed by State and local Conference and the West Suburban § 20153 indicates a clear Congressional
officials as expressed in written Mass Transit District, both of suburban preference that decision-makers be local
comments and testimony at the various Chicago. authorities. This final rule provides
public hearings throughout the country. Another association of suburban non-Federal parties extensive
FRA staff provided briefings to many Chicago local governments, the DuPage involvement in decision-making
State and local officials and [County] Mayors and Managers pertaining to the creation of quiet zones.
organizations during the comment Conference, provided comments and This final rule has increased the role of
period to encourage full public information. Additionally, FRA officials States in creation of quiet zones and has
participation in this rulemaking. As met with many Members of Congress, provided more opportunities for non-
discussed earlier in this preamble, who have invited FRA to their districts Federal parties, including States to have
because of the great interest in this and have provided citizens and local input in decisions made regarding
subject throughout various areas of the officials with the opportunity to express creation and termination of quiet zones.
country, FRA was involved in an their views on this rulemaking process. However, given the nature of the
extensive outreach program to inform These exchanges, and others conducted competing interests of State and local
communities which presently have directly through FRA’s regional crossing governments in this area, FRA could not
whistle bans of the effect of the Act and managers, have been very valuable in fully meet the concerns of both groups.
the regulatory process. Since the identifying the need for flexibility in For the reasons detailed in the section-
passage of the Act, FRA headquarters preparing the proposed rule. by-section analysis, of the final rule and
and regional staff have met with a large Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of the interim final rule, the concerns of
number of local officials. FRA also held this regulation preempts any State law, local communities have been
a number of public meetings to discuss rule, regulation, order, or standard substantially met.
the issues and to receive information covering the same subject matter, except
from the public. In addition to local a provision necessary to eliminate or F. Compliance With the Unfunded
citizens, both local and State officials reduce an essentially local safety Mandates Reform Act of 1995
attended and participated in the public hazard, that is not incompatible with Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
meetings. Additionally, FRA took the Federal law or regulation and does not Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each
unusual step of establishing a public unreasonably burden interstate Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
docket before formal initiation of commerce. For further discussion of the prohibited by law, assess the effects of
rulemaking proceedings in order to effect of this rule on State and local laws Federal Regulatory actions on State,
enable citizens and local officials to and ordinances, see § 222.7 and its local, and tribal governments, and the
comment on how FRA might implement accompanying discussion. private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 222.42 How does this rule affect
requirements specifically set forth in may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Intermediate Quiet Zones and
law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones?
List of Subjects 222.43 What notices and other information
further requires that ‘‘before
are required to create or continue a quiet
promulgating any general notice of 49 CFR Part 222 zone?
proposed rulemaking that is likely to Administrative practice and 222.45 When is a railroad required to cease
result in promulgation of any rule that procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety, routine use of locomotive horns at
includes any Federal mandate that may Reporting and recordkeeping crossings?
result in the expenditure by State, local, requirements. 222.47 What periodic updates are required?
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 222.49 Who may file Grade Crossing
or by the private sector, of $100,00,000 49 CFR Part 229 Inventory Forms?
or more (adjusted annually for 222.51 Under what conditions will quiet
Locomotives, Penalties, Railroad zone status be terminated?
inflation)[currently $120,700,000] in safety. 222.53 What are the requirements for
any one year, and before promulgating ■ In consideration of the foregoing, FRA supplementary and alternative safety
any final rule for which a general notice is amending chapter II, subtitle B of title measures?
of proposed rulemaking was published, 49, Code of Federal Regulations as 222.55 How are new supplementary or
the agency shall prepare a written follows: alternative safety measures approved?
statement * * *’’ detailing the effect on ■ 1. Part 222 is added to read as follows: 222.57 Can parties seek review of the
State, local and tribal governments and Associate Administrator’s actions?
the private sector. The rule issued today PART 222—USE OF LOCOMOTIVE 222.59 When may a wayside horn be used?
will not result in the expenditure, in the Appendix A to Part 222—Approved
HORNS AT PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL
aggregate, of $120,700,000 or more in Supplementary Safety Measures
GRADE CROSSINGS Appendix B to Part 222—Alternative Safety
any one year, and thus preparation of a Measures
statement is not required. Subpart A—General
Appendix C to Part 222—Guide to
Sec. Establishing Quiet Zones
G. Energy Impact 222.1 What is the purpose of this Appendix D to Part 222—Determining Risk
Executive Order 13211 requires regulation? Levels
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 222.3 What areas does this regulation Appendix E to Part 222—Requirements for
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant cover? Wayside Horns
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 222.5 What railroads does this regulation Appendix F to Part 222—Diagnostic Team
apply to? Considerations
2001). Under the Executive Order, a 222.7 What is this regulation’s effect on
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as Appendix G to Part 222—Schedule of Civil
State and local laws and ordinances? Penalties
any action by an agency (normally 222.9 Definitions.
published in the Federal Register) that 222.11 What are the penalties for failure to Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 U.S.C.
promulgates or is expected to lead to the comply with this regulation? 20103, 20107, 20153, 21301, 21304; 49 CFR
promulgation of a final rule or 222.13 Who is responsible for compliance? 1.49.
regulation, including notices of inquiry, 222.15 How does one obtain a waiver of a
advance notices of proposed provision of this regulation? Subpart A—General
rulemaking, and notices of proposed 222.17 How can a State agency become a
recognized State agency? § 222.1 What is the purpose of this
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulation?
regulatory action under Executive Order Subpart B—Use of Locomotive Horns The purpose of this part is to provide
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 222.21 When must a locomotive horn be for safety at public highway-rail grade
likely to have a significant adverse effect used? crossings by requiring locomotive horn
on the supply, distribution, or use of 222.23 How does this regulation affect
use at public highway-rail grade
energy; or (2) that is designated by the sounding of a horn during an emergency
or other situations? crossings except in quiet zones
Administrator of the Office of established and maintained in
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 222.25 How does this rule affect private
highway-rail grade crossings? accordance with this part.
significant energy action. FRA has 222.27 How does this rule affect pedestrian
evaluated this Final rule in accordance crossings? § 222.3 What areas does this regulation
with Executive Order 13211 and has cover?
determined that this Final Rule is not Subpart C—Exceptions to the Use of the (a) This part prescribes standards for
likely to have a significant adverse effect Locomotive Horn sounding locomotive horns when
on the supply, distribution, or use of 222.31 [Reserved] locomotives approach and pass through
energy. Consequently, FRA has Silenced Horns at Individual Crossings public highway-rail grade crossings.
determined that this regulatory action is 222.33 Can locomotive horns be silenced at
This part also provides standards for the
not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within an individual public highway-rail grade creation and maintenance of quiet zones
the meaning of Executive Order 13211. crossing which is not within a quiet within which locomotive horns need
zone? not be sounded.
18. Privacy Act Statement (b) The provisions of this part are
Anyone is able to search the Silenced Horns at Groups of Crossings— separate and severable from one
electronic form of all comments Quiet Zones
another. If any provision is stayed or
received into any of our dockets by the 222.35 What are minimum requirements for determined to be invalid, it is the intent
name of the individual submitting the quiet zones? of FRA that the remaining provisions
comment (or signing the comment), if 222.37 Who may establish a quiet zone?
222.38 Can a quiet zone be created in the
shall continue in effect.
submitted on behalf of an association, Chicago Region?
(c) This part does not apply to any
business, labor union, etc.). You may 222.39 How is a quiet zone established? Chicago Region highway-rail grade
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 222.41 How does this rule affect Pre-Rule crossing where the railroad was excused
Statement in the Federal Register Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet from sounding the locomotive horn by
published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, Zones? the Illinois Commerce Commission, and
where the railroad did not sound the under State law regarding the a highway-rail grade crossing, organized
horn, as of December 18, 2003. modification or installation of by the public authority responsible for
engineering improvements at highway- that crossing, who, using crossing safety
§ 222.5 What railroads does this regulation rail grade crossings. management principles, evaluate
apply to?
conditions at a grade crossing to make
This part applies to all railroads § 222.9 Definitions. determinations or recommendations for
except: As used in this part— the public authority concerning safety
(a) A railroad that exclusively Administrator means the needs at that crossing.
operates freight trains only on track Administrator of the Federal Railroad Effectiveness rate means a number
which is not part of the general railroad Administration or the Administrator’s between zero and one which represents
system of transportation; delegate. the reduction of the likelihood of a
(b) Passenger railroads that operate Alternative safety measures (ASM)
collision at a public highway-rail grade
only on track which is not part of the means a safety system or procedure,
crossing as a result of the installation of
general railroad system of transportation other than an SSM, established in
an SSM or ASM when compared to the
and that operate at a maximum speed of accordance with this part which is
same crossing equipped with
15 miles per hour over public highway- provided by the appropriate traffic
conventional active warning systems of
rail grade crossings; and control authority or law enforcement
flashing lights and gates. Zero
(c) Rapid transit operations within an authority and which, after individual
effectiveness means that the SSM or
urban area that are not connected to the review and analysis by the Associate
ASM provides no reduction in the
general railroad system of Administrator, is determined to be an
probability of a collision, while an
transportation. See 49 CFR part 209, effective substitute for the locomotive
effectiveness rating of one means that
appendix A for the definitive statement horn in the prevention of highway-rail
the SSM or ASM is totally effective in
of the meaning of the preceding casualties at specific highway-rail grade
eliminating collision risk.
sentence. crossings. Appendix B to this part lists
Measurements between zero and one
such measures.
§ 222.7 What is this regulation’s effect on Associate Administrator means the reflect the percentage by which the SSM
State and local laws and ordinances? Associate Administrator for Safety of or ASM reduces the probability of a
(a) Except as provided in paragraph the Federal Railroad Administration or collision.
(b) of this section, issuance of this part the Associate Administrator’s delegate. FRA means the Federal Railroad
preempts any State law, rule, regulation, Channelization device means a traffic Administration.
or order governing the sounding of the separation system made up of a raised Grade Crossing Inventory Form means
locomotive horn at public highway-rail longitudinal channelizer, with vertical the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail
grade crossings, in accordance with 49 panels or tubular delineators attached, Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA
U.S.C. 20106. that is placed between opposing Form F6180.71. This form is available
(b) This part does not preempt any highway lanes designed to alert or guide through the FRA’s Office of Safety, or on
State law, rule, regulation, or order traffic around an obstacle or to direct FRA’s Web site at http://
governing the sounding of the traffic in a particular direction. www.fra.dot.gov.
locomotive horn at any highway-rail ‘‘Tubular markers’’ and ‘‘vertical Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone
grade crossing described in § 222.3(c) of panels’’ as described in sections 6F.57 means a segment of a rail line within
this part. and 6F.58, respectively, of the MUTCD, which is situated one or a number of
(c) Except as provided in §§ 222.25 are acceptable channelization devices consecutive public highway-rail grade
and 222.27, this part does not preempt for purposes of this part. Additional crossings at which State statutes or local
any State law, rule, regulation, or order design specifications are determined by ordinances restricted the routine
governing the sounding of locomotive the standard traffic design specifications sounding of locomotive horns for a
horns at private highway-rail grade used by the governmental entity specified period of time during the
crossings or pedestrian crossings. constructing the channelization device. evening or nighttime hours, or at which
(d) Inclusion of SSMs and ASMs in Chicago Region means the following locomotive horns did not sound due to
this part or approved subsequent to six counties in the State of Illinois: formal or informal agreements between
issuance of this part does not constitute Cook, DuPage, Lake, Kane, McHenry the community and the railroad or
federal preemption of State law and Will. railroads for a specified period of time
regarding whether those measures may Crossing Corridor Risk Index means a during the evening and/or nighttime
be used for traffic control. Individual number reflecting a measure of risk to hours, and at which such statutes,
states may continue to determine the motoring public at public grade ordinances or agreements were in place
whether specific SSMs or ASMs are crossings along a rail corridor, and enforced or observed as of
appropriate traffic control measures for calculated in accordance with the December 18, 2003, but not as of
that State, consistent with Federal procedures in appendix D of this part, October 9, 1996.
Highway Administration regulations representing the average risk at each Intermediate Quiet Zone means a
and the MUTCD. However, except for public crossing within the corridor. This segment of a rail line within which is
the SSMs and ASMs implemented at risk level is determined by averaging situated one or a number of consecutive
highway-rail grade crossings described among all public crossings within the public highway-rail grade crossings at
in § 222.3(c) of this part, inclusion of corridor, the product of the number of which State statutes or local ordinances
SSMs and ASMs in this part does predicted collisions per year and the restricted the routine sounding of
constitute federal preemption of State predicted likelihood and severity of locomotive horns, or at which
law concerning the sounding of the casualties resulting from those locomotive horns did not sound due to
locomotive horn in relation to the use of collisions at each public crossing within formal or informal agreements between
those measures. the corridor. the community and the railroad or
(e) Issuance of this part does not Diagnostic team as used in this part, railroads, and at which such statutes,
constitute federal preemption of means a group of knowledgeable ordinances or agreements were in place
administrative procedures required representatives of parties of interest in and enforced or observed as of
December 18, 2003, but not as of Non-traversable curb means a Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone means a
October 9, 1996. highway curb designed to discourage a segment of a rail line within which is
Locomotive means a piece of on-track motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. situated one or a number of consecutive
equipment other than hi-rail, Non-traversable curbs are used at public highway-rail crossings at which
specialized maintenance, or other locations where highway speeds do not State statutes or local ordinances
similar equipment— exceed 40 miles per hour and are at restricted the routine sounding of
(1) With one or more propelling least six inches high. Additional design locomotive horns for a specified period
motors designed for moving other specifications are determined by the of time during the evening and/or
equipment; standard traffic design specifications nighttime hours, or at which locomotive
(2) With one or more propelling used by the governmental entity horns did not sound due to formal or
motors designed to carry freight or constructing the curb. informal agreements between the
passenger traffic or both; or Partial Quiet Zone means a segment community and the railroad or railroads
(3) Without propelling motors but of a rail line within which is situated for a specified period of time during the
with one or more control stands. one or a number of consecutive public evening and/or nighttime hours, and at
Locomotive horn means a locomotive highway-rail grade crossings at which which such statutes, ordinances or
air horn, steam whistle, or similar locomotive horns are not routinely agreements were in place and enforced
audible warning device (see 49 CFR sounded for a specified period of time or observed as of October 9, 1996 and
229.129) mounted on a locomotive or during the evening and/or nighttime on December 18, 2003.
control cab car. The terms ‘‘locomotive hours. Pre-Rule Quiet Zone means a segment
horn’’, ‘‘train whistle’’, ‘‘locomotive Pedestrian crossing means, for of a rail line within which is situated
whistle’’, and ‘‘train horn’’ are used purposes of this part, a separate one or a number of consecutive public
interchangeably in the railroad industry. designated sidewalk or pathway where highway-rail crossings at which State
Median means the portion of a pedestrians, but not vehicles, cross statutes or local ordinances restricted
divided highway separating the travel railroad tracks. Sidewalk crossings the routine sounding of locomotive
ways for traffic in opposite directions. contiguous with, or separate but horns, or at which locomotive horns did
MUTCD means the Manual on Traffic adjacent to, public highway-rail grade not sound due to formal or informal
Control Devices published by the crossings, are presumed to be part of the agreements between the community and
Federal Highway Administration. public highway-rail grade crossing and the railroad or railroads, and at which
Nationwide Significant Risk are not considered pedestrian crossings. such statutes, ordinances or agreements
Threshold means a number reflecting a Power-out indicator means a device were in place and enforced or observed
measure of risk, calculated on a which is capable of indicating to trains as of October 9, 1996 and on December
nationwide basis, which reflects the approaching a grade crossing equipped 18, 2003.
average level of risk to the motoring with an active warning system whether Private highway-rail crossing means,
public at public highway-rail grade commercial electric power is activating for purposes of this part, a highway-rail
crossings equipped with flashing lights the warning system at that crossing. at grade crossing which is not a public
and gates and at which locomotive This term includes remote health highway-rail grade crossing.
horns are sounded. For purposes of this monitoring of grade crossing warning Public authority means the public
rule, a risk level above the Nationwide systems if such monitoring system is entity responsible for traffic control or
Significant Risk Threshold represents a equipped to indicate power status. law enforcement at the public highway-
significant risk with respect to loss of Pre-existing Modified Supplementary rail grade or pedestrian crossing.
life or serious personal injury. The Safety Measure (Pre-existing Modified Public highway-rail grade crossing
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold SSM) means a safety system or means, for purposes of this part, a
is calculated in accordance with the procedure that is listed in appendix A location where a public highway, road,
procedures in appendix D of this part. to this Part, but is not fully compliant or street, including associated sidewalks
Unless otherwise indicated, references with the standards set forth therein, or pathways, crosses one or more
in this part to the Nationwide which was installed before December railroad tracks at grade. If a public
Significant Risk Threshold reflect its 18, 2003 by the appropriate traffic authority maintains the roadway on
level as last published by FRA in the control or law enforcement authority both sides of the crossing, the crossing
Federal Register. responsible for safety at the highway- is considered a public crossing for
New Partial Quiet Zone means a rail grade crossing. The calculation of purposes of this part.
segment of a rail line within which is risk reduction credit for pre-existing Quiet zone means a segment of a rail
situated one or a number of consecutive modified SSMs is addressed in line, within which is situated one or a
public highway-rail crossings at which appendix B of this part. number of consecutive public highway-
locomotive horns are not routinely Pre-existing Supplementary Safety rail crossings at which locomotive horns
sounded between the hours of 10 p.m. Measure (Pre-existing SSM) means a are not routinely sounded.
and 7 a.m., but are routinely sounded safety system or procedure established Quiet Zone Risk Index means a
during the remaining portion of the day, in accordance with this part before measure of risk to the motoring public
and which does not qualify as a Pre- December 18, 2003 which was provided which reflects the Crossing Corridor
Rule Partial Quiet Zone. by the appropriate traffic control or law Risk Index for a quiet zone, after
New Quiet Zone means a segment of enforcement authority responsible for adjustment to account for increased risk
a rail line within which is situated one safety at the highway-rail grade due to lack of locomotive horn use at
or a number of consecutive public crossing. These safety measures must the crossings within the quiet zone (if
highway-rail grade crossings at which fully comply with the SSM horns are presently sounded at the
routine sounding of locomotive horns is requirements set forth in appendix A of crossings) and reduced risk due to
restricted pursuant to this part and this part. The calculation of risk implementation, if any, of SSMs and
which does not qualify as either a Pre- reduction credit for qualifying pre- ASMs with the quiet zone. The
Rule Quiet Zone or Intermediate Quiet existing SSMs is addressed in appendix calculation of the Quiet Zone Risk
Zone. A. Index, which is explained in appendix
D of this part, does not differ for partial casualties. Appendix A of this part lists explain why applying the requirement
quiet zones. such SSMs. that a joint submission be made in that
Railroad means any form of non- Waiver means a temporary or instance would not be likely to
highway ground transportation that runs permanent modification of some or all contribute significantly to public safety.
on rails or electromagnetic guideways of the requirements of this part as they If the Associate Administrator
and any entity providing such apply to a specific party under a specific determines that applying the
transportation, including: set of facts. Waiver does not refer to the requirement for a jointly filed
(1) Commuter or other short-haul process of establishing quiet zones or submission to that particular petition
railroad passenger service in a approval of quiet zones in accordance would not be likely to significantly
metropolitan or suburban area and with the provisions of this part. contribute to public safety, the
commuter railroad service that was Wayside horn means a stationary horn Associate Administrator shall waive the
operated by the Consolidated Rail located at a highway rail grade crossing, requirement for joint submission and
Corporation on January 1, 1979; and designed to provide, upon the approach accept the petition for consideration..
(2) High speed ground transportation of a locomotive or train, audible The filing party must also provide the
systems that connect metropolitan areas, warning to oncoming motorists of the other party with a copy of the petition
without regard to whether those systems approach of a train. filed with FRA.
use new technologies not associated § 222.11 What are the penalties for failure (c) Each petition for waiver must be
with traditional railroads; but does not to comply with this regulation? filed in accordance with 49 CFR part
include rapid transit operations in an Any person who violates any 211.
urban area that are not connected to the requirement of this part or causes the (d) If the Administrator finds that a
general railroad system of violation of any such requirement is waiver of compliance with a provision
transportation. subject to a civil penalty of least $550 of this part is in the public interest and
Recognized State agency means, for and not more than $11,000 per consistent with the safety of highway
purposes of this part, a State agency, violation, except that: penalties may be and railroad users, the Administrator
responsible for highway-rail grade assessed against individuals only for may grant the waiver subject to any
crossing safety or highway and road willful violations, and, where a grossly conditions the Administrator deems
safety, that has applied for and been negligent violation or a pattern of necessary.
approved by FRA as a participant in the repeated violations has created an § 222.17 How can a State agency become
quiet zone development process. imminent hazard of death or injury to a recognized State agency?
Relevant collision means a collision at persons, or has caused death or injury,
a highway-rail grade crossing between a (a) Any State agency responsible for
a penalty not to exceed $27,000 per
train and a motor vehicle, excluding the highway-rail grade crossing safety and/
violation may be assessed. Each day a
following: a collision resulting from an or highway and road safety may become
violation continues shall constitute a
activation failure of an active grade a recognized State agency by submitting
separate offense. Any person who
crossing warning system; a collision in knowingly and willfully falsifies a an application to the Associate
which there is no driver in the motor record or report required by this part Administrator that contains:
vehicle; or a collision in which the may be subject to criminal penalties (1) A detailed description of the
highway vehicle struck the side of the under 49 U.S.C. 21311. Appendix G of proposed scope of involvement in the
train beyond the fourth locomotive unit this part contains a schedule of civil quiet zone development process;
or rail car. With respect to Pre-Rule penalty amounts used in connection (2) The name, address, and telephone
Partial Quiet Zones, a relevant collision with this part. number of the person(s) who may be
shall not include collisions that occur contacted to discuss the State agency
during the time period within which the
§ 222.13 Who is responsible for application; and
compliance? (3) A statement from State agency
locomotive horn is routinely sounded.
Any person, including but not limited counsel which affirms that the State
Risk Index With Horns means a
to a railroad, contractor for a railroad, or agency is authorized to undertake the
measure of risk to the motoring public
a local or State governmental entity that responsibilities proposed in its
when locomotive horns are routinely
performs any function covered by this application.
sounded at every public highway-rail
part, must perform that function in (b) The Associate Administrator will
grade crossing within a quiet zone. In
accordance with this part. approve the application if, in the
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule
Associate Administrator’s judgment, the
Partial Quiet Zones, the Risk Index With § 222.15 How does one obtain a waiver of
proposed scope of State agency
Horns is determined by adjusting the a provision of this regulation?
involvement will facilitate safe and
Crossing Corridor Risk Index to account (a) Except as provided in paragraph effective quiet zone development. The
for the decreased risk that would result (b) of this section, two parties must Associate Administrator may include in
if locomotive horns were routinely jointly file a petition (request) for a any decision of approval such
sounded at each public highway-rail waiver. They are the railroad owning or conditions as he/she deems necessary
grade crossing. controlling operations over the railroad and appropriate.
Supplementary safety measure (SSM) tracks crossing the public highway-rail
means a safety system or procedure grade crossing and the public authority Subpart B—Use of Locomotive Horns
established in accordance with this part which has jurisdiction over the roadway
which is provided by the appropriate crossing the railroad tracks. § 222.21 When must a locomotive horn be
traffic control authority or law (b) If the railroad and the public used?
enforcement authority responsible for authority cannot reach agreement to file (a) Except as provided in this part, the
safety at the highway-rail grade a joint petition, either party may file a locomotive horn on the lead locomotive
crossing, that is determined by the request for a waiver; however, the filing of a train, lite locomotive consist,
Associate Administrator to be an party must specify in its petition the individual locomotive, or lead cab car
effective substitute for the locomotive steps it has taken in an attempt to reach shall be sounded when such locomotive
horn in the prevention of highway-rail agreement with the other party, and or lead cab car is approaching a public
highway-rail grade crossing. Sounding and use of the horn is required by one by State law, and shall be equipped
of the locomotive horn with two long, of the following sections of this chapter: with advance warning signs in
one short, and one long blast shall be §§ 234.105, 234.106, or 234.107; or compliance with § 222.35(c) of this part.
initiated at a location so as to be in (3) When grade crossing warning
accordance with paragraph (b) of this systems are temporarily out of service § 222.27 How does this rule affect
section and shall be repeated or during inspection, maintenance, or pedestrian crossings?
prolonged until the locomotive or train testing of the system. This rule does not require the routine
occupies the crossing. This pattern may (c) Nothing in this part restricts the sounding of locomotive horns at
be varied as necessary where crossings use of the locomotive horn for purposes pedestrian crossings. Except as specified
are spaced closely together. other than highway-rail crossing safety in this section, this part is not meant to
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e.g., to announce the approach of a address the subject of pedestrian
(b)(2) of this section, the locomotive train to roadway workers in accordance crossings and is not intended to affect
horn shall begin to be sounded at least with a program adopted under part 214 State or local laws or orders, or private
15 seconds, but no more than 20 of this chapter, or where required for contractual or other arrangements,
seconds, before the locomotive enters other purposes under railroad operating regarding the routine sounding of
the crossing. rules).
locomotive horns at pedestrian
(2) Trains, locomotive consists, and
§ 222.25 How does this rule affect private crossings.
individual locomotives traveling at
highway-rail grade crossings? (a) Pedestrian crossings may be
speeds in excess of 45 mph shall not
begin sounding the horn more than one- This rule does not require the routine included in a quiet zone.
quarter mile (1,320 feet) in advance of sounding of locomotive horns at private
(b) Pedestrian crossings that are
the nearest public highway-rail grade highway-rail grade crossings. Except as
located in New Quiet Zones or New
crossing, even if the advance warning specified in this section, this part is not
Partial Quiet Zones may be included in
provided by the locomotive horn will be meant to address the subject of private
grade crossings and is not intended to a quiet zone only if a diagnostic team
less than 15 seconds in duration. evaluates the crossings and the
(c) As stated in § 222.3(c) of this part, affect present State or local laws or
orders, or private contractual or other crossings are equipped or treated in
this section does not apply to any accordance with the recommendations
Chicago Region highway-rail grade arrangements regarding the routine
sounding of locomotive horns at private of such diagnostic team.
crossing at which railroads were
excused from sounding the locomotive highway-rail grade crossings. (c) The public authority shall provide
horn by the Illinois Commerce (a) Private highway-rail grade the State agency responsible for grade
Commission, and where railroads did crossings may be included in a quiet crossing safety and all affected railroads
not sound the horn, as of December 18, zone. an opportunity to participate in
2003. (b)(1) Private highway-rail grade diagnostic team reviews of pedestrian
crossings that are located in New Quiet crossings.
§ 222.23 How does this regulation affect Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones and
sounding of a horn during an emergency or (d) Advance warning signs. (1) Each
allow access to the public, or which
other situations? pedestrian crossing within a New Quiet
provide access to active industrial or
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other Zone shall be equipped with a sign that
commercial sites, may be included in a
provision of this part, a locomotive advises the pedestrian that train horns
quiet zone only if a diagnostic team
engineer may sound the locomotive are not sounded at the crossing. Such
evaluates the crossing and the crossing
horn to provide a warning to animals, sign shall conform to the standards
is equipped or treated in accordance
vehicle operators, pedestrians, with the recommendations of such contained in the MUTCD.
trespassers or crews on other trains in diagnostic team. (2) Each pedestrian crossing within a
an emergency situation if, in the (2) The public authority shall provide New Partial Quiet Zone shall be
locomotive engineer’s sole judgment, the State agency responsible for grade equipped with a sign that advises the
such action is appropriate in order to crossing safety and all affected railroads pedestrian that train horns are not
prevent imminent injury, death, or an opportunity to participate in the sounded at the crossing between the
property damage. diagnostic team review of private hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Such sign
(2) Notwithstanding any other highway-rail grade crossings. shall conform to the standards
provision of this part, including (c)(1) At a minimum, every private contained in the MUTCD.
provisions addressing the establishment highway-rail grade crossing within a (3) Each pedestrian crossing within a
of a quiet zone, limits on the length of New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Pre-Rule Quiet Zone shall be equipped
time in which a horn may be sounded, Zone shall be marked by a crossbuck
by June 24, 2008 with a sign that advises
or installation of wayside horns within and a ‘‘STOP’’ sign, which are
the pedestrian that train horns are not
quiet zones, this part does not preclude compliant with MUTCD standards
the sounding of locomotive horns in sounded at the crossing. Such sign shall
unless otherwise prescribed by State
emergency situations, nor does it conform to the standards contained in
law, and shall be equipped with
impose a legal duty to sound the the MUTCD.
advance warning signs in compliance
locomotive horn in such situations. with § 222.35(c) of this part. (4) Each pedestrian crossing within a
(b) Nothing in this part restricts the (2) At a minimum, every private Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone shall be
use of the locomotive horn in the highway-rail grade crossing within a equipped by June 24, 2008 with a sign
following situations: Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial that advises the pedestrian that train
(1) When a wayside horn is Quiet Zone shall, by June 24, 2008, be horns are not sounded at the crossing
malfunctioning; marked by a crossbuck and a ‘‘STOP’’ for a specified period of time. Such sign
(2) When active grade crossing sign, which are compliant with MUTCD shall conform to the standards
warning devices have malfunctioned standards unless otherwise prescribed contained in the MUTCD.
Subpart C—Exceptions to the Use of zone of at least one-half mile in length that train horns are not sounded at the
the Locomotive Horn in order to retain Pre-Rule Quiet Zone crossing between the hours of 10 p.m.
or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone status. and 7 a.m. Such sign shall conform to
§ 222.31 [Reserved] (3) A quiet zone may include the standards contained in the MUTCD.
Silenced Horns at Individual Crossings highway-rail grade crossings on a (3) Each highway approach to every
segment of rail line crossing more than public and private highway-rail grade
§ 222.33 Can locomotive horns be silenced one political jurisdiction. crossing within a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
at an individual public highway-rail grade (b) Active grade crossing warning shall be equipped by June 24, 2008 with
crossing which is not within a quiet zone? devices. (1) Each public highway-rail an advance warning sign that advises
(a) A railroad operating over an grade crossing in a New Quiet Zone the motorist that train horns are not
individual public highway-rail crossing established under this part must be sounded at the crossing. Such sign shall
may, at its discretion, cease the equipped, no later than the quiet zone conform to the standards contained in
sounding of the locomotive horn if the implementation date, with active grade the MUTCD.
locomotive speed is 15 miles per hour crossing warning devices comprising (4) Each highway approach to every
or less and train crew members, or both flashing lights and gates which public and private highway-rail grade
appropriately equipped flaggers, as control traffic over the crossing and that crossing within a Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
defined in 49 CFR 234.5, flag the conform to the standards contained in Zone shall be equipped by June 24, 2008
crossing to provide warning of the MUTCD. Such warning devices shall with an advance warning sign that
approaching trains to motorists. be equipped with constant warning time advises the motorist that train horns are
(b) This section does not apply where devices, if reasonably practical, and not sounded at the crossing for a
active grade crossing warning devices power-out indicators. specified period of time. Such sign shall
have malfunctioned and use of the horn (2) With the exception of public conform to the standards contained in
is required by 49 CFR 234.105, 234.106, highway-rail grade crossings that will be the MUTCD.
or 234.107. temporarily closed in accordance with (d) Bells. (1) Each public highway-rail
appendix A of this part, each public grade crossing in a New Quiet Zone or
Silenced Horns at Groups of
highway-rail grade crossing in a New New Partial Quiet Zone that is subjected
Crossings—Quiet Zones
Partial Quiet Zone established under to pedestrian traffic and equipped with
§ 222.35 What are the minimum this part must be equipped, no later one or more automatic bells shall retain
requirements for quiet zones? than the quiet zone implementation those bells in working condition.
The following requirements apply to date, with active grade crossing warning (2) Each public highway-rail grade
quiet zones established in conformity devices comprising both flashing lights crossing in a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or
with this part. and gates which control traffic over the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone that is
(a) Minimum length. (1)(i) Except as crossing and that conform to the subjected to pedestrian traffic and
provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) of this standards contained in the MUTCD. equipped with one or more automatic
section, the minimum length of a New Such warning devices shall be equipped bells shall retain those bells in working
Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone with constant warning time devices, if condition.
established under this part shall be one- reasonably practical, and power-out (e) All private crossings within the
half mile along the length of railroad indicators. quiet zone must be treated in
right-of-way. (3) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule accordance with this section and
(ii) The one-half mile minimum Partial Quiet Zones must retain, and § 222.25 of this part.
length requirement shall be waived for may upgrade, the grade crossing safety (f) All pedestrian crossings within a
any New Quiet Zone or New Partial warning system which existed as of quiet zone must be treated in
Quiet Zone that is added onto an December 18, 2003. Any upgrade accordance with § 222.27 of this part.
existing quiet zone, provided there is no involving the installation or renewal of (g) All public crossings within the
public highway-rail grade crossing at an automatic warning device system quiet zone must be in compliance with
which locomotive horns are routinely shall include constant warning time the requirements of the MUTCD.
sounded within one-half mile of the devices, where reasonably practical, and
New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet power-out indicators. In no event may § 222.37 Who may establish a quiet zone?
Zone. the grade crossing safety warning (a) A public authority may establish
(2)(i) The length of a Pre-Rule Quiet system, which existed as of December quiet zones that are consistent with the
Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone 18, 2003, be downgraded. Risk provisions of this part. If a proposed
may continue unchanged from that reduction resulting from upgrading to quiet zone includes public grade
which existed as of October 9, 1996. flashing lights or gates may be credited crossings under the authority and
(ii) With the exception of combining in calculating the Quiet Zone Risk control of more than one public
two adjacent Pre-Rule Quiet Zones or Index. authority (such as a county road and a
Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones, the (c) Advance warning signs. (1) Each State highway crossing the railroad
addition of any public crossing to a Pre- highway approach to every public and tracks at different crossings), both
Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial private highway-rail grade crossing public authorities must agree to
Quiet Zone shall end the grandfathered within a New Quiet Zone shall be establishment of the quiet zone, and
status of that quiet zone and transform equipped with an advance warning sign must jointly, or by delegation provided
it into a New Quiet Zone or New Partial that advises the motorist that train horns to one of the authorities, take such
Quiet Zone that must comply with all are not sounded at the crossing. Such actions as are required by this part.
requirements applicable to New Quiet sign shall conform to the standards (b) A public authority may establish
Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones. contained in the MUTCD. quiet zones irrespective of State laws
(iii) The deletion of any public (2) Each highway approach to every covering the subject matter of sounding
crossing from a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or public and private highway-rail grade or silencing locomotive horns at public
Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone, with the crossing in a New Partial Quiet Zone highway-rail grade crossings. Nothing in
exception of a grade separation or shall be equipped with an advance this part, however, is meant to affect any
crossing closure, must result in a quiet warning sign that advises the motorist other applicable role of State agencies or
the Federal Highway Administration in designation under paragraph (a) of this operating over the public highway-rail
decisions regarding funding or section, but in which it is proposed that grade crossings within the quiet zone;
construction priorities for grade crossing one or more safety measures be the highway or traffic control or law
safety projects, selection of traffic implemented. Such proposed quiet zone enforcement authority having
control devices, or engineering may include only ASMs, or a jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at
standards for roadways or traffic control combination of ASMs and SSMs at grade crossings within the quiet zone;
devices. various crossings within the quiet zone. the landowner having control over any
(c) A State agency may provide Note that an engineering improvement private crossings within the quiet zone;
administrative and technical services to which does not fully comply with the the State agency responsible for
public authorities by advising them, requirements for an SSM under highway and road safety; the State
acting on their behalf, or acting as a appendix A of this part, is considered to agency responsible for grade crossing
central contact point in dealing with be an ASM. The public authority’s safety; and the Associate Administrator.
FRA; however, any public authority application must: (ii) Except as provided in paragraph
eligible to establish a quiet zone under (i) Contain an accurate, complete and (b)(3)(iii) of this section, any party that
this part may do so. current Grade Crossing Inventory Form receives a copy of the public authority
for each public and private highway-rail application may submit comments on
§ 222.38 Can a quiet zone be created in the grade crossing within the proposed the public authority application to the
Chicago Region? quiet zone; Associate Administrator during the 60-
Public authorities that are eligible to (ii) Contain sufficient detail day period after the date on which the
establish quiet zones under this part concerning the present safety measures public authority application was
may create New Quiet Zones or New at each public highway-rail grade mailed.
Partial Quiet Zones in the Chicago crossing proposed to be included in the (iii) If the public authority application
Region, provided the New Quiet Zone or quiet zone to enable the Associate for FRA approval contains written
New Partial Quiet Zone does not Administrator to evaluate their statements from each railroad operating
include any highway-rail grade crossing effectiveness; over the public highway-rail grade
described in § 222.3(c) of this part. (iii) Contain detailed information crossings within the quiet zone, the
about diagnostic team reviews of any highway or traffic control authority or
§ 222.39 How is a quiet zone established? law enforcement authority having
crossing within the proposed quiet
(a) Public authority designation. This zone, including a membership list and jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at
paragraph (a) describes how a quiet a list of recommendations made by the grade crossings within the quiet zone,
zone may be designated by a public diagnostic team; the State agency responsible for grade
authority without the need for formal (iv) Contain a statement describing crossing safety, and the State agency
application to, and approval by, FRA. If efforts taken by the public authority to responsible for highway and road safety
a public authority complies with either work with each railroad operating over stating that the railroad, vehicular traffic
paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this the public highway-rail grade crossings authority and State agencies have
section, and complies with the within the quiet zone and the State waived their rights to provide comments
information and notification provisions agency responsible for grade crossing on the public authority application, the
of § 222.43 of this part, a public safety. This statement shall also list any 60-day comment period under
authority may designate a quiet zone objections to the proposed quiet zone paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section shall
without the necessity for FRA review that were raised by the railroad(s) and be waived.
and approval. State agency; (4)(i) After reviewing any comments
(1) A quiet zone may be established (v) Contain detailed information as to submitted under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of
by implementing, at every public which SSMs and ASMs are proposed to this section, the Associate
highway-rail grade crossing within the be implemented at each public or Administrator will approve the quiet
quiet zone, one or more SSMs identified private highway-rail grade crossing zone if, in the Associate Administrator’s
in appendix A of this part. within the proposed quiet zone; judgment, the public authority is in
(2) A quiet zone may be established if (vi) Contain a commitment to compliance with paragraphs (b)(1) and
the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at, or implement the proposed safety (b)(2) of this section and has
below, the Nationwide Significant Risk measures within the proposed quiet satisfactorily demonstrated that the
Threshold, as follows: zone; and SSMs and ASMs proposed by the public
(i) If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is (vii) Demonstrate through data and authority result in a Quiet Zone Risk
already at, or below, the Nationwide analysis that the proposed Index that is either:
Significant Risk Threshold without implementation of these measures will (A) At or below the Risk Index With
being reduced by implementation of cause a reduction in the Quiet Zone Horns or
SSMs; or Risk Index to, or below, either the Risk (B) At or below the Nationwide
(ii) If SSMs are implemented which Index With Horns or the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.
are sufficient to reduce the Quiet Zone Significant Risk Threshold. (ii) The Associate Administrator may
Risk Index to a level at, or below, the (2) If the proposed quiet zone contains include in any decision of approval
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. newly established public or private such conditions as may be necessary to
(3) A quiet zone may be established if highway-rail grade crossings, the public ensure that the proposed safety
SSMs are implemented which are authority’s application for approval improvements are effective. If the
sufficient to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk must also include five-year projected Associate Administrator does not
Index to a level at or below the Risk vehicle and rail traffic counts for each approve the quiet zone, the Associate
Index With Horns. newly established grade crossing; Administrator will describe, in the
(b) Public authority application to (3) 60-day comment period. (i) The decision, the basis upon which the
FRA. (1) A public authority may apply public authority application for FRA decision was made. Decisions issued by
to the Associate Administrator for approval of the proposed quiet zone the Associate Administrator on quiet
approval of a quiet zone that does not shall be provided, by certified mail, zone applications shall be provided to
meet the standards for public authority return receipt requested, to: all railroads all parties listed in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of
this section and may be reviewed as Threshold and there have been no Quiet Zone establishment in accordance
provided in §§ 222.57(b) and (d) of this relevant collisions at any public grade with § 222.43 and has complied with
part. crossing within the quiet zone for the the requirements of §§ 222.25(c),
(c) Appendix C of this part contains five years preceding April 27, 2005. 222.27(d), and 222.35 by June 24, 2008.
guidance on how to create a quiet zone. With respect to Pre-Rule Partial Quiet (3) Locomotive horn restrictions may
Zones, collisions that occurred during continue for an additional three years
§ 222.41 How does this rule affect Pre-Rule the time period within which the beyond the five-year period permitted
Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
Zones?
locomotive horn was routinely sounded by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, if:
shall not be considered ‘‘relevant (i) Prior to June 24, 2008, the
(a) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones that will be collisions’’; or appropriate State agency provides to the
established by automatic approval. (1) A (iv) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last Associate Administrator: a
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone may be established published by FRA in the Federal comprehensive State-wide
by automatic approval and remain in Register is at, or below, the Risk Index implementation plan and funding
effect, subject to § 222.51, if the Pre-Rule With Horns. commitment for implementing
Quiet Zone is in compliance with (2) The public authority shall provide improvements at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones
§§ 222.35 (minimum requirements for Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, in and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones which,
quiet zones) and 222.43 of this part accordance with § 222.43 of this part, no when implemented, would enable them
(notice and information requirements) later than December 24, 2005. to qualify for a quiet zone under this
and the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone: (c) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule part; and
(i) Has at every public highway-rail Partial Quiet Zones that will not be (ii) Prior to June 24, 2009, either
grade crossing within the quiet zone one established by automatic approval. (1) If physical improvements are initiated at a
or more SSMs identified in appendix A a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule portion of the crossings within the quiet
of this part; Partial Quiet Zone will not be zone, or the appropriate State agency
(ii) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last established by automatic approval has participated in quiet zone
published by FRA in the Federal under paragraph (a) or (b) of this improvements in one or more
Register is at, or below, the Nationwide section, existing restrictions may, at the jurisdictions elsewhere within the State.
Significant Risk Threshold; or public authority’s discretion, remain in (4) In the event that the safety
(iii) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last place on an interim basis under the improvements planned for the quiet
published by FRA in the Federal provisions of this paragraph (c) and zone require approval of FRA under
Register is above the Nationwide upon compliance with § 222.43 (notice § 222.39(b) of this part, the public
Significant Risk Threshold but less than and information requirements) of this authority should apply for such
twice the Nationwide Significant Risk part. Continuation of a quiet zone approval prior to December 24, 2007, to
Threshold and there have been no beyond the interim periods specified in ensure that FRA has ample time in
relevant collisions at any public grade this paragraph will require which to review such application prior
crossing within the quiet zone for the implementation of SSMs or ASMs in to the end of the extension period.
five years preceding April 27, 2005 or accordance with § 222.39 of this part (d) Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones that
(iv) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last and compliance with the requirements will be converted to 24-hour Quiet
published by FRA in the Federal set forth in §§ 222.25(c), 222.27(d), and Zones. A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone
Register is at, or below, the Risk Index 222.35 of this part. may be converted to a 24-hour quiet
With Horns. (2)(i) In order to provide time for the zone if the quiet zone is brought into
(2) The public authority shall provide public authority to plan for and compliance with the New Quiet Zone
Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, in implement quiet zones that are in requirements set forth in §§ 222.25,
accordance with § 222.43 of this part, no compliance with the requirements of 222.27, 222.35 and 222.39 of this part
later than December 24, 2005. this part, a public authority may and notification of the establishment of
(b) Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones that continue locomotive horn restrictions at a New 24-hour Quiet Zone is provided
will be established by automatic Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule in accordance with § 222.43 of this part.
approval. Partial Quiet Zones for a period of five
(1) A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone may years from June 24, 2005, provided the § 222.42 How does this rule affect
be established by automatic approval public authority has, within three years Intermediate Quiet Zones and Intermediate
and remain in effect, subject to § 222.51 of June 24, 2005, filed with the Partial Quiet Zones?
of this part, if the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Associate Administrator a detailed plan (a) Existing restrictions may, at the
Zone is in compliance with §§ 222.35 for establishing a quiet zone under this public authority’s discretion, remain in
(minimum requirements for quiet zones) part, including, in the case of a plan place within the Intermediate Quiet
and 222.43 (notice and information requiring approval under § 222.39(b) of Zone or Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone
requirements) of this part and the Pre- this part, all of the required elements of until June 24, 2006, provided the public
Rule Partial Quiet Zone: filings under that paragraph together authority complies with § 222.43 (notice
(i) Has at every public highway-rail with a timetable for implementation of and information requirements) of this
grade crossing within the quiet zone one safety improvements. part. Continuation of the quiet zone
or more SSMs identified in appendix A (ii) If, during the three-year period beyond June 24, 2006 will require
of this part; after June 24, 2005, the Quiet Zone Risk implementation of SSMs or ASMs in
(ii) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last Index for the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or accordance with § 222.39 of this part
published by FRA in the Federal Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone has fallen to and compliance with the New Quiet
Register is at, or below, the Nationwide a level at or below the Nationwide Zone standards set forth in §§ 222.25,
Significant Risk Threshold; or Significant Risk Threshold, the Pre-Rule 222.27 and 222.35 of this part.
(iii) The Quiet Zone Risk Index as last Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet (b) Conversion of Intermediate Partial
published by FRA in the Federal Zone may remain in effect, subject to Quiet Zones into 24-hour New Quiet
Register is above the Nationwide § 222.51 of this part, provided the Zones. An Intermediate Partial Quiet
Significant Risk Threshold but less than public authority provides notification of Zone may be converted into a 24-hour
twice the Nationwide Significant Risk Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial New Quiet Zone when the quiet zone is
brought into compliance with the New vehicular traffic at grade crossings of this part is mailed after June 3, 2005,
Quiet Zone requirements set forth in within the quiet zone; the landowner the Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation
§§ 222.25, 222.27, 222.35 and 222.39 having control over any private shall state the date on which locomotive
(requirements for quiet zone crossings within the quiet zone; the horn use at highway-rail grade crossings
establishment) of this part, provided State agency responsible for highway within the quiet zone shall cease, but in
notification of New Quiet Zone and road safety; the State agency no event shall that date be earlier than
establishment is provided in accordance responsible for grade crossing safety; 21 days after the date of mailing.
with § 222.43 (notice and information and the Associate Administrator. (2) Required contents. The Notice of
requirements) of this part. (b) Notice of Intent. (1) Required Quiet Zone Continuation shall include
Contents. The Notice of Intent shall the following:
§ 222.43 What notices and other (i) A list of each public highway-rail
include the following:
information are required to create or
(i) A list of each public highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-rail
continue a quiet zone?
grade crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing
(a)(1) The public authority shall grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing within the quiet zone, identified by both
provide written notice, by certified mail, that would be included within the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Grade
return receipt requested, of its intent to proposed quiet zone, identified by both Crossing Inventory Number and street or
create a New Quiet Zone or New Partial U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Grade highway name.
Quiet Zone under § 222.39 of this part. Crossing Inventory Number and street or (ii) A specific reference to the
Such notification shall be provided to: highway name. regulatory provision that provides the
all railroads operating over the public (ii) A statement of the time period basis for quiet zone continuation, citing
highway-rail grade crossings within the within which restrictions would be as appropriate, § 222.41 or 222.42 of this
quiet zone; the State agency responsible imposed on the routine sounding of the part.
for highway and road safety; and the locomotive horn imposed (i.e., 24 hours (iii) A statement of the time period
State agency responsible for grade or from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.) within which restrictions on the routine
crossing safety. (iii) A brief explanation of the public sounding of the locomotive horn will be
(2) The public authority shall provide authority’s tentative plans for imposed (i.e., 24 hours or nighttime
written notification, by certified mail, implementing improvements within the hours only.)
return receipt requested, to continue a proposed quiet zone. (iv) An accurate and complete Grade
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial (iv) The name and title of the person Crossing Inventory Form for each public
Quiet Zone under § 222.41 of this part who will act as point of contact during highway-rail grade crossing, private
or to continue an Intermediate Quiet the quiet zone development process and highway-rail grade crossing, and
Zone or Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone the manner in which that person can be pedestrian crossing within the quiet
under § 222.42 of this part. Such contacted. zone that reflects conditions currently
notification shall be provided to: all (v) A list of the names and addresses existing at the crossing.
railroads operating over the public of each party that will receive (v) The name and title of the person
highway-rail grade crossings within the notification in accordance with responsible for monitoring compliance
quiet zone; the highway or traffic paragraph (a)(1) of this section. with the requirements of this part and
control or law enforcement authority (2) 60-day comment period. (i) A the manner in which that person can be
having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic party that receives a copy of the public contacted.
at grade crossings within the quiet zone; authority’s Notice of Intent may submit (vi) A list of the names and addresses
the landowner having control over any information or comments about the of each party that will receive
private crossings within the quiet zone; proposed quiet zone to the public notification in accordance with
the State agency responsible for authority during the 60-day period after paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
highway and road safety; the State the date on which the Notice of Intent (vii) A statement signed by the chief
agency responsible for grade crossing was mailed. executive officer of each public
safety; and the Associate Administrator. (ii) The 60-day comment period authority participating in the
(3) The public authority shall provide established under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of continuation of the quiet zone, in which
written notice, by certified mail, return this section may terminate when the the chief executive officer certifies that
receipt requested, of its intent to file a public authority obtains from each the information submitted by the public
detailed plan for a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone railroad operating over public grade authority is accurate and complete to
or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone in crossings within the proposed quiet the best of his/her knowledge and belief.
accordance with § 222.41(c)(2) of this zone, the State agency responsible for (d) Notice of Detailed Plan. (1)
part. Such notification shall be provided grade crossing safety, and the State Timing. The Notice of Detailed Plan
to: all railroads operating over the agency responsible for highway and shall be served no later than four
public highway-rail grade crossings road safety: months before the filing of the detailed
within the quiet zone; the State agency (A) Written comments; or plan under § 222.41(c)(2) of this part.
responsible for highway and road safety; (B) Written statements that the (2) Required contents. The Notice of
and the State agency responsible for railroad and State agency do not have Detailed Plan shall include the
grade crossing safety. any comments on the Notice of Intent following:
(4) The public authority shall provide (‘‘no-comment statements’’.) (i) A list of each public highway-rail
written notice, by certified mail, return (c) Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation. grade crossing, private highway-rail
receipt requested, of the establishment (1) Timing. (i) In order to prevent the grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing
of a quiet zone under § 222.39 or 222.41 resumption of locomotive horn that is included in the quiet zone,
of this part. Such notification shall be sounding on June 24, 2005, the Notice identified by both U.S. DOT National
provided to: all railroads operating over of Quiet Zone Continuation under Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory
the public highway-rail grade crossings § 222.41 or 222.42 of this part shall be Number and street or highway name.
within the quiet zone; the highway or served no later than June 3, 2005. (ii) A statement of the time period
traffic control or law enforcement (ii) If the Notice of Quiet Zone within which restrictions would be
authority having jurisdiction over Continuation under § 222.41 or 222.42 imposed on the routine sounding of the
locomotive horn imposed (i.e., 24 hours (A) If the Notice contains a specific comments and/or ‘‘no comment’’
or nighttime hours only.) reference to § 222.39(a)(2)(i), statements have been received from
(iii) A brief explanation of the public 222.39(a)(2)(ii), 222.39(a)(3), each railroad operating over public
authority’s tentative plans for 222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii), grade crossings within the proposed
implementing improvements within the 222.41(a)(1)(iv), 222.41(b)(1)(ii), quiet zone, the State agency responsible
quiet zone. 222.41(b)(1)(iii), or 222.41(b)(1)(iv) of for grade crossing safety, and the State
(iv) The name and title of the person this part, it shall include a copy of the agency responsible for highway and
who will act as point of contact during FRA web page that contains the quiet road safety in accordance with
the quiet zone development process and zone data upon which the public paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
the manner in which that person can be authority is relying (http:// (ix) If the public authority was
contacted. www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1337). required to provide a Notice of Detailed
(v) A list of the names and addresses (B) If the Notice contains a specific Plan in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)
of each party that will receive reference to § 222.39(b) of this part, it of this section, the Notice of Quiet Zone
notification in accordance with shall include a copy of FRA’s Establishment shall contain a statement
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. notification of approval. affirming that the Notice of Detailed
(3) 60-day comment period. A party (iii) If a diagnostic team review was Plan was provided in accordance with
that receives a copy of the public required under § 222.25 or 222.27 of this paragraph (a)(3) of this section. This
authority’s Notice of Detailed Plan may part, the Notice shall include a statement shall also state the date on
submit information or comments about statement affirming that the State which the Notice of Detailed Plan was
the proposed improvements to the agency responsible for grade crossing mailed.
public authority during the 60-day safety and all affected railroads were (x) The name and title of the person
period after the date on which the provided an opportunity to participate responsible for monitoring compliance
Notice of Detailed Plan was mailed. in the diagnostic team review. The with the requirements of this part and
(e) Notice of Quiet Zone Notice shall also include a list of the manner in which that person can be
Establishment. (1) Timing. (i) The recommendations made by the contacted.
Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment diagnostic team. (xi) A list of the names and addresses
shall provide the date upon which (iv) A statement of the time period of each party that shall be notified in
routine locomotive horn use at highway- within which restrictions on the routine accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this
rail grade crossings shall cease, but in sounding of the locomotive horn will be section.
no event shall the date be earlier than imposed (i.e., 24 hours or from 10 p.m. (xii) A statement signed by the chief
21 days after the date of mailing. until 7 a.m.) executive officer of each public
(ii) If the public authority was (v) An accurate and complete Grade authority participating in the
required to provide a Notice of Intent, Crossing Inventory Form for each public establishment of the quiet zone, in
in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of highway-rail grade crossing, private which the chief executive officer shall
this section, the Notice of Quiet Zone highway-rail grade crossing, and certify that the information submitted
Establishment shall not be mailed less pedestrian crossing within the quiet by the public authority is accurate and
than 60 days after the date on which the zone that reflects the conditions existing complete to the best of his/her
Notice of Intent was mailed, unless the at the crossing before any new SSMs or knowledge and belief.
Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment ASMs were implemented.
§ 222.45 When is a railroad required to
contains a written statement affirming (vi) An accurate, complete and
cease routine use of locomotive horns at
that written comments and/or ‘‘no- current Grade Crossing Inventory Form crossings?
comment’’ statements have been for each public highway-rail grade
After notification from a public
received from each railroad operating crossing, private highway-rail grade
authority, pursuant to § 222.43(e) of this
over public grade crossings within the crossing, and pedestrian crossing within
part, that a quiet zone is being
proposed quiet zone, the State agency the quiet zone that reflects SSMs and established, a railroad shall cease
responsible for grade crossing safety, ASMs in place upon establishment of routine use of the locomotive horn at all
and the State agency responsible for the quiet zone. SSMs and ASMs that public and private highway-rail grade
highway and road safety in accordance cannot be fully described on the crossings identified by the public
with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. Inventory Form shall be separately authority upon the date set by the
(2) Required contents. The Notice of described. public authority.
Quiet Zone Establishment shall include (vii) If the public authority was
the following: required to provide a Notice of Intent, § 222.47 What periodic updates are
(i) A list of each public highway-rail in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of required?
grade crossing, private highway-rail this section, the Notice of Quiet Zone (a) Quiet zones with SSMs at each
grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing Establishment shall contain a written public crossing. This paragraph
within the quiet zone, identified by both statement affirming that the Notice of addresses quiet zones established
U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Grade Intent was provided in accordance with pursuant to §§ 222.39(a)(1),
Crossing Inventory Number and street or paragraph (a)(1) of this section. This 222.41(a)(1)(i), and 222.41(b)(1)(i) (quiet
highway name. statement shall also state the date on zones with an SSM implemented at
(ii) A specific reference to the which the Notice of Intent was mailed. every public crossing within the quiet
regulatory provision that provides the (viii) If the public authority was zone) of this part. Between 41⁄2 and 5
basis for quiet zone establishment, required to provide a Notice of Intent, years after the date of the quiet zone
citing as appropriate, § 222.39(a)(1), in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of establishment notice provided by the
222.39(a)(2)(i), 222.39(a)(2)(ii), this section, and the Notice of Intent public authority under § 222.43(e) of
222.39(a)(3), 222.39(b), 222.41(a)(1)(i), was mailed less than 60 days before the this part, and between 41⁄2 and 5 years
222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii), mailing of the Notice of Quiet Zone after the last affirmation under this
222.41(a)(1)(iv), 222.41(b)(1)(i), Establishment, the Notice of Quiet Zone section, the public authority must:
222.41(b)(1)(ii), 222.41(b)(1)(iii), or Establishment shall also contain a (1) Affirm in writing to the Associate
222.41(b)(1)(iv) of this part. written statement affirming that written Administrator that the SSMs
implemented within the quiet zone crossing to enable the State and public (iii) Failure to comply with paragraph
continue to conform to the requirements authority to complete the Grade (a)(2)(i) of this section shall result in the
of appendix A of this part. Copies of Crossing Inventory Form. termination of the quiet zone six months
such affirmation must be provided by after the date of receipt of notification
§ 222.51 Under what conditions will quiet from FRA that the Quiet Zone Risk
certified mail, return receipt requested,
zone status be terminated?
to the parties identified in § 222.43(a)(4) Index exceeds the Nationwide
of this part; and (a) New Quiet Zones—Annual risk Significant Risk Threshold. Failure to
(2) Provide to the Associate review. (1) FRA will annually calculate comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
Administrator an up-to-date, accurate, the Quiet Zone Risk Index for each quiet section shall result in the termination of
and complete Grade Crossing Inventory zone established pursuant to the quiet zone three years after the date
Form for each public highway-rail grade §§ 222.39(a)(2) and 222.39(b) of this of receipt of notification from FRA that
crossing, private highway-rail grade part, and in comparison to the the Quiet Zone Risk Index exceeds the
crossing, and pedestrian crossing within Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.
the quiet zone. FRA will notify each public authority of (b) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Annual
(b) Quiet zones which do not have a the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the risk review. (1) FRA will annually
supplementary safety measure at each preceding calendar year. FRA will not calculate the Quiet Zone Risk Index for
public crossing. This paragraph conduct annual risk reviews for quiet each Pre-Rule Quiet Zone and Pre-Rule
addresses quiet zones established zones established by having an SSM at Partial Quiet Zone that qualified for
pursuant to §§ 222.39(a)(2) and (a)(3), every public crossing within the quiet automatic approval pursuant to
§ 222.39(b), §§ 222.41(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), zone or for quiet zones established by §§ 222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii),
and (a)(1)(iv), and §§ 222.41(b)(1)(ii), reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to 222.41(b)(1)(ii), and 222.41(b)(1)(iii) of
(b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(iv) (quiet zones the Risk Index With Horns. this part. FRA will notify each public
(2) Actions to be taken by public authority of the Quiet Zone Risk Index
which do not have an SSM at every
authority to retain quiet zone. If the for the preceding calendar year. FRA
public crossing within the quiet zone) of
Quiet Zone Risk Index is above the will also notify each public authority if
this part. Between 21⁄2 and 3 years after
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, a relevant collision occurred at a grade
the date of the quiet zone establishment
the quiet zone will terminate six months crossing within the quiet zone during
notice provided by the public authority
from the date of receipt of notification the preceding calendar year.
under § 222.43(e) of this part, and
from FRA that the Quiet Zone Risk (2) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule
between 21⁄2 and 3 years after the last
Index exceeds the Nationwide Partial Quiet Zones authorized under
affirmation under this section, the
Significant Risk Threshold, unless the §§ 222.41(a)(1)(ii) and 222.41(b)(1)(ii).
public authority must:
(1) Affirm in writing to the Associate public authority takes the following (i) If a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule
Administrator that all SSMs and ASMs actions: Partial Quiet Zone originally qualified
(i) Within six months after the date of for automatic approval because the
implemented within the quiet zone
receipt of notification from FRA that the Quiet Zone Risk Index was at, or below,
continue to conform to the requirements
Quiet Zone Risk Index exceeds the the Nationwide Significant Risk
of Appendices A and B of this part or
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, Threshold, the quiet zone may continue
the terms of the Quiet Zone approval.
provide to the Associate Administrator unchanged if the Quiet Zone Risk Index
Copies of such notification must be
a written commitment to lower the as last calculated by the FRA remains at,
provided to the parties identified in
potential risk to the traveling public at or below, the Nationwide Significant
§ 222.43(a)(4) of this part by certified
the crossings within the quiet zone to a Risk Threshold.
mail, return receipt requested; and
(2) Provide to the Associate level at, or below, the Nationwide (ii) If the Quiet Zone Risk Index as
Administrator an up-to-date, accurate, Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk last calculated by FRA is above the
and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Index With Horns. Included in the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold,
Form for each public highway-rail grade commitment statement shall be a but is lower than twice the Nationwide
crossing, private highway-rail grade discussion of the specific steps to be Significant Risk Threshold and no
crossing, and pedestrian crossing within taken by the public authority to increase relevant collisions have occurred at
the quiet zone. safety at the crossings within the quiet crossings within the quiet zone within
zone; and the five years preceding the annual risk
§ 222.49 Who may file Grade Crossing (ii) Within three years after the date review, then the quiet zone may
Inventory Forms? of receipt of notification from FRA that continue as though it originally received
(a) Grade Crossing Inventory Forms the Quiet Zone Risk Index exceeds the automatic approval pursuant to
required to be filed with the Associate Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, § 222.41(a)(1)(iii) or 222.41(b)(1)(iii) of
Administrator in accordance with complete implementation of SSMs or this part.
§§ 222.39, 222.43 and 222.47 of this part ASMs sufficient to reduce the Quiet (iii) If the Quiet Zone Risk Index as
may be filed by the public authority if, Zone Risk Index to a level at, or below, last calculated by FRA is at, or above,
for any reason, such forms are not the Nationwide Significant Risk twice the Nationwide Significant Risk
timely submitted by the State and Threshold, or the Risk Index With Threshold, or if the Quiet Zone Risk
railroad. Horns, and receive approval from the Index is above the Nationwide
(b) Within 30 days after receipt of a Associate Administrator, under the Significant Risk Threshold, but is lower
written request of the public authority, procedures set forth in § 222.39(b) of than twice the Nationwide Significant
the railroad owning the line of railroad this part, for continuation of the quiet Risk Threshold and a relevant collision
that includes public or private highway zone. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is occurred at a crossing within the quiet
rail grade crossings within the quiet reduced to the Risk Index With Horns, zone within the preceding five calendar
zone or proposed quiet zone shall the quiet zone will be considered to years, the quiet zone will terminate six
provide to the State and public have been established pursuant to months after the date of receipt of
authority sufficient current information § 222.39(a)(3) of this part and notification from FRA of the Nationwide
regarding the grade crossing and the subsequent annual risk reviews will not Significant Risk Threshold level, unless
railroad’s operations over the grade be conducted for that quiet zone. the public authority takes the actions
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this horn, the quiet zone will be considered part may, at any time, withdraw its
section. to have been established pursuant to quiet zone status.
(3) Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule § 222.39(a)(3) of this part and (2) A public authority may withdraw
Partial Quiet Zones authorized under subsequent annual risk reviews will not its quiet zone status by providing
§§ 222.41(a)(1)(iii) and 222.41(b)(1)(iii). be conducted for that quiet zone. written notice of termination, by
(i) If a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule (iii) Failure to comply with paragraph certified mail, return receipt requested,
Partial Quiet Zone originally qualified (b)(4)(i) of this section shall result in the to all railroads operating the public
for automatic approval because the termination of the quiet zone six months highway-rail grade crossings within the
Quiet Zone Risk Index was above the after the date of receipt of notification quiet zone, the highway or traffic
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, from FRA. Failure to comply with control authority or law enforcement
but below twice the Nationwide paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section shall authority having control over vehicular
Significant Risk Threshold, and no result in the termination of the quiet traffic at the crossings within the quiet
relevant collisions had occurred within zone three years after the date of receipt zone, the landowner having control over
the five-year qualifying period, the quiet of notification from FRA. any private crossings within the quiet
zone may continue unchanged if the (c) Review at FRA’s initiative. (1) The zone, the State agency responsible for
Quiet Zone Risk Index as last calculated Associate Administrator may, at any grade crossing safety, the State agency
by FRA remains below twice the time, review the status of any quiet responsible for highway and road safety,
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold zone. and the Associate Administrator.
and no relevant collisions occurred at a (2) If the Associate Administrator (3)(i) If the quiet zone that is being
public grade crossing within the quiet makes any of the following preliminary withdrawn was part of a multi-
zone during the preceding calendar determinations, the Associate jurisdictional quiet zone, the remaining
year. Administrator will provide written quiet zones may remain in effect,
(ii) If the Quiet Zone Risk Index as notice to the public authority, all provided the public authorities
last calculated by FRA is at, or above, railroads operating over public responsible for the remaining quiet
twice the Nationwide Significant Risk highway-rail grade crossings within the zones provide statements to the
Threshold, or if a relevant collision quiet zone, the highway or traffic Associate Administrator certifying that
occurred at a public grade crossing control authority or law enforcement the Quiet Zone Risk Index for each
within the quiet zone during the authority having control over vehicular remaining quiet zone is at, or below, the
preceding calendar year, the quiet zone traffic at the crossings within the quiet Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
will terminate six months after the date zone, the landowner having control over or the Risk Index With Horns. These
of receipt of notification from FRA that any private crossings within the quiet statements shall be provided, no later
the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at, or zone, the State agency responsible for than six months after the date on which
exceeds twice the Nationwide grade crossing safety, and the State the notice of quiet zone termination was
Significant Risk Threshold or that a agency responsible for highway and mailed, to all parties listed in paragraph
relevant collision occurred at a crossing road safety and will publish a notice of (d)(2) of this section.
within the quiet zone, unless the public the determination in the Federal (ii) If any remaining quiet zone has a
authority takes the actions specified in Register: Quiet Zone Risk Index in excess of the
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. (i) Safety systems and measures Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
(4) Actions to be taken by the public implemented within the quiet zone do and the Risk Index With Horns, the
authority to retain a quiet zone. (i) not fully compensate for the absence of public authority responsible for the
Within six months after the date of FRA the locomotive horn due to a substantial quiet zone shall submit a written
notification, the public authority shall increase in risk; commitment, to all parties listed in
provide to the Associate Administrator (ii) Documentation relied upon to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, to
a written commitment to lower the establish the quiet zone contains reduce the Quiet Zone Risk Index to a
potential risk to the traveling public at substantial errors that may have an level at or below the Nationwide
the crossings within the quiet zone by adverse impact on public safety; or Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk
reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to (iii) Significant risk with respect to Index With Horns within three years.
a level at, or below, the Nationwide loss of life or serious personal injury Included in the commitment statement
Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk exists within the quiet zone. shall be a discussion of the specific
Index With Horns. Included in the (3) After providing an opportunity for steps to be taken by the public authority
commitment statement shall be a comment, the Associate Administrator to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk Index.
discussion of the specific steps to be may require that additional safety This commitment statement shall be
taken by the public authority to increase measures be taken or that the quiet zone provided to all parties listed in
safety at the public crossings within the be terminated. The Associate paragraph (d)(2) of this section no later
quiet zone; and Administrator will provide a copy of than six months after the date on which
(ii) Within three years of the date of his/her decision to the public authority the notice of quiet zone termination was
FRA notification, the public authority and all parties listed in paragraph (c)(2) mailed.
shall complete implementation of SSMs of this section. The public authority (iii) Failure to comply with
or ASMs sufficient to reduce the Quiet may appeal the Associate paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this
Zone Risk Index to a level at, or below, Administrator’s decision in accordance section shall result in the termination of
the Nationwide Significant Risk with § 222.57(c) of this part. Nothing in the remaining quiet zone(s) six months
Threshold, or the Risk Index With this section is intended to limit the after the date on which the notice of
Horns, and receive approval from the Administrator’s emergency authority quiet zone termination was mailed by
Associate Administrator, under the under 49 U.S.C. 20104 and 49 CFR part the withdrawing public authority in
procedures set forth in § 222.39(b) of 211. accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this
this part, for continuation of the quiet (d) Termination by the public section.
zone. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is authority. (1) Any public authority that (iv) Failure to complete
reduced to a level that fully participated in the establishment of a implementation of SSMs and/or ASMs
compensates for the absence of the train quiet zone under the provisions of this to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk Index to
a level at, or below, the Nationwide completely block travel over the line of may approve its use as an ASM to be
Significant Risk Index or the Risk Index railroad, or traffic signals. used in the same manner as the
With Horns, in accordance with the measures listed in appendix B of this
written commitment provided under § 222.55 How are new supplementary or part. The Associate Administrator may
alternative safety measures approved?
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, shall impose any conditions or limitations on
result in the termination of quiet zone (a) The Associate Administrator may use of the SSMs or ASMs which the
status three years after the date on add new SSMs and standards to Associate Administrator deems
which the written commitment was appendix A of this part and new ASMs necessary in order to provide the level
received by FRA. and standards to appendix B of this part of safety at least equivalent to that
(e) Notification of termination. (1) In when the Associate Administrator provided by the locomotive horn.
the event that a quiet zone is terminated determines that such measures or (f) If the Associate Administrator
under the provisions of this section, it standards are an effective substitute for approves a new SSM or ASM, the
shall be the responsibility of the public the locomotive horn in the prevention of Associate Administrator will: notify the
authority to immediately provide collisions and casualties at public applicant, if any; publish notice of such
written notification of the termination highway-rail grade crossings. action in the Federal Register; and add
by certified mail, return receipt (b) Interested parties may apply for the measure to the list of approved
requested, to all railroads operating over approval from the Associate SSMs or ASMs.
public highway-rail grade crossings Administrator to demonstrate proposed (g) A public authority or other
within the quiet zone, the highway or new SSMs or ASMs to determine interested party may appeal to the
traffic control authority or law whether they are effective substitutes for Administrator from a decision by the
enforcement authority having control the locomotive horn in the prevention of Associate Administrator granting or
over vehicular traffic at the crossings collisions and casualties at public denying an application for approval of
within the quiet zone, the landowner highway-rail grade crossings. a proposed SSM or ASM, or the
having control over any private (c) The Associate Administrator may, conditions or limitations imposed on its
crossings within the quiet zone, the after notice and opportunity for use, in accordance with § 222.57 of this
State agency responsible for grade comment, order railroad carriers part.
crossing safety, the State agency operating over a public highway-rail
grade crossing or crossings to § 222.57 Can parties seek review of the
responsible for highway and road safety, Associate Administrator’s actions?
and the Associate Administrator. temporarily cease the sounding of
locomotive horns at such crossings to (a) A public authority or other
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) interested party may petition the
of this section, if a quiet zone is demonstrate proposed new SSMs or
ASMs, provided that such proposed Administrator for review of any
terminated under the provisions of this decision by the Associate Administrator
section, FRA shall also provide written new SSMs or ASMs have been subject
to prior testing and evaluation. In granting or denying an application for
notification to all parties listed in approval of a new SSM or ASM under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. issuing such order, the Associate
Administrator may impose any § 222.55 of this part. The petition must
(f) Requirement to sound the
conditions or limitations on such use of be filed within 60 days of the decision
locomotive horn. Upon receipt of
the proposed new SSMs or ASMs which to be reviewed, specify the grounds for
notification of quiet zone termination
the Associate Administrator deems the requested relief, and be served upon
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section,
necessary in order to provide the level the following parties: all railroads
railroads shall, within seven days, and
of safety at least equivalent to that ordered to temporarily cease sounding
in accordance with the provisions of
provided by the locomotive horn. of the locomotive horn over public
this part, sound the locomotive horn
(d) Upon completion of a highway-rail grade crossings for the
when approaching and passing through
demonstration of proposed new SSMs demonstration of the proposed new
every public highway-rail grade crossing
or ASMs, interested parties may apply SSM or ASM, the highway or traffic
within the former quiet zone.
to the Associate Administrator for their control authority or law enforcement
§ 222.53 What are the requirements for approval. Applications for approval authority having control over vehicular
supplementary and alternative safety shall be in writing and shall include the traffic at the crossings affected by the
measures? following: new SSM/ASM demonstration, the State
(a) Approved SSMs are listed in (1) The name and address of the agency responsible for grade crossing
appendix A of this part. With the applicant; safety, the State agency responsible for
exception of permanent crossing (2) A description and design of the highway and road safety, and the
closures, approved SSMs can qualify for proposed new SSM or ASM; Associate Administrator. Unless the
quiet zone risk reduction credit in the (3) A description and results of the Administrator specifically provides
manner specified in appendix A of this demonstration project in which the otherwise, and gives notice to the
part. proposed SSMs or ASMs were tested; petitioner or publishes a notice in the
(b) Additional ASMs that may be (4) Estimated costs of the proposed Federal Register, the filing of a petition
included in a request for FRA approval new SSM or ASM; and under this paragraph does not stay the
of a quiet zone under § 222.39(b) of this (5) Any other information deemed effectiveness of the action sought to be
part are listed in appendix B of this part. necessary. reviewed. The Administrator may
Modified SSMs can qualify for quiet (e) If the Associate Administrator is reaffirm, modify, or revoke the decision
zone risk reduction credit in the manner satisfied that the proposed safety of the Associate Administrator without
specified in appendix B of this part. measure fully compensates for the further proceedings and shall notify the
(c) The following do not, individually absence of the warning provided by the petitioner and other interested parties in
or in combination, constitute SSMs or locomotive horn, the Associate writing or by publishing a notice in the
ASMs: Standard traffic control device Administrator will approve its use as an Federal Register.
arrangements such as reflectorized SSM to be used in the same manner as (b) A public authority may request
crossbucks, STOP signs, flashing lights, the measures listed in appendix A of reconsideration of a decision by the
or flashing lights with gates that do not this part, or the Associate Administrator Associate Administrator to deny an
application by that authority for in a Quiet Zone Risk Index that would shall provide written notice that a
approval of a quiet zone, or to require be at or below the Risk Index With wayside horn is being installed to all
additional safety measures, by filing a Horns or the Nationwide Significant railroads operating over the public
petition for reconsideration with the Risk Threshold. The petition shall be highway-rail grade crossing, the
Associate Administrator. The petition filed within 60 days of the date of the highway or traffic control authority or
must specify the grounds for asserting decision to be reconsidered, and be law enforcement authority having
that the Associate Administrator served upon all parties listed in control over vehicular traffic at the
improperly exercised his/her judgment § 222.39(b)(3) of this part. Upon receipt crossing, the State agency responsible
in finding that the proposed SSMs and of a timely and proper petition, the for grade crossing safety, the State
ASMs would not result in a Quiet Zone Associate Administrator will provide agency responsible for highway and
Risk Index that would be at or below the the petitioner an opportunity to submit road safety, and the Associate
Risk Index With Horns or the additional materials and to request an Administrator. This notice shall provide
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. informal hearing. Upon review of the the date on which the wayside horn will
The petition shall be filed within 60 additional materials and completion of be operational and identify the grade
days of the date of the decision to be any hearing requested, the Associate crossing at which the wayside horn
reconsidered and be served upon all Administrator shall issue a decision that shall be installed by both the U.S. DOT
parties listed in § 222.39(b)(3) of this will be administratively final. National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
part. Upon receipt of a timely and Inventory Number and street or highway
§ 222.59 When may a wayside horn be
proper petition, the Associate name. The railroad or public authority
used?
Administrator will provide the shall provide notification of the
petitioner an opportunity to submit (a)(1) A wayside horn conforming to
the requirements of appendix E of this operational date at least 21 days in
additional materials and to request an advance.
informal hearing. Upon review of the part may be used in lieu of a locomotive
horn at any highway-rail grade crossing (d) A railroad operating over a grade
additional materials and completion of crossing equipped with an operational
any hearing requested, the Associate equipped with an active warning system
consisting of, at a minimum, flashing wayside horn installed within a quiet
Administrator shall issue a decision on zone pursuant to this section shall cease
the petition that will be administratively lights and gates.
(2) A wayside horn conforming to the routine locomotive horn use at the grade
final.
requirements of appendix E of this part crossing. A railroad operating over a
(c) A public authority may request
reconsideration of a decision by the may be installed within a quiet zone. grade crossing that is equipped with a
Associate Administrator to terminate For purposes of calculating the length of wayside horn and located outside of a
quiet zone status by filing a petition for a quiet zone, the presence of a wayside quiet zone shall cease routine
reconsideration with the Associate horn at a highway-grade crossing within locomotive horn use at the grade
Administrator. The petition must be a quiet zone shall be considered in the crossing on the operational date
filed within 60 days of the date of the same manner as a grade crossing treated specified in the notice required by
decision, specify the grounds for the with an SSM. A grade crossing paragraph (c) of this section.
requested relief, and be served upon all equipped with a wayside horn shall not Appendix A to Part 222—Approved
parties listed in § 222.51(c)(2) of this be considered in calculating the Quiet Supplementary Safety Measures
part. Unless the Associate Administrator Zone Risk Index or Crossing Corridor
Risk Index. A. Requirements and Effectiveness Rates for
publishes a notice in the Federal
(b) A public authority installing a Supplementary Safety Measures
Register that specifically stays the
effectiveness of his/her decision, the wayside horn at a grade crossing within This section provides a list of approved
a quiet zone shall provide written notice supplementary safety measures (SSMs) that
filing of a petition under this paragraph
that a wayside horn is being installed to may be installed at highway-rail grade
will not stay the termination of quiet crossings within quiet zones for risk
zone status. Upon receipt of a timely all railroads operating over the public
reduction credit. Each SSM has been
and proper petition, the Associate highway-rail grade crossings within the assigned an effectiveness rate, which may be
Administrator will provide the quiet zone, the highway or traffic subject to adjustment as research and
petitioner an opportunity to submit control authority or law enforcement demonstration projects are completed and
additional materials and to request an authority having control over vehicular data is gathered and refined. Sections B and
informal hearing. Upon review of the traffic at the crossings within the quiet C govern the process through which risk
additional materials and completion of zone, the landowner having control over reduction credit for pre-existing SSMs can be
any hearing requested, the Associate any private crossings within the quiet determined.
zone, the State agency responsible for 1. Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-
Administrator shall issue a decision on
grade crossing safety, the State agency Rail Grade Crossing: Close the crossing to
the petition that will be administratively highway traffic during designated quiet
final. A copy of this decision shall be responsible for highway and road safety, periods. (This SSM can only be implemented
served upon all parties listed in and the Associate Administrator. This within Partial Quiet Zones.)
§ 222.51(c)(2) of this part. notice shall provide the date on which Effectiveness: 1.0.
(d) A railroad may request the wayside horn will be operational Because an effective closure system
reconsideration of a decision by the and identify the grade crossing at which prevents vehicle entrance onto the crossing,
Associate Administrator to approve an the wayside horn shall be installed by the probability of a collision with a train at
application for approval of a proposed both the U.S. DOT National Highway- the crossing is zero during the period the
quiet zone under § 222.39(b) of this part Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Number crossing is closed. Effectiveness would
by filing a petition for reconsideration and street or highway name. The therefore equal 1. However, analysis should
take into consideration that traffic would
with the Associate Administrator. The railroad or public authority shall need to be redistributed among adjacent
petition must specify the grounds for provide notification of the operational crossings or grade separations for the purpose
asserting that the Associate date at least 21 days in advance. of estimating risk following the silencing of
Administrator improperly exercised his/ (c) A railroad or public authority train horns, unless the particular ‘‘closure’’
her judgment in finding that the installing a wayside horn at a grade was accomplished by a grade separation.
proposed SSMs and ASMs would result crossing located outside a quiet zone Required:
a. The closure system must completely power-out indicators are not required to be devices on both highway approaches to a
block highway traffic on all approach lanes added to existing warning systems in Pre- public highway-rail grade crossing denying
to the crossing. Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet to the highway user the option of
b. The closure system must completely Zones. However, if existing automatic circumventing the approach lane gates by
block adjacent pedestrian crossings. warning device systems in Pre-Rule Quiet switching into the opposing (oncoming)
c. Public highway-rail grade crossings Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones are traffic lane and driving around the lowered
located within New Partial Quiet Zones shall renewed, or new automatic warning device gates to cross the tracks.
be closed from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. every day. systems are installed, power-out indicators Effectiveness:
Public highway-rail grade crossings located and constant warning time devices are channelization devices—.75.
within Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones may only required, unless existing conditions at the non-traversable curbs with or without
be closed during one period each 24 hours. crossing would prevent the proper operation channelization devices—.80.
d. Barricades and signs used for closure of of the constant warning devices. Required:
the roadway shall conform to the standards d. The gap between the ends of the a. Opposing traffic lanes on both highway
contained in the MUTCD. entrance and exit gates (on the same side of approaches to the crossing must be separated
e. Daily activation and deactivation of the the railroad tracks) when both are in the fully by either: (1) medians bounded by non-
system is the responsibility of the public lowered, or down, position must be less than traversable curbs or (2) channelization
authority responsible for maintenance of the two feet if no median is present. If the devices.
street or highway crossing the railroad tracks. highway approach is equipped with a b. Medians or channelization devices must
The public authority may provide for third median or a channelization device between extend at least 100 feet from the gate arm, or
party activation and deactivation; however, the approach and exit lanes, the lowered if there is an intersection within 100 feet of
the public authority shall remain fully gates must reach to within one foot of the the gate, the median or channelization device
responsible for compliance with the median or channelization device, measured must extend at least 60 feet from the gate
requirements of this part. horizontally across the road from the end of arm.
f. The system must be tamper and vandal the lowered gate to the median or c. Intersections of two or more streets, or
resistant to the same extent as other traffic channelization device or to a point over the a street and an alley, that are within 60 feet
control devices. edge of the median or channelization device. of the gate arm must be closed or relocated.
g. The closure system shall be equipped The gate and the median top or Driveways for private, residential properties
with a monitoring device that contains an channelization device do not have to be at (up to four units) within 60 feet of the gate
indicator which is visible to the train crew the same elevation. arm are not considered to be intersections
prior to entering the crossing. The indicator e. ‘‘Break-away’’ channelization devices under this part and need not be closed.
shall illuminate whenever the closure device must be frequently monitored to replace However, consideration should be given to
is deployed. broken elements. taking steps to ensure that motorists exiting
Recommended: Recommendations for new installations the driveways are not able to move against
Signs for alternate highway traffic routes only: the flow of traffic to circumvent the purpose
should be erected in accordance with f. Gate timing should be established by a of the median and drive around lowered
MUTCD and State and local standards and qualified traffic engineer based on site gates. This may be accomplished by the
should inform pedestrians and motorists that specific determinations. Such determination posting of ‘‘no left turn’’ signs or other means
the streets are closed, the period for which should consider the need for and timing of of notification. For the purpose of this part,
they are closed, and that alternate routes a delay in the descent of the exit gates driveways accessing commercial properties
must be used. (following descent of the conventional are considered to be intersections and are not
2. Four-Quadrant Gate System: Install gates entrance gates). Factors to be considered may allowed. It should be noted that if a public
at a crossing sufficient to fully block highway include available storage space between the authority can not comply with the 60 feet or
traffic from entering the crossing when the gates that is outside the fouling limits of the 100 feet requirement, it may apply to FRA for
gates are lowered, including at least one gate track(s) and the possibility that traffic flows a quiet zone under § 222.39(b), ‘‘Public
for each direction of traffic on each approach. may be interrupted as a result of nearby authority application to FRA.’’ Such
Effectiveness: intersections. arrangement may qualify for a risk reduction
g. A determination should be made as to credit in calculation of the Quiet Zone Risk
Four-quadrant gates only, no presence
whether it is necessary to provide vehicle Index. Similarly, if a public authority finds
detection: .82.
presence detectors (VPDs) to open or keep that it is feasible to only provide
Four-quadrant gates only, with presence
open the exit gates until all vehicles are clear channelization on one approach to the
detection: .77.
of the crossing. VPDs should be installed on crossing, it may also apply to FRA for
Four-quadrant gates with traffic
one or both sides of the crossing and/or in approval under § 222.39(b). Such an
channelization of at least 60 feet, (with or
the surface between the rails closest to the arrangement may also qualify for a risk
without presence detection): .92.
field. Among the factors that should be reduction credit in calculation of the Quiet
Required:
considered are the presence of intersecting Zone Risk Index.
Four-quadrant gate systems shall conform
roadways near the crossing, the priority that d. Crossing warning systems must be
to the standards for four-quadrant gates
the traffic crossing the railroad is given at activated by use of constant warning time
contained in the MUTCD and shall, in such intersections, the types of traffic control devices unless existing conditions at the
addition, comply with the following: devices at those intersections, and the crossing would prevent the proper operation
a. When a train is approaching, all highway presence and timing of traffic signal of the constant warning time devices.
approach and exit lanes on both sides of the preemption. e. Crossing warning systems must be
highway-rail crossing must be spanned by h. Highway approaches on one or both equipped with power-out indicators. Note:
gates, thus denying to the highway user the sides of the highway-rail crossing may be Requirements d and e apply only to New
option of circumventing the conventional provided with medians or channelization Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones.
approach lane gates by switching into the devices between the opposing lanes. Medians Constant warning time devices and power-
opposing (oncoming) traffic lane in order to should be defined by a non-traversable curb out indicators are not required to be added
enter the crossing and cross the tracks. or traversable curb, or by reflectorized to existing warning systems in Pre-Rule Quiet
b. Crossing warning systems must be channelization devices, or by both. Zones or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones.
activated by use of constant warning time i. Remote monitoring (in addition to However, if existing automatic warning
devices unless existing conditions at the power-out indicators, which are required) of device systems in Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and
crossing would prevent the proper operation the status of these crossing systems is Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones are renewed, or
of the constant warning time devices. preferable. This is especially important in new automatic warning device systems are
c. Crossing warning systems must be those areas in which qualified railroad signal installed, power-out indicators and constant
equipped with power-out indicators. department personnel are not readily warning time devices are required, unless
Note: Requirements b and c apply only to available. existing conditions at the crossing would
New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet 3. Gates With Medians or Channelization prevent the proper operation of the constant
Zones. Constant warning time devices and Devices: Install medians or channelization warning devices.
f. The gap between the lowered gate and 1. Calculate the current risk index for the to FRA (§ 222.39(b)) may include ASMs
the curb or channelization device must be grade crossing that is equipped with a listed in this appendix in its proposal. This
one foot or less, measured horizontally across qualifying, pre-existing SSM. (See appendix appendix addresses three types of ASMs:
the road from the end of the lowered gate to D. FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone Calculator Modified SSMs, Non-Engineering ASMs, and
the curb or channelization device or to a may be used to complete this calculation.) Engineering ASMs. Modified SSMs are SSMs
point over the curb edge or channelization 2. Adjust the risk index by accounting for that do not fully comply with the provisions
device. The gate and the curb top or the increased risk that was avoided by listed in appendix A. As provided in section
channelization device do not have to be at implementing the pre-existing SSM at the I.B. of this appendix, public authorities can
the same elevation. public grade crossing. This adjustment can be obtain risk reduction credit for pre-existing
g. ‘‘Break-away’’ channelization devices made by dividing the risk index by one modified SSMs under the final rule. Non-
must be frequently monitored to replace minus the SSM effectiveness rate. (For engineering ASMs consist of programmed
broken elements. example, the risk index for a crossing enforcement, public education and
4. One Way Street with Gate(s): Gate(s) equipped with pre-existing channelization awareness, and photo enforcement programs
must be installed such that all approaching devices would be divided by .25.) that may be used to reduce risk within a
highway lanes to the public highway-rail 3. Add the current risk indices for the other quiet zone. Engineering ASMs consist of
grade crossing are completely blocked. public grade crossings located within the engineering improvements that address
Effectiveness: .82. proposed quiet zone and divide by the underlying geometric conditions, including
Required: number of crossings. The resulting risk index sight distance, that are the source of
a. Gate arms on the approach side of the will be the new Risk Index With Horns for increased risk at crossings.
crossing should extend across the road to the proposed quiet zone.
within one foot of the far edge of the I. Modified SSMs
pavement. If a gate is used on each side of C. Credit for Pre-Existing SSMs in Pre-Rule
A. Requirements and Effectiveness Rates for
the road, the gap between the ends of the Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet
Modified SSMs
gates when both are in the lowered, or down, Zones
1. If there are unique circumstances
position must be no more than two feet. A community that has implemented a pre-
pertaining to a specific crossing or number of
b. If only one gate is used, the edge of the existing SSM at a public grade crossing can
crossings which prevent SSMs from being
road opposite the gate mechanism must be receive risk reduction credit by inflating the
fully compliant with all of the SSM
configured with a non-traversable curb Risk Index With Horns as follows:
requirements listed in appendix A, those
extending at least 100 feet. 1. Calculate the current risk index for the
SSM requirements may be adjusted or
c. Crossing warning systems must be grade crossing that is equipped with a
revised. In that case, the SSM, as modified
activated by use of constant warning time qualifying, pre-existing SSM. (See appendix
by the pubic authority, will be treated as an
devices unless existing conditions at the D. FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone Calculator
ASM under this appendix B, and not as a
crossing would prevent the proper operation may be used to complete this calculation.)
SSM under appendix A. FRA will review the
of the constant warning time devices. 2. Reduce the current risk index for the
safety effects of the modified SSMs and the
d. Crossing warning systems must be grade crossing to reflect the risk reduction
proposed quiet zone, and will approve the
equipped with power-out indicators. that would have been achieved if the
proposal if it finds that the Quiet Zone Risk
Note: Requirements c and d apply only to locomotive horn was routinely sounded at
Index is reduced to the level that would be
New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet the crossing. The following list sets forth the
expected with the sounding of the train horns
Zones. Constant warning time devices and estimated risk reduction for certain types of
or to a level at, or below the Nationwide
power-out indicators are not required to be crossings:
Significant Risk Threshold, whichever is
added to existing warning systems in Pre- a. Risk indices for passive crossings shall
greater.
Rule Quiet Zones or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet be reduced by 43%;
2. A public authority may provide
Zones. If automatic warning systems are, b. Risk indices for grade crossings
estimates of effectiveness based upon
however, installed or renewed in a Pre-Rule equipped with automatic flashing lights shall
adjustments from the effectiveness levels
Quiet or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone, power- be reduced by 27%; and
provided in appendix A or from actual field
out indicators and constant warning time c. Risk indices for gated crossings shall be
data derived from the crossing sites. The
devices shall be installed, unless existing reduced by 40%.
specific crossing and applied mitigation
conditions at the crossing would prevent the 3. Adjust the risk index by accounting for
measure will be assessed to determine the
proper operation of the constant warning the increased risk that was avoided by
effectiveness of the modified SSM. FRA will
time devices. implementing the pre-existing SSM at the
continue to develop and make available
public grade crossing. This adjustment can be
5. Permanent Closure of a Public Highway- effectiveness estimates and data from
made by dividing the risk index by one
Rail Grade Crossing: Permanently close the experience under the final rule.
minus the SSM effectiveness rate. (For
crossing to highway traffic. example, the risk index for a crossing
3. If one or more of the requirements
Effectiveness: 1.0. equipped with pre-existing channelization associated with an SSM as listed in appendix
Required: devices would be divided by .25.) A is revised or deleted, data or analysis
a. The closure system must completely 4. Adjust the risk indices for the other supporting the revision or deletion must be
block highway traffic from entering the grade crossings that are included in the Pre-Rule provided to FRA for review. The following
crossing. Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone by engineering types of ASMs may be included
b. Barricades and signs used for closure of reducing the current risk index to reflect the in a proposal for approval by FRA for
the roadway shall conform to the standards risk reduction that would have been achieved creation of a quiet zone: (1) Temporary
contained in the MUTCD. if the locomotive horn was routinely sounded Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade
c. The closure system must be tamper and at each crossing. Please refer to step two for Crossing, (2) Four-Quadrant Gate System, (3)
vandal resistant to the same extent as other the list of approved risk reduction Gates With Medians or Channelization
traffic control devices. percentages by crossing type. Devices, and (4) One-Way Street With
d. Since traffic will be redistributed among 5. Add the new risk indices for each Gate(s).
adjacent crossings, the traffic counts for crossing located within the proposed quiet B. Credit for Pre-Existing Modified SSMs in
adjacent crossings shall be increased to zone and divide by the number of crossings. New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet
reflect the diversion of traffic from the closed The resulting risk index will be the new Risk Zones
crossing. Index With Horns for the quiet zone.
A community that has implemented a pre-
B. Credit for Pre-Existing SSMs in New Quiet Appendix B to Part 222—Alternative existing modified SSM at a public grade
Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones crossing can receive risk reduction credit by
Safety Measures
A community that has implemented a pre- inflating the Risk Index With Horns as
existing SSM at a public grade crossing can Introduction follows:
receive risk reduction credit by inflating the A public authority seeking approval of a 1. Calculate the current risk index for the
Risk Index With Horns as follows: quiet zone under public authority application grade crossing that is equipped with a pre-
existing modified SSM. (See appendix D. zone and divide by the number of crossings. a. State law authorizing use of
FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone Calculator may The resulting risk index will be the new Risk photographic or video evidence both to bring
be used to complete this calculation.) Index With Horns for the quiet zone. charges and sustain the burden of proof that
2. Obtain FRA approval of the estimated a violation of traffic laws concerning public
effectiveness rate for the pre-existing II. Non-engineering ASMs highway-rail grade crossings has occurred,
modified SSM. Estimated effectiveness rates A. The following non-engineering ASMs accompanied by commitment of
may be based upon adjustments from the may be used in the creation of a Quiet Zone: administrative, law enforcement and judicial
SSM effectiveness rates provided in (The method for determining the officers to enforce the law;
appendix A or actual field data derived from effectiveness of the non-engineering ASMs, b. Sanction includes sufficient minimum
crossing sites. the implementation of the quiet zone, fine (e.g., $100 for a first offense, ‘‘points’’
3. Adjust the risk index by accounting for subsequent monitoring requirements, and toward license suspension or revocation) to
the increased risk that was avoided by dealing with an unacceptable effectiveness deter violations;
implementing the pre-existing modified SSM rate is provided in paragraph B.) c. Means to reliably detect violations (e.g.,
at the public grade crossing. This adjustment 1. Programmed Enforcement: Community loop detectors, video imaging technology);
can be made by dividing the risk index by and law enforcement officials commit to a d. Photographic or video equipment
one minus the FRA-approved modified SSM systematic and measurable crossing deployed to capture images sufficient to
effectiveness rate. monitoring and traffic law enforcement document the violation (including the face of
4. Add the current risk indices for the other program at the public highway-rail grade the driver, if required to charge or convict
public grade crossings located within the crossing, alone or in combination with the under state law).
proposed quiet zone and divide by the Public Education and Awareness ASM. Note: This does not require that each
number of crossings. The resulting risk index Required: crossing be continually monitored. The
will be the new Risk Index With Horns for a. Subject to audit, a statistically valid objective of this option is deterrence, which
the proposed quiet zone. baseline violation rate must be established may be accomplished by moving photo/video
through automated or systematic manual equipment among several crossing locations,
C. Credit for Pre-Existing Modified SSMs in monitoring or sampling at the subject as long as the motorist perceives the strong
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and Pre-Rule Partial crossing(s); and possibility that a violation will lead to
Quiet Zones b. A law enforcement effort must be sanctions. Each location must appear
A community that has implemented a pre- defined, established and continued along identical to the motorist, whether or not
existing modified SSM at a public grade with continual or regular monitoring that surveillance equipment is actually placed
crossing can receive risk reduction credit by provides a statistically valid violation rate there at the particular time. Surveillance
inflating the Risk Index With Horns as that indicates the effectiveness of the law equipment should be in place and operating
follows: enforcement effort. at each crossing at least 25 percent of each
1. Calculate the current risk index for the c. The public authority shall retain records calendar quarter.
grade crossing that is equipped with a pre- pertaining to monitoring and sampling efforts e. Appropriate integration, testing and
existing modified SSM. (See appendix D. at the grade crossing for a period of not less maintenance of the system to provide
FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone Calculator may than five years. These records shall be made evidence supporting enforcement;
be used to complete this calculation.) available, upon request, to FRA as provided f. Public awareness efforts designed to
2. Reduce the current risk index for the by 49 U.S.C. 20107. reinforce photo enforcement and alert
grade crossing to reflect the risk reduction 2. Public Education and Awareness: motorists to the absence of train horns;
that would have been achieved if the Conduct, alone or in combination with g. Subject to audit, a statistically valid
locomotive horn was routinely sounded at programmed law enforcement, a program of baseline violation rate must be established
the crossing. The following list sets forth the public education and awareness directed at through automated or systematic manual
estimated risk reduction for certain types of motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians and monitoring or sampling at the subject
crossings: residents near the railroad to emphasize the crossing(s); and
a. Risk indices for passive crossings shall risks associated with public highway-rail h. A law enforcement effort must be
be reduced by 43%; grade crossings and applicable requirements defined, established and continued along
b. Risk indices for grade crossings of state and local traffic laws at those with continual or regular monitoring.
equipped with automatic flashing lights shall crossings. i. The public authority shall retain records
be reduced by 27%; and Requirements: pertaining to monitoring and sampling efforts
c. Risk indices for gated crossings shall be a. Subject to audit, a statistically valid at the grade crossing for a period of not less
reduced by 40%. baseline violation rate must be established than five years. These records shall be made
available, upon request, to FRA as provided
3. Obtain FRA approval of the estimated through automated or systematic manual
by 49 U.S.C. 20107.
effectiveness rate for the pre-existing monitoring or sampling at the subject
B. The effectiveness of an ASM will be
modified SSM. Estimated effectiveness rates crossing(s); and
determined as follows:
may be based upon adjustments from the b. A sustainable public education and
1. Establish the quarterly (three months)
SSM effectiveness rates provided in awareness program must be defined, baseline violation rates for each crossing in
appendix A or actual field data derived from established and continued along with the proposed quiet zone.
crossing sites. continual or regular monitoring that provides a. A violation in this context refers to a
4. Adjust the risk index by accounting for a statistically valid violation rate that motorist not complying with the automatic
the increased risk that was avoided by indicates the effectiveness of the public warning devices at the crossing (not stopping
implementing the pre-existing modified SSM education and awareness effort. This program for the flashing lights and driving over the
at the public grade crossing. This adjustment shall be provided and supported primarily crossing after the gate arms have started to
can be made by dividing the risk index by through local resources. descend, or driving around the lowered gate
one minus the FRA-approved modified SSM c. The public authority shall retain records arms). A violation does not have to result in
effectiveness rate. pertaining to monitoring and sampling efforts a traffic citation for the violation to be
5. Adjust the risk indices for the other at the grade crossing for a period of not less considered.
crossings that are included in the Pre-Rule than five years. These records shall be made b. Violation data may be obtained by any
Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone by available, upon request, to FRA as provided method that can be shown to provide a
reducing the current risk index to reflect the by 49 U.S.C. 20107. statistically valid sample. This may include
risk reduction that would have been achieved 3. Photo Enforcement: This ASM entails the use of video cameras, other technologies
if the locomotive horn was routinely sounded automated means of gathering valid (e.g., inductive loops), or manual
at each crossing. Please refer to step two for photographic or video evidence of traffic law observations that capture driver behavior
the list of approved risk reduction violations at a public highway-rail grade when the automatic warning devices are
percentages by crossing type. crossing together with follow-through by law operating.
6. Add the new risk indices for each enforcement and the judiciary. c. If data is not collected continuously
crossing located within the proposed quiet Requirements: during the quarter, sufficient detail must be
provided in the application in order to lack of a train horn, or that the risk level is Violation rate reduction = (new rate ¥
validate that the methodology used results in equal to, or exceeds the National Significant baseline rate)/baseline rate
a statistically valid sample. FRA recommends Risk Threshold, the procedures for dealing 5. Using the Engineering ASM
that at least a minimum of 600 samples (one with unacceptable effectiveness after effectiveness rate, determine the Quiet Zone
sample equals one gate activation) be establishment of a quiet zone should be Risk Index. If and when the Quiet Zone Risk
collected during the baseline and subsequent followed. Index for the proposed quiet zone has been
quarterly sample periods. reduced to a risk level at or below the Risk
III. Engineering ASMs
d. The sampling methodology must take Index With Horns or the Nationwide
measures to avoid biases in their sampling A. Engineering improvements, other than Significant Risk Threshold, the public
technique. Potential sampling biases could modified SSMs, may be used in the creation authority may apply to FRA for approval of
include: Sampling on certain days of the of a Quiet Zone. These engineering the quiet zone. Upon receiving written
week but not others; sampling during certain improvements, which will be treated as approval of the quiet zone application from
times of the day but not others; sampling ASMs under this appendix, may include FRA, the public authority may then proceed
immediately after implementation of an ASM improvements that address underlying with notifications and implementation of the
while the public is still going through an geometric conditions, including sight quiet zone.
adjustment period; or applying one sample distance, that are the source of increased risk 6. Violation rates must be monitored for
method for the baseline rate and another for at the crossing. the next two calendar quarters. Unless
the new rate. B. The effectiveness of an Engineering otherwise provided in FRA’s notification of
e. The baseline violation rate should be ASM will be determined as follows: quiet zone approval, if the violation rate for
expressed as the number of violations per 1. Establish the quarterly (three months) these two calendar quarters does not exceed
gate activations in order to normalize for baseline violation rate for the crossing at the violation rate that was used to determine
unequal gate activations during subsequent which the Engineering ASM will be applied. the effectiveness rate that was approved by
data collection periods. a. A violation in this context refers to a FRA, the public authority can cease violation
f. All subsequent quarterly violation rate motorist not complying with the automatic rate monitoring.
calculations must use the same methodology warning devices at the crossing (not stopping 7. In the event that the violation rate over
as stated in this paragraph unless FRA for the flashing lights and driving over the either of the next two calendar quarters are
authorizes another methodology. crossing after the gate arms have started to greater than the violation rate used to
2. The ASM should then be initiated for descend, or driving around the lowered gate determine the effectiveness rate that was
each crossing. Train horns are still being arms). A violation does not have to result in approved by FRA, the public authority may
sounded during this time period. a traffic citation for the violation to be continue the quiet zone for a third calendar
3. In the calendar quarter following considered. quarter. However, if the third calendar
initiation of the ASM, determine a new b. Violation data may be obtained by any quarter violation rate is also greater than the
quarterly violation rate using the same method that can be shown to provide a rate used to determine the effectiveness rate
methodology as in paragraph (1) above. statistically valid sample. This may include that was approved by FRA, a new
4. Determine the violation rate reduction the use of video cameras, other technologies effectiveness rate must be calculated and the
for each crossing by the following formula: (e.g., inductive loops), or manual Quiet Zone Risk Index re-calculated using
observations that capture driver behavior the new effectiveness rate. If the new Quiet
Violation rate reduction = (new rate when the automatic warning devices are
¥baseline rate)/baseline rate Zone Risk Index exceeds the Risk Index With
operating. Horns and the Nationwide Significant Risk
5. Determined the effectiveness rate of the c. If data is not collected continuously Threshold, the procedures for dealing with
ASM for each crossing by multiplying the during the quarter, sufficient detail must be unacceptable effectiveness after
violation rate reduction by .78. provided in the application in order to establishment of a quiet zone should be
6. Using the effectiveness rates for each validate that the methodology used results in followed.
grade crossing treated by an ASM, determine a statistically valid sample. FRA recommends
the Quiet Zone Risk Index. If and when the that at least a minimum of 600 samples (one Appendix C to Part 222—Guide To
Quiet Zone Risk Index for the proposed quiet sample equals one gate activation) be Establishing Quiet Zones
zone has been reduced to a level at, or below, collected during the baseline and subsequent
the Risk Index With Horns or the Nationwide quarterly sample periods. Introduction
Significant Risk Threshold, the public d. The sampling methodology must take This Guide to Establishing Quiet Zones
authority may apply to FRA for approval of measures to avoid biases in their sampling (Guide) is divided into five sections in order
the proposed quiet zone. Upon receiving technique. Potential sampling biases could to address the variety of methods and
written approval of the quiet zone include: sampling on certain days of the conditions that affect the establishment of
application from FRA, the public authority week but not others; sampling during certain quiet zones under this rule.
may then proceed with notifications and times of the day but not others; sampling Section I of the Guide provides an
implementation of the quiet zone. immediately after implementation of an ASM overview of the different ways in which a
7. Violation rates must be monitored for while the public is still going through an quiet zone may be established under this
the next two calendar quarters and every adjustment period; or applying one sample rule. This includes a brief discussion on the
second quarter thereafter. If, after five years method for the baseline rate and another for safety thresholds that must be attained in
from the implementation of the quiet zone, the new rate. order for train horns to be silenced and the
the violation rate for any quarter has never e. The baseline violation rate should be relative merits of each. It also includes the
exceeded the violation rate that was used to expressed as the number of violations per two general methods that may be used to
determine the effectiveness rate that was gate activations in order to normalize for reduce risk in the proposed quiet zone, and
approved by FRA, violation rates may be unequal gate activations during subsequent the different impacts that the methods have
monitored for one quarter per year. data collection periods. on the quiet zone implementation process.
8. In the event that the violation rate is ever f. All subsequent quarterly violation rate This section also discusses Partial (e.g. night
greater than the violation rate used to calculations must use the same methodology time only quiet zones) and Intermediate
determine the effectiveness rate that was as stated in this paragraph unless FRA Quiet Zones. An Intermediate Quiet Zone is
approved by FRA, the public authority may authorizes another methodology. one where horn restrictions were in place
continue the quiet zone for another quarter. 2. The Engineering ASM should be after October 9, 1996, but as of December 18,
If, in the second quarter the violation rate is initiated at the crossing. Train horns are still 2003.
still greater than the rate used to determine being sounded during this time period. Section II of the Guide provides
the effectiveness rate that was approved by 3. In the calendar quarter following information on establishing New Quiet
FRA, a new effectiveness rate must be initiation of the Engineering ASM, determine Zones. A New Quiet Zone is one at which
calculated and the Quiet Zone Risk Index re- a new quarterly violation rate using the same train horns are currently being sounded at
calculated using the new effectiveness rate. If methodology as in paragraph (1) above. crossings. The Public Authority Designation
the new Quiet Zone Risk Index indicates that 4. Determine the violation rate reduction and Public Authority Application to FRA
the ASM no longer fully compensates for the for the crossing by the following formula: methods will be discussed in depth.
Section III of the Guide provides control of the public authority. For example, sense. It will also perform the necessary
information on establishing Pre-Rule Quiet an overall national improvement in safety at calculations used to determine the existing
Zones. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone is one where gated crossings may cause the Nationwide risk level and whether enough risk has been
train horns were not routinely sounded as of Significant Risk Threshold to fall. This may mitigated in order to create a quiet zone
October 9, 1996 and December 18, 2003. The cause the Quiet Zone Risk Index to become under this rule.
differences between New and Pre-Rule Quiet greater than the Nationwide Significant Risk
Threshold. If the quiet zone is no longer B. Risk Reduction Methods
Zones will be explained. Public Authority
Designation and Public Authority qualified, then the public authority will have FRA has established two general methods
Application to FRA methods also apply to to take additional measures, and may incur to reduce risk in order to have a quiet zone
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. additional costs that might not have been qualify under this rule. The method chosen
Section IV of the Guide deals with the budgeted, to once again lower the Quiet Zone impacts the manner in which the quiet zone
required notifications that must be provided Risk Index to at least the Nationwide is implemented.
by public authorities when establishing both Significant Risk Threshold in order to retain 1. Public Authority Designation (SSMs)—
New and continuing Pre-Rule or Intermediate the quiet zone. Therefore, while the initial The Public Authority Designation method
Quiet Zones. cost to implement a quiet zone under the (§ 222.39(a)) involves the use of SSMs (see
Section V of the Guide provides examples second or third scenario may be lower than appendix A) at some or all crossings within
of quiet zone implementation. the other options, these scenarios also carry the quiet zone. The use of only SSMs to
a degree of uncertainty about the quiet zone’s reduce risk will allow a public authority to
Section I—Overview continued existence. designate a quiet zone without approval from
In order for a quiet zone to be qualified (3) The use of the first or fourth scenarios FRA. If the public authority installs SSMs at
under this rule, it must be shown that the reduces the risk level to at least the level that every crossing within the quiet zone, it need
lack of the train horn does not present a would exist if train horns were sounding in not demonstrate that they will reduce the risk
significant risk with respect to loss of life or the quiet zone. These methods may have sufficiently in order to qualify under the rule
serious personal injury, or that the significant higher initial costs because more safety since FRA has already assessed the ability of
risk has been compensated for by other measures may be necessary in order to the SSMs to reduce risk. In other words, the
means. The rule provides four basic ways in achieve the needed risk reduction. Despite Quiet Zone Calculator does not need to be
which a quiet zone may be established. the possibility of greater initial costs, there used. However, if only SSMs are installed
Creation of both New Quiet Zones and Pre- are several benefits to these methods. The within the quiet zone, but not at every
Rule Quiet Zones are based on the same installation of SSMs at every crossing will crossing, the public authority must calculate
general guidelines; however, there are a provide the greatest safety benefit of any of that sufficient risk reduction will be
number of differences that will be noted in the methods that may be used to initiate a accomplished by the SSMs. Once the
the discussion on Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. quiet zone. With both of these methods (first improvements are made, the public authority
and fourth scenarios), the public authority must make the required notifications (which
A. Qualifying Conditions will never need to be concerned about the includes a copy of the report generated by the
(1) One of the following four conditions or Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, Quiet Zone Calculator showing that the risk
scenarios must be met in order to show that annual reviews of the Quiet Zone Risk Index, in the quiet zone has been sufficiently
the lack of the train horn does not present a or failing to be qualified because the Quiet reduced), and the quiet zone may be
significant risk, or that the significant risk Zone Risk Index is higher than the implemented. FRA does not need to approve
has been compensated for by other means: Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. the plan as it has already assessed the ability
a. One or more SSMs as identified in Public authorities are strongly encouraged to of the SSMs to reduce risk.
appendix A are installed at each public carefully consider both the pros and cons of 2. Public Authority Application to FRA
crossing in the quiet zone; or all of the methods and to choose the method (ASMs)—The Public Authority Application
b. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to, that will best meet the needs of its citizens to FRA method (§ 222.39(b)) involves the use
or less than, the Nationwide Significant Risk by providing a safer and quieter community. ASMs (see appendix B). ASMs include
Threshold without implementation of (4) For the purposes of this Guide, the term modified SSMs that do not fully comply with
additional safety measures at any crossings in ‘‘Risk Index with Horns’’ is used to represent the provisions found in appendix A (e.g.,
the quiet zone; or the level of risk that would exist if train shorter than required traffic channelization
c. Additional safety measures are horns were sounded at every public crossing devices), non-engineering ASMs (e.g.,
implemented at selected crossings resulting in the proposed quiet zone. If a public programmed law enforcement), and
in the Quiet Zone Risk Index being reduced authority decides that it would like to fully engineering ASMs (i.e, engineering
to a level equal to, or less than, the compensate for the lack of a train horn and improvements other than modified SSMs). If
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold; or not install SSMs at each public crossing in the use of ASMs (or a combination of ASMs
d. Additional safety measures are taken at the quiet zone, it must reduce the Quiet Zone and SSMs) is elected to reduce risk, then the
selected crossings resulting in the Quiet Zone Risk Index to a level that is equal to, or less public authority must apply to FRA for
Risk Index being reduced to at least the level than, the Risk Index with Horns. The Risk approval of the quiet zone. The application
of the Risk Index With Horns (that is, the risk Index with Horns is similar to the must contain sufficient data and analysis to
that would exist if train horns were sounded Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold in confirm that the proposed ASMs do indeed
at every public crossing in the quiet zone). that both are targets that must be reached in provide the necessary risk reduction. FRA
(2) It is important to consider the order to establish a quiet zone under the rule. will review the application and will issue a
implications of each approach before Quiet zones that are established by reducing formal approval if it determines that risk is
deciding which one to use. If a quiet zone is the Quiet Zone Risk Index to at least the level reduced to a level that is necessary in order
qualified based on reference to the of the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold to comply with the rule. Once FRA approval
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (i.e., will be reviewed annually by FRA to has been received and the safety measures
the Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to, or less determine if they still qualify under the rule fully implemented, the public authority
than, the Nationwide Significant Risk to retain the quiet zone. Quiet zones that are would then proceed to make the necessary
Threshold—see the second and third established by reducing the Quiet Zone Risk notifications, and the quiet zone may be
scenarios above), then an annual review will Index to at least the level of the Risk Index implemented. The use of non-engineering
be done by FRA to determine if the Quiet with Horns will not be subject to annual ASMs will require continued monitoring and
Zone Risk Index remains equal to, or less reviews. analysis throughout the existence of the quiet
than, the Nationwide Significant Risk (5) The use of FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone zone to ensure that risk continues to be
Threshold. Since the Nationwide Significant Calculator is recommended to aid in the reduced.
Risk Threshold and the Quiet Zone Risk decision making process (http:// 3. Calculating Risk Reduction—The
Index may change from year to year, there is www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1337). The Quiet following should be noted when calculating
no guarantee that the quiet zone will remain Zone Calculator will allow the public risk reductions in association with the
qualified. The circumstances that cause the authority to consider a variety of options in establishment of a quiet zone. This
disqualification may not be subject to the determining which SSMs make the most information pertains to both New Quiet
Zones and Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and to the three remaining crossings by four. This is the provided in appendix B, the improvement is
Public Authority Designation and Public initial Quiet Zone Risk Index and accounts deemed a Pre-Existing Modified SSM. Risk
Authority Application to FRA methods. for the risk reduction caused by the grade reduction credit is obtained by inflating the
Crossing closures: If any public crossing separation at C Street. Risk Index With Horns to show what the risk
within the quiet zone is proposed to be Pre-Existing SSMs: Risk reduction credit would have been at the crossing if the pre-
closed, include that crossing when may be taken by a public authority for a SSM existing SSM had not been implemented. The
calculating the Risk Index with Horns. The that was previously implemented and is effectiveness rate of the modified SSM will
effectiveness of a closure is 1.0. However, be currently in place in the quiet zone. If an be determined by FRA. The public authority
sure to increase the traffic counts at other existing improvement meets the criteria for a may provide information to FRA to be used
crossings within the quiet zone and SSM as provided in appendix A, the in determining the effectiveness rate of the
recalculate the risk indices for those improvement is deemed a Pre-Existing SSM. modified SSM. Once an effectiveness rate has
crossings that will handle the traffic diverted Risk reduction credit is obtained by inflating been determined, follow the procedure
from the closed crossing. It should be noted the Risk Index With Horns to show what the previously discussed for Pre-Existing SSMs
that crossing closures that are already in risk would have been at the crossing if the to determine the risk values that will be used
existence are not considered in the risk pre-existing SSM had not been implemented. in the quiet zone calculations.
calculations. Crossing closures and grade separations that Wayside Horns: Crossings with wayside
Example— A proposed New Quiet Zone occurred prior to the implementation of the horn installations will be treated as a one for
contains four crossings: A, B, C and D streets. quiet zone are not Pre-Existing SSMs and do one substitute for the train horn and are not
A, B and D streets are equipped with flashing not receive any risk reduction credit. to be included when calculating the Crossing
lights and gates. C Street is a passive Example 1— A proposed New Quiet Zone Corridor Risk Index, the Risk Index with
crossbuck crossing with a traffic count of 400 has one crossing that is equipped with Horns or the Quiet Zone Risk Index.
vehicles per day. It is decided that C Street flashing lights and gates and has medians 100 Example— A proposed New Quiet Zone
will be closed as part of the project. Compute feet in length on both sides of the crossing. contains four crossings: A, B, C and D streets.
the risk indices for all four streets. The The medians conform to the requirements in All streets are equipped with flashing lights
calculation for C Street will utilize flashing appendix A and qualify as a Pre-Existing and gates. It is decided that C Street will have
lights and gates as the warning device. SSM. The risk index as calculated for the a wayside horn installed. Compute the risk
Calculate the Crossing Corridor Risk Index by crossing is 10,000. To calculate the Risk indices for A, B and D streets. Since C Street
averaging the risk indices for all four of the Index With Horns for this crossing, you is being treated with a wayside horn, it is not
crossings. This value will also be the Risk divide the risk index by difference between included in the calculation of risk. Calculate
Index with Horns since train horns are one and the effectiveness rate of the pre- the Crossing Corridor Risk Index by
currently being sounded. To calculate the existing SSM (10,000 ÷ (1–0.75) = 40,000). averaging the risk indices for A, B and D
Quiet Zone Risk Index, first re-calculate the This value (40,000) would then be averaged streets. This value is also the Risk Index with
risk indices for B and D streets by increasing in with the risk indices of the other crossings Horns. Increase the risk indices for A, B and
the traffic count for each crossing by 200. to determine the proposed quiet zone’s Risk D streets by 66.8% and average the results.
(Assume for this example that the public Index With Horns. To calculate the Quiet This is the initial Quiet Zone Risk Index for
authority decided that the traffic from C Zone Risk Index, the original risk index is the proposed quiet zone.
Street would be equally divided between B increased by 66.8% to account for the
and D streets.) Increase the risk indices for additional risk attributed to the absence of C. Partial Quiet Zones
A, B and D streets by 66.8% and divide the the train horn (10,000 × 1.668 = 16,680). This A Partial Quiet Zone is a quiet zone in
sum of the three remaining crossings by four. value (16,680) is then averaged into the risk which locomotive horns are not routinely
This is the initial Quiet Zone Risk Index and indices of the other crossings that have also sounded at public crossings for a specified
accounts for the risk reduction caused by been increased by 66.8%. The resulting period of time each day. For example, a quiet
closing C Street. average is the Quiet Zone Risk Index. zone during only the nighttime hours would
Grade Separation: Grade separated Example 2— A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone be a partial quiet zone. Partial quiet zones
crossings that were in existence before the consisting of four crossings has one crossing may be either New or Pre-Rule and follow the
creation of a quiet zone are not included in that is equipped with flashing lights and same rules as 24 hour quiet zones. New
any of the calculations. However, any public gates and has medians 100 feet in length on Partial Quiet Zones may be in effect during
crossings within the quiet zone that are both sides of the crossing. The medians the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. All New Partial
proposed to be treated by grade separation conform to the requirements in appendix A Quiet Zones must comply with all of the
should be treated in the same manner as and qualify as a Pre-Existing SSM. The risk requirements for New Quiet Zones. For
crossing closures. Highway traffic that may index as calculated for the crossing is 20,000. example, all public grade crossings that are
be diverted from other crossings within the To calculate the Risk Index With Horns for open during the time that horns are silenced
quiet zone to the new grade separated this crossing, first reduce the risk index by must be equipped with flashing lights and
crossing should be considered when 40 percent to reflect the risk reduction that gates that are equipped with constant
computing the Quiet Zone Risk Index. would be achieved if train horns were warning time (where practical) and power
Example— A proposed New Quiet Zone routinely sounded (20,000 × 0.6 = 12,000). out indicators. Risk is calculated in exactly
contains four crossings: A, B, C and D streets. Next, divide the resulting risk index by the same manner as for New Quiet Zones.
All streets are equipped with flashing lights difference between one and the effectiveness The Quiet Zone Risk Index is calculated for
and gates. C Street is a busy crossing with a rate of the pre-existing SSM (12,000 ÷ (1– the entire 24-hour period, even though the
traffic count of 25,000 vehicles per day. It is 0.75) = 48,000). This value (48,000) would train horn will only be silenced during the
decided that C Street will be grade separated then be averaged with the adjusted risk hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
as part of the project and the existing at-grade indices of the other crossings to determine A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone is a partial
crossing closed. Compute the risk indices for the pre-rule quiet zone’s Risk Index With quiet zone at which train horns were not
all four streets. Calculate the Crossing Horns. To calculate the Quiet Zone Risk sounding as of October 9, 1996 and on
Corridor Risk Index, which will also be the Index, the original risk index (20,000) is then December 18, 2003. All of the regulations
Risk Index with Horns, by averaging the risk averaged into the risk original indices of the that pertain to Pre-Rule Quiet Zones also
indices for all four of the crossings. To other crossings. The resulting average is the pertain to Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones. The
calculate the Quiet Zone Risk Index, first re- Quiet Zone Risk Index. Quiet Zone Risk Index is calculated for the
calculate the risk indices for B and D streets Pre-Existing Modified SSMs: Risk entire 24-hour period for Pre-Rule Partial
by decreasing the traffic count for each reduction credit may be taken by a public Quiet Zones, even though train horns are
crossing by 1,200. (The public authority authority for a modified SSM that was only silenced during the nighttime hours.
decided that 2,400 motorists will decide to previously implemented and is currently in Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones may qualify for
use the grade separation at C Street in order place in the quiet zone. Modified SSMs are automatic approval in the same manner as
to avoid possible delays caused by passing Alternative Safety Measures which must be Pre-Rule Quiet Zones with one exception. If
trains.) Increase the risk indices for A, B and approved by FRA. If an existing improvement the Quiet Zone Risk Index is less than twice
D streets by 66.8% and divide the sum of the is approved by FRA as a modified SSM as the National Significant Risk Threshold, and
there have been no relevant collisions during Notice of Intent has been provided. FRA agency responsible for grade crossing safety
the time period when train horns are encourages public authorities to provide the and all affected railroads to participate in the
silenced, then the Pre-Rule Partial Quiet required Notice of Intent early in the quiet diagnostic review. (§§ 222.25(b) and (c))
Zone is automatically qualified. In other zone development process. The railroads and 7. Each highway approach to every public
words, a relevant collision that occurred State agencies can provide an expertise that and private crossing must have an advanced
during the period of time that train horns very well may not be present within the warning sign (in accordance with the
were sounded will not disqualify a Pre-Rule public authority. FRA believes that it will be MUTCD) that advises motorists that train
Partial Quiet Zone that has a Quiet Zone Risk very useful to include these organizations in horns are not sounded at the crossing.
Index that is less than twice the National the planning process. For example, including (§§ 222.25(c)(1), 222.35(c)(1) and
Significant Risk Index. Pre-Rule Partial Quiet railroads and State agencies in the 222.35(c)(2))
Zones must provide the notification as inspections of the crossing will help ensure 8. Each pedestrian crossing must be
required in § 222.43 in order to keep train accurate Inventory information for the reviewed by a diagnostic team and equipped
horns silenced. A Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone crossings. The railroad can provide or treated in accordance with the
may be converted to a 24 hour New Quiet information on whether the flashing lights recommendation of the diagnostic team. The
Zone by complying with all of the New Quiet and gates are equipped with constant public authority must invite the State agency
Zone regulations. warning time and power out indicators. responsible for grade crossing safety and all
Pedestrian crossings and private crossings affected railroads to participate in the
D. Intermediate Quiet Zones
with public access, industrial or commercial diagnostic review. At a minimum pedestrian
An Intermediate Quiet Zone is one where use that are within the quiet zone must have crossings must be equipped with signs that
horn restrictions were in place after October a diagnostic team review and be treated conform to the MUTCD that advise
9, 1996, but as of December 18, 2003 (the according to the team’s recommendations. pedestrians that train horns are not sounded
publication date of the Interim Final Rule). Railroads and the State agency responsible at the crossing. (§ 222.27)
Intermediate Quiet Zones and Intermediate for grade crossing safety must be invited to
Partial Quiet Zones will be able to keep train the diagnostic team review. Note: Please see B. New Quiet Zones—Public Authority
horns silenced until June 24, 2006, provided Section IV for details on the requirements of Designation
notification is made per § 222.43. This will a Notice of Intent. Once again it should be remembered that
enable public authority to have additional 2. Determine all public, private and all public crossings must be equipped with
time to make the improvement necessary to pedestrian at-grade crossings that will be automatic warning devices consisting of
come into compliance with the rule. included within the quiet zone. Also, flashing lights and gates in accordance with
Intermediate Quiet Zones must conform to all determine any existing grade-separated § 222.35(b). In addition, one of the following
the requirements for New Quiet Zones by crossings that fall within the quiet zone. Each conditions must be met in order for a public
June 24, 2006. Other than having the horn crossing must be identified by the US DOT authority to designate a new quiet zone
silenced for an additional year, Intermediate Crossing Inventory number and street or without FRA approval:
Quiet Zones are treated exactly like New highway name. If a crossing does not have a a. One or more SSMs as identified in
Quiet Zones. US DOT crossing number, then contact FRA’s appendix A are installed at each public
Section II—New Quiet Zones Office of Safety (202–493–6299) for crossing in the quiet zone (§ 222.39(a)(1)); or
assistance. b. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to,
FRA has established several approaches
3. Ensure that the quiet zone will be at or less than, the Nationwide Significant Risk
that may be taken in order to establish a New
least one-half mile in length. (§ 222.35(a)(1)) Threshold without SSMs installed at any
Quiet Zone under this rule. Please see the
4. A complete and accurate Grade Crossing crossings in the quiet zone (§ 222.39(a)(2)(i));
preceding discussions on ‘‘Qualifying
Inventory Form must be on file with FRA for or
Conditions’’ and ‘‘Risk Reduction Methods’’
all crossings (public, private and pedestrian) c. SSMs are installed at selected crossings,
to assist in the decision-making process on
within the quiet zone. An inspection of each resulting in the Quiet Zone Risk Index being
which approach to take. This following
discussion provides the steps necessary to crossing in the proposed quiet zone should reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the
establish New Quiet Zones and includes both be performed and the Grade Crossing Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
the Public Authority Designation and Public Inventory Forms updated, as necessary, to (§ 222.39(a)(2)(ii)); or
Authority Application to FRA methods. It reflect the current conditions at each d. SSMs are installed at selected crossings,
must be remembered that in a New Quiet crossing. (§ 222.43(e)(2)(vi)) resulting in the Quiet Zone Risk Index being
Zone all public crossings must be equipped 5. Every public crossing within the quiet reduced to a level of risk that would exist if
with flashing lights and gates. The zone must be equipped with active warning the horn were sounded at every crossing in
requirements are the same regardless of devices comprising both flashing lights and the quiet zone (i.e., the Risk Index with
whether a 24-hour or partial quiet zone is gates. The warning devices must be equipped Horns) (§ 222.39(a)(3)).
being created. with power out indicators. Constant warning Steps necessary to establish a New Quiet
time circuitry is also required unless existing Zone using the Public Authority Application
A. Requirements for Both Public Authority conditions would prevent the proper to FRA method:
Designation and Public Authority operation of the constant warning time 1. If one or more SSMs as identified in
Application circuitry. FRA recommends that these appendix A are installed at each public
The following steps are necessary when automatic warning devices also be equipped crossing in the quiet zone, the requirements
establishing a New Quiet Zone. This with at least one bell to provide an audible for a public authority designation quiet zone
information pertains to both the Public warning to pedestrians. If the warning have been met. It is not necessary for the
Authority Designation and Public Authority devices are already equipped with a bell (or same SSM to be used at each crossing. Once
Application to FRA methods. bells), the bells may not be removed or the necessary improvements have been
1. The public authority must provide a deactivated. The plans for the quiet zone may installed, Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
written Notice of Intent (§ 222.43(a)(1) and be made assuming that flashing lights and shall be provided and the quiet zone
§ 222.43(b)) to the railroads that operate over gates are at all public crossings; however the implemented in accordance with the rule. If
the proposed quiet zone, the State agency quiet zone may not be implemented until all SSMs are not installed at each crossings,
responsible for highway and road safety and public crossings are actually equipped with proceed on to Step 2 and use the risk
the State agency responsible for grade the flashing lights and gates. (§§ 222.35(b)(1) reduction method.
crossing safety. The purpose of this Notice of and 222.35(b)(2)) 2. To begin, calculate the risk index for
Intent is to provide an opportunity for the 6. Private crossings must have cross-bucks each public crossing within the quiet zone
railroads and the State agencies to provide and ‘‘STOP’’ signs on both approaches to the (See appendix D. FRA’s web-based Quiet
comments and recommendations to the crossing. Private crossings with public Zone Calculator may be used to do this
public authority as it is planning the quiet access, industrial or commercial use must calculation). If flashing lights and gates have
zone. They will have 60 days to provide have a diagnostic team review and be treated to be installed at any public crossings,
these comments to the public authority. The according to the team’s recommendations. calculate the risk indices for such crossings
quiet zone cannot be created unless the The public authority must invite the State as if lights and gates were installed. (Note:
Flashing lights and gates must be installed 7. If the public authority wishes to reduce The following discussion is meant to
prior to initiation of the quiet zone.) If the the risk of the quiet zone to the level of risk provide guidance on the steps necessary to
Inventory record does not reflect the actual that would exist if the horn were sounded at establish a new quiet zone using the Public
conditions at the crossing, be sure to use the every crossing within the quiet zone, the Authority Application to FRA method. Once
conditions that currently exist when public authority should calculate the initial again it should be remembered that all public
calculating the risk index. Note: Private Quiet Zone Risk Index as in Step 4. The crossings must be equipped with automatic
crossings and pedestrian crossings are not objective is to now reduce the Quiet Zone warning devices consisting of flashing lights
included when computing the risk for the Risk Index to the level of the Risk Index with and gates in accordance with § 222.35(b).
proposed quiet zone. Horns by adding SSMs at the crossings. The 1. Gather the information previously
3. The Crossing Corridor Risk Index is then difference between the Quiet Zone Risk mentioned in the section on ‘‘Requirements
calculated by averaging the risk index for Index and the Risk Index with Horns is the for both Public Authority Designation and
each public crossing within the proposed amount of risk that will have to be reduced Public Authority Application.’’
quiet zone. Since train horns are routinely in order to fully compensate for lack of the 2. Calculate the risk index for each public
being sounded for crossings in the proposed train horn. The use of the Quiet Zone crossing as directed in Step 2—Public
quiet zone, this value is also the Risk Index Calculator will aid in determining which Authority Designation.
with Horns. SSMs may be used to reduce the risk 3. Calculate the Crossing Corridor Risk
4. In order to calculate the initial Quiet sufficiently. Follow the procedure stated in Index, which is also the Risk Index with
Zone Risk Index, first adjust the risk index Step 6, except that the Quiet Zone Risk Index Horns, as directed in Step 3—Public
at each public crossing to account for the must be equal to, or less than, the Risk Index Authority Designation.
increased risk due to the absence of the train with Horns instead of the Nationwide 4. Calculate the initial Quiet Zone Risk
horn. The absence of the horn is reflected by Significant Risk Threshold. Once this risk Index as directed in Step 4—Public Authority
an increased risk index of 66.8% at gated level is attained, the quiet zone has qualified Designation.
crossings. The initial Quiet Zone Risk Index for the public authority designation method, 5. Begin to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk
is then calculated by averaging the increased and Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment must Index through the use of ASMs and SSMs.
risk index for each public crossing within the be provided once all the necessary Follow the procedure provided in Step 6—
proposed quiet zone. At this point the Quiet improvements have been installed. One Public Authority Designation until the Quiet
Zone Risk Index will equal the Risk Index Zone Risk Index has been reduced to equal
important distinction with this option is that
with Horns multiplied by 1.668. to, or less than, either the Nationwide
the public authority will never need to be
5. Compare the Quiet Zone Risk Index to Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk Index
concerned with the Nationwide Significant
the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. If with Horns. (Remember that the public
Risk Threshold or the Quiet Zone Risk Index.
the Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to, or less authority may choose which level of risk
than, the Nationwide Significant Risk The rule’s intent is to make the quiet zone reduction is the most appropriate for its
Threshold, then the public authority may as safe as if the train horns were sounding. community.) Effectiveness rates for ASMs
decide to designate a quiet zone and provide If this is accomplished, the public authority should be provided as follows:
the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment. With may designate the crossings as a quiet zone a. Modified SSMs—Estimates of
this approach, FRA will annually recalculate and need not be concerned with possible effectiveness for modified SSMs may be
the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold fluctuations in the Nationwide Significant proposed based upon adjustments from the
and the Quiet Zone Risk Index. If the Quiet Risk Threshold or annual risk reviews. effectiveness rates provided in appendix A or
Zone Risk Index for the quiet zone rises C. New Quiet Zones—Public Authority from actual field data derived from the
above the Nationwide Significant Risk Application to FRA crossing sites. The application should
Threshold, FRA will notify the Public provide an estimated effectiveness rate and
Authority so that appropriate measures can A public authority must apply to FRA for the rationale for the estimate.
be taken. (See § 222.51(a)). approval of a quiet zone under three b. Non-engineering ASMs—Effectiveness
6. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is greater conditions. First, if any of the SSMs selected rates are to be calculated in accordance with
than the Nationwide Significant Risk for the quiet zone do not fully conform to the the provisions of appendix B, paragraph II B.
Threshold, then select an appropriate SSM design standards set forth in appendix A. c. Engineering ASMs—Effectiveness rates
for a crossing. Reduce the inflated risk index These are referred to as modified SSMs in are to be calculated in accordance with the
calculated in Step 4 for that crossing by the appendix B. Second, when programmed law provisions of appendix B, paragraph III B.
effectiveness rate of the chosen SSM. (See enforcement, public education and 6. Once it has been determined through
appendix A for the effectiveness rates for the awareness programs, or photo enforcement is analysis that the Quiet Zone Risk Index has
various SSMs). Recalculate the Quiet Zone used to reduce risk in the quiet zone, these been reduced to equal to, or less than, either
Risk Index by averaging the revised inflated are referred to as non-engineering ASMs in the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or
risk index with the inflated risk indices for appendix B. It should be remembered that the Risk Index with Horns, the public
the other public crossings. If this new Quiet non-engineering ASMs will require periodic authority may make application to FRA for
Zone Risk Index is equal to, or less than, the monitoring as long as the quiet zone is in a quiet zone under § 222.39(b). FRA will
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, the existence. Third, when engineering ASMs are review the application to determine the
quiet zone would qualify for public authority used to reduce risk. Please see appendix B for appropriateness of the proposed effectiveness
designation. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is detailed explanations of ASMs and the rates, and whether or not the proposed
still higher than the Nationwide Significant periodic monitoring of non-engineering application demonstrates that the quiet zone
Risk Threshold, treat another public crossing ASMs. meets the requirements of the rule. When
with an appropriate SSM and repeat the The public authority is strongly submitting the application to FRA for
process until the Quiet Zone Risk Index is encouraged to submit the application to FRA approval, the application must contain the
equal to, or less than, the Nationwide for review and comment before the appendix following (§ 222.39(b)(1)):
Significant Risk Threshold. Once this result B treatments are initiated. This will enable a. Sufficient detail concerning the present
is obtained, the quiet zone has qualified for FRA to provide comments on the proposed safety measures at all crossings within the
the public authority designation method, and ASMs to help guide the application process. proposed quiet zone. This includes current
Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment must be If non-engineering ASMs or engineering and accurate crossing inventory forms for
provided once all the necessary ASMs are proposed, the public authority also each public and private grade crossing.
improvements have been installed. With this may wish to confirm with FRA that the b. Detailed information on the SSMs or
approach, FRA will annually recalculate the methodology it plans to use to determine the ASMs that are proposed to be implemented
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold and effectiveness rates of the proposed ASMs is and at which public crossings within the
the Quiet Zone Risk Index. If the Quiet Zone appropriate. A quiet zone that utilizes a proposed quiet zone.
Risk Index for the quiet zone rises above the combination of SSMs from appendix A and c. Membership and recommendations of
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, FRA ASMs from appendix B must make a Public the diagnostic team (if any) that reviewed the
will notify the public authority so that Authority Application to FRA. A complete proposed quiet zone.
appropriate measures can be taken. (See and thoroughly documented application will d. Statement of efforts taken to work with
§ 222.51(a)). help to expedite the approval process. affected railroads and the State agency
responsible for grade crossing safety, Section III—Pre-Rule Quiet Zones Quiet Zone Risk Index is calculated by
including a list of any objections raised by Pre-Rule Quiet Zones are treated slightly averaging the existing risk index for each
the railroads or State agency. differently from New Quiet Zones in the rule. public crossing without the need to increase
e. A commitment to implement the This is a reflection of the statutory the risk index by 66.8%. For Pre-Rule Quiet
proposed safety measures. requirement to ‘‘take into account the interest Zones, the Crossing Corridor Risk Index and
f. Demonstrate through data and analysis of communities that have in effect the initial Quiet Zone Risk Index have the
that the proposed measures will reduce the restrictions on the sounding of a locomotive same value.
Quiet Zone Risk Index to equal, to or less horn at highway-rail grade crossings * * *.’’ (2) Second, since train horns have been
than, either the Nationwide Significant Risk It also recognizes the historical experience of silenced at the crossings, it will be necessary
Threshold or the Risk Index with Horns. train horns not being sounded at Pre-Rule to mathematically determine what the risk
g. A copy of the application must be Quiet Zones.
provided to: all railroads operating over the level would have been at the crossings if
public highway-rail grade crossings within Overview train horns had been routinely sounded.
the quiet zone; the highway or traffic control These revised risk levels then will be used
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones that are not
or law enforcement authority having to calculate the Risk Index with Horns. This
established by automatic approval (see
jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at grade discussion that follows) must meet the same calculation is necessary to determine how
crossings within the quiet zone; the requirements as New Quiet Zones as much risk must be eliminated in order to
landowner having control over any private provided in § 222.39. In other words, risk compensate for the lack of the train horn.
crossings within the quiet zone; the State must be reduced through the use of SSMs or This will allow the public authority to have
agency responsible for highway and road ASMs so that the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the choice to reduce the risk to at least the
safety; the State agency responsible for grade the quiet zone has been reduced to either the level of the Nationwide Significant Risk
crossing safety; and the Associate risk level which would exist if locomotive Threshold or to fully compensate for the lack
Administrator. (§ 222.39(b)(3)) horns sounded at all crossings in the quiet of the train horn.
7. Upon receiving written approval from zone (i.e. the Risk Index with Horns) or to a To calculate the Risk Index with Horns, the
FRA of the quiet zone application, the public risk level equal to, or less than, the first step is to divide the existing severity risk
authority may then provide the Notice of Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. Pre- index for each crossing by the appropriate
Quiet Zone Establishment and implement the Rule Quiet Zones must meet these value as shown in Table 1. This process
quiet zone. If the quiet zone is qualified by requirements by June 24, 2010. eliminates the risk that was caused by the
reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to at the (§ 222.41(c)(2)) There are four differences in absence of train horns. The table takes into
least the level of the Nationwide Significant the requirements between Pre-Rule Quiet
Risk Threshold, FRA will annually account that the train horn has been found
Zones and New Quiet Zones that must be to produce different levels of effectiveness in
recalculate the Nationwide Significant Risk noted.
Threshold and the Quiet Zone Risk Index. If preventing collisions depending on the type
(1) First, since train horns have not been
the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the quiet zone of warning device at the crossing. (Note:
routinely sounded in the Pre-Rule Quiet
rises above the Nationwide Significant Risk Zone, it is not necessary to increase the risk FRA’s web based Quiet Zone Calculator will
Threshold, FRA will notify the public indices of the public crossings to reflect the perform this computation automatically for
authority so that appropriate measures can be additional risk caused by the lack of a train Pre-Rule Quiet Zones.) The Risk Index with
taken. (See § 222.51(a)) horn. Since the train horn has already been Horns is the average of the revised risk
Note: The provisions stated above for silenced, the added risk caused by the lack indices. The difference between the
crossing closures, grade separations, wayside of a horn is reflected in the actual collision calculated Risk Index with Horns and the
horns, pre-existing SSMs and pre-existing history at the crossings. Collision history is Quiet Zone Risk Index is the amount of risk
modified SSMs apply for Public Authority an important part in the calculation of the that would have to be reduced in order to
Application to FRA as well. severity risk indices. In other words, the fully compensate for the lack of train horns.
TABLE 1.—RISK INDEX DIVISOR VALUES

Passive Flashing lights Lights and gates
U.S. .................................................................................................................................. 1.749 1.309 1.668
(3) The third difference is that credit is prediction value for that crossing will be re- retained but cannot be downgraded. It also is
given for the risk reduction that is brought calculated based on the upgraded warning not necessary for the automatic warning
about through the upgrading of the warning device. (Once again, FRA’s web-based Quiet devices to be equipped with constant
devices at public crossings (§ 222.35(b)(3)). Zone Calculator can do the actual warning time devices or power out
For New Quiet Zones, all crossings must be computation.) The new accident prediction indicators; however, when the warning
equipped with automatic warning devices value is then used in the severity risk index devices are upgraded, constant warning time
consisting of flashing lights and gates. formula to determine the risk index for the and power out indicators will be required if
Crossings without gates must have gates crossing. This adjusted risk index is then reasonably practical (§ 222.35(b)(3)). Advance
installed. The severity risk index for that used to compute the new Quiet Zone Risk warning signs that notify the motorist that
crossing is then calculated to establish the Index. This computation allows the risk train horns are not sounded and STOP signs
risk index that is used in the Risk Index with reduction attributed to the warning device and crossbucks at private crossings do not
Horns. The Risk Index with Horns is then upgrades to be used in establishing a quiet have to be installed until June 24, 2008,
increased by 66.8% to adjust for the lack of zone. which allows three years to install the
the train horn. The adjusted figure is the (4) The fourth difference is that Pre-Rule required signage (§§ 222.35(c)(3) and
initial Quiet Zone Risk Index. There is no Quiet Zones have different minimum 222.35(c)(4)).
credit received for the risk reduction that is requirements under § 222.35. A Pre-Rule
attributable to warning device upgrades in Quiet Zone may be less than one-half mile in A. Requirements for Both Public Authority
New Quiet Zones. length if that was its length as of October 9, Designation and Public Authority
Application—Pre-Rule Quiet Zones
For Pre-Rule Quiet Zones, the Risk Index 1996 (§ 222.35(a)(2)). A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone
with Horns is calculated from the initial risk does not have to have automatic warning The following is necessary when
indices which use the warning devices that devices consisting of flashing lights and gates establishing a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone. This
are currently installed. If a public authority at every public crossing (§ 222.35(b)(3)). The information pertains to Automatic Approval,
elects to upgrade an existing warning device existing crossing safety warning systems in the Public Authority Designation and Public
as part of its quiet zone plan, the accident place as of December 18, 2003 may be Authority Application to FRA methods.
1. Determine all public, private and no later than June 3, 2005 to ensure that train 4. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is then
pedestrian at-grade crossings that will be horns will not start being sounded on June calculated by averaging the risk index for
included within the quiet zone. Also 24, 2005. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone may provide each public crossing within the proposed
determine any existing grade separated a Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation before quiet zone. (Note: The initial Quiet Zone Risk
crossings that fall within the quiet zone. Each it has determined whether or not it qualifies Index and the Crossing Corridor Risk Index
crossing must be identified by the U.S. DOT for automatic approval. Once it has been are the same for Pre-Rule Quiet Zones.)
Crossing Inventory number and street name. determined that the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone will 5. Compare the Quiet Zone Risk Index to
If a crossing does not have a U.S. DOT be established by automatic approval, the the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. If
crossing number, then contact FRA for Public Authority must provide the Notice of the Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to, or less
assistance. Quiet Zone Establishment. This must be than, the Nationwide Significant Risk
2. Document the length of the quiet zone. accomplished no later than December 24, Threshold, then the quiet zone qualifies for
It is not necessary that the quiet zone be at 2005. If the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone does not automatic approval, and the public authority
least one-half mile in length. Pre-Rule Quiet qualify for automatic approval, the Notice of may provide the Notice of Quiet Zone
Zones may be shorter than one-half mile. Quiet Zone Continuation will enable the Establishment. With this approach, FRA will
However, the addition of a new crossing that train horns to be silenced until the quiet zone annually recalculate the Nationwide
is not a part of an existing Pre-Rule Quiet is established in accordance with the rule. Significant Risk Threshold and the Quiet
Zone to a quiet zone nullifies its pre-rule B. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Automatic Zone Risk. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index for
status, and the resulting New Quiet Zone Approval the quiet zone is found to be above the
must be at least one-half mile. The deletion Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, FRA
of a crossing from a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone In order for a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone to be
established under this rule (§ 222.41(a)), one will notify the public authority so that
(except through closure or grade separation) appropriate measures can be taken (See
must result in a quiet zone that is at least one of the following conditions must be met:
a. One or more SSMs as identified in § 222.51(b)). If the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone is not
half mile in length. It is the intent of the rule established by this step, proceed on to the
to allow adjacent Pre-Rule Quiet Zones to be appendix A are installed at each public
crossing in the quiet zone; or next step.
combined into one large pre-rule quiet zone 6. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index is above the
if the respective public authorities desire to b. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to,
or less than, the Nationwide Significant Risk Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, but
do so. less than twice the Nationwide Significant
Threshold; or
3. A complete and accurate Grade Crossing Risk Threshold and there have been no
c. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is above the
Inventory Form must be on file with FRA for relevant collisions at any public grade
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold but
all crossings (public, private and pedestrian) crossing within the quiet zone for the
less than twice the Nationwide Significant
within the quiet zone. An inspection of each preceding five years, then the quiet zone
Risk Threshold and there have been no
crossing in the proposed quiet zone should qualifies for automatic approval and the
relevant collisions at any public grade
be performed and the Grade Crossing public authority may provide the Notice of
crossing within the quiet zone for the
Inventory Forms updated, as necessary, to Quiet Zone Establishment. (Note: A relevant
preceding five years; or
reflect the current conditions at each collision means a collision at a highway-rail
d. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is equal to,
crossing. grade crossing between a train and a motor
or less than, the Risk Index With Horns.
4. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones must retain, and Additionally, the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone vehicle, excluding the following: a collision
may upgrade, the existing grade crossing must be in compliance with the minimum resulting from an activation failure of an
safety warning systems. Unlike New Quiet requirements for quiet zones (§ 222.35) and active grade crossing warning system; a
Zones, it is not necessary that every public the notification requirements in § 222.43. collision in which there is no driver in the
crossing within a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone be The following discussion is meant to motor vehicle; or a collision where the
equipped with active warning devices provide guidance on the steps necessary to highway vehicle struck the side of the train
comprising both flashing lights and gates. determine if a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone qualifies beyond the fourth locomotive unit or rail
Existing warning devices need not be for automatic approval. car.) With this approach, FRA will annually
equipped with power out indicators and 1. All of the items listed in Requirements recalculate the Nationwide Significant Risk
constant warning time circuitry. If warning for Both Public Authority Designation and Threshold and the Quiet Zone Risk. If the
devices are upgraded to flashing lights, or Public Authority Application—Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Risk Index for the quiet zone is
flashing lights and gates, the upgraded Quiet Zones previously mentioned are to be above two times the Nationwide Significant
equipment must include, as is required for accomplished. Remember that a Pre-Rule Risk Threshold, or a relevant collision has
New Quiet Zones, power out indicators and Quiet Zone may be less than one-half mile in occurred during the preceding year, FRA will
constant warning time devices (if reasonably length if that was its length as of October 9, notify the public authority so that
practical). 1996. Also, a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone does not appropriate measures can be taken (See
5. By June 24, 2008, private crossings must have to have automatic warning devices § 222.51(b)).
have cross-bucks and ‘‘STOP’’ signs on both consisting of flashing lights and gates at 7. If the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone is not
approaches to the crossing. every public crossing. established by automatic approval,
6. By June 24, 2008, pedestrian crossings 2. If one or more SSMs as identified in continuation of the quiet zone will require
must be equipped with signs that conform to appendix A are installed at each public implementation of SSMs or ASMs to reduce
the MUTCD that advise pedestrians that train crossing in the quiet zone, the quiet zone the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the quiet zone
horns are not sounded at the crossing. qualifies and notification should take place. to a risk level equal to, or below, either the
7. By June 24, 2008, each highway If the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone does not qualify risk level which would exist if locomotive
approach to every public and private crossing by this step, proceed on to the next step. horns sounded at all crossings in the quiet
must have an advanced warning sign (in 3. Calculate the risk index for each public zone (i.e. the Risk Index with Horns) or the
accordance with the MUTCD) that advises crossing within the quiet zone (See appendix Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. This
motorists that train horns are not sounded at D.) Be sure that the risk index is calculated is the same methodology used to create New
the crossing. using the formula appropriate for the type of Quiet Zones with the exception of the four
8. It will be necessary for the public warning device that is actually installed at differences previously noted. A review of the
authority to provide a Notice of Quiet Zone the crossing. Unlike New Quiet Zones, it is previous discussion on the two methods used
Continuation in order for the railroads not to not necessary to calculate the risk index to establish quiet zones may prove helpful in
start sounding train horns when the rule using flashing lights and gates as the warning determining which would be the most
becomes effective. A detailed discussion of device at every public crossing. (FRA’s web- beneficial to use for a particular Pre-Rule
the requirements of § 222.43(c) is provided in based Quiet Zone Calculator may be used to Quiet Zone.
Section IV of this appendix. The Notice of simplify the calculation process). If the
Quiet Zone Continuation must be provided to Inventory record does not reflect the actual C. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Public Authority
the appropriate parties by all Pre-Rule Quiet conditions at the crossing, be sure to use the Designation
Zones that have not established quiet zones conditions that currently exist when The following discussion is meant to
by automatic approval. This should be done calculating the risk index. provide guidance on the steps necessary to
establish a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone using the prediction value for that crossing must be re- Public Authority Application—Pre-Rule
Public Authority Designation method. calculated for the new warning device. Quiet Zones’’ previously mentioned are to be
1. The public authority must provide a Determine the new risk index for the accomplished. Remember that a Pre-Rule
written Notice of Detailed Plan upgraded crossing by using the new accident Quiet Zone may be less than one-half mile in
(§§ 222.43(a)(3) and 222.43(d)) to the prediction value in the severity risk index length if that was its length as of October 9,
railroads that operate over the proposed quiet formula. This new risk index is then used to 1996. Also, a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone does not
zone, the State agency responsible for compute the new Quiet Zone Risk Index. have to have automatic warning devices
highway and road safety and the State agency (Remember that FRA’s web-based Quiet zone consisting of flashing lights and gates at
responsible for grade crossing safety. This Calculator will be able to do the actual every public crossing.
notice must be given at least four months computations.) Once the Quiet Zone Risk 3. Calculate the risk index for each public
before the filing of the detailed plan with Index has been reduced to equal to, or less crossing within the quiet zone (See appendix
FRA as required in § 222.41(c)(2). The than, either the Nationwide Significant Risk D. FRA’s web-based Quiet Zone Calculator
purpose of this Notice of Detailed Plan is to Threshold or the Risk Index with Horns, the may be used to simplify the calculation
provide an opportunity for the railroads and quiet zone has qualified for the Public process). If the Inventory record does not
the State agencies to provide comments and Authority Designation method, and the reflect the actual conditions at the crossing,
recommendations to the public authority as public authority may provide the Notice of be sure to use the conditions that currently
it is planning the quiet zone. They will have Quiet Zone Establishment once all the exist when calculating the risk index.
60 days to provide these comments to the necessary improvements have been installed. 4. The Crossing Corridor Risk Index is then
public authority. The quiet zone cannot be If the quiet zone is established by reducing calculated by averaging the risk index for
created unless the Notice of Detailed Plan has the Quiet Zone Risk Index to a risk level each public crossing within the proposed
been provided. FRA encourages public equal to, or less than, the Nationwide quiet zone. Since train horns are not being
authorities to provide the required Notice of Significant Risk Threshold, FRA will sounded for crossings, this value is actually
Detailed Plan early in the quiet zone annually recalculate the Nationwide the initial Quiet Zone Risk Index.
development process. The railroads and State Significant Risk Threshold and the Quiet 5. Calculate Risk Index with Horns by the
agencies can provide an expertise that very Zone Risk Index. If the Quiet Zone Risk following:
well may not be present within the public Index for the quiet zone rises above the a. For each public crossing, divide its risk
authority. FRA believes that it will be very Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, FRA index that was calculated in Step 2 by the
useful to include these organizations in the will notify the public authority so that appropriate value in Table 1. This produces
planning process. For example, including appropriate measures can be taken (See the risk index that would have existed had
them in the inspections of the crossing will § 222.51(b)). the train horn been sounded.
help ensure accurate Inventory information Note: The provisions stated above for b. Average these reduced risk indices
for the crossings. Note: Please see Section IV crossing closures, grade separations, wayside together. The resulting average is the Risk
for details on the requirements of a Notice of horns, pre-existing SSMs and pre-existing Index with Horns.
Detailed Plan. modified SSMs apply for Public Authority 6. Begin to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk
2. All of the items listed in ‘‘Requirements Application to FRA as well. Index through the use of ASMs and/or SSMs.
for both Public Authority Designation and D. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Public Authority Follow the procedure provided in Step 6—
Public Authority Application—Pre-Rule Application to FRA New Quiet Zones Public Authority
Quiet Zones’’ previously mentioned are to be Designation—until the Quiet Zone Risk Index
The following discussion is meant to
accomplished. Remember that a Pre-Rule has been reduced to a level equal to, or less
provide guidance on the steps necessary to
Quiet Zone may be less than one-half mile in than, either the Nationwide Significant Risk
establish a Pre-Rule Quiet zone using the
length if that was its length as of October 9, Threshold or the Risk Index with Horns. A
Public Authority Application to FRA
1996. Also, a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone does not public authority may elect to upgrade an
method.
have to have automatic warning devices 1. The public authority must provide a existing warning device as part of its Pre-
consisting of flashing lights and gates at written Notice of Detailed Plan Rule Quiet Zone plan. When upgrading a
every public crossing. (§§ 222.43(a)(3) and 222.43(d)) to the warning device, the accident prediction
3. Calculate the risk index for each public railroads that operate over the proposed quiet value for that crossing must be re-calculated
crossing within the quiet zone as in Step 3— zone, the State agency responsible for for the new warning device. Determine the
Pre-Rule Quiet Zones—Automatic Approval. highway and road safety and the State agency new risk index for the upgraded crossing by
4. The Crossing Corridor Risk Index is then responsible for grade crossing safety. This using the new accident prediction value in
calculated by averaging the risk index for notice must be given at least four months the severity risk index formula. (Remember
each public crossing within the proposed before the filing of the detailed plan with that FRA’s web-based quiet zone risk
quiet zone. Since train horns are not being FRA as required in § 222.41(c)(2). The calculator will be able to do the actual
sounded for crossings, this value is actually purpose of this Notice of Detailed Plan is to computations.) This new risk index is then
the initial Quiet Zone Risk Index. provide an opportunity for the railroads and used to compute the new Quiet Zone Risk
5. Calculate Risk Index with Horns by the the State agencies to provide comments and Index. Effectiveness rates for ASMs should be
following: recommendations to the public authority as provided as follows:
a. For each public crossing, divide the risk it is planning the quiet zone. They will have a. Modified SSMs—Estimates of
index that was calculated in Step 2 by the 60 days to provide these comments to the effectiveness for modified SSMs may be
appropriate value in Table 1. This produces public authority. The quiet zone cannot be proposed based upon adjustments from the
the risk index that would have existed had created unless the Notice of Detailed Plan has benchmark levels provided in appendix A or
the train horn been sounded. been provided. FRA encourages public from actual field data derived from the
b. Average these reduced risk indices authorities to provide the required Notice of crossing sites. The application should
together. The resulting average is the Risk Detailed Plan early in the quiet zone provide an estimated effectiveness rate and
Index with Horns. development process. The railroads and State the rationale for the estimate.
6. Begin to reduce the Quiet Zone Risk agencies can provide an expertise that very b. Non-engineering ASMs—Effectiveness
Index through the use of SSMs or by well may not be present within the public rates are to be calculated in accordance with
upgrading existing warning devices. Follow authority. FRA believes that it will be very the provisions of appendix B, section II B.
the procedure provided in Step 6—Public useful to include these organizations in the c. Engineering ASMs—Effectiveness rates
Authority Designation until the Quiet Zone planning process. For example, including are to be calculated in accordance with the
Risk Index has been reduced to a level equal them in the inspections of the crossing will provisions of appendix B, section III B.
to, or less than, either the Nationwide help ensure accurate Inventory information 7. Once it has been determined through
Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk Index for the crossings. Note: Please see Section IV analysis that the Quiet Zone Risk Index has
with Horns. A public authority may elect to for details on the requirements of a Notice of been reduced to a level equal to, or less than,
upgrade an existing warning device as part of Detailed Plan. either the Nationwide Significant Risk
its Pre-Rule Quiet Zone plan. When 2. All of the items listed in ‘‘Requirements Threshold or the Risk Index with Horns, the
upgrading a warning device, the accident for both Public Authority Designation and public authority may make application to
FRA for a quiet zone under § 222.39(b). FRA authority may have to make more than one State agency that receives the Notice of Intent
will review the application to determine the notification during the entire process of provides either written comments to the
appropriateness of the proposed effectiveness complying with the regulation. The public authority or a written statement
rates, and whether or not the proposed notification process is to ensure that waiving its right to provide comments on the
application demonstrates that the quiet zone interested parties are made aware in a timely Notice of Intent. The public authority must
meets the requirements of the rule. When manner of the establishment or continuation provide an affirmation in the Notice of Quiet
submitting the application to FRA for of quiet zones. It will also provide an Zone Establishment that each of the required
approval, it should be remembered that the opportunity for State agencies and affected parties was provided the Notice of Intent and
application must contain the following railroads to provide input to the public the date it was mailed. If the quiet zone is
(§ 222.39(b)(1)): authority during the development of quiet being established within 60 days of the
a. Sufficient detail concerning the present zones. Specific information is to be provided mailing of the Notice of Intent, the public
safety measures at all crossings within the so that the crossings in the quiet zone can be authority also must affirm each of the parties
proposed quiet zone. This includes current identified. Providing the appropriate have provided written comments or waived
and accurate crossing inventory forms for notification is important because once the its right to provide comments on the Notice
each public and private grade crossing. rule becomes effective, railroads will be of Quiet Zone Establishment.
b. Detailed information on the SSMs, obligated to sound train horns when
ASMs, or upgraded warning devices that are approaching all public crossings unless C. Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation—
proposed to be implemented and at which notified in accordance with the rule that a § 222.43(c)
public crossings within the proposed quiet New Quiet Zone has been established or that The purpose of the Notice of Quiet Zone
zone. a Pre-Rule or Intermediate Quiet Zone is Continuation is to provide a means for the
c. Membership and recommendations of being continued. public authority to formally advise affected
the diagnostic team (if any) that reviewed the parties that an existing quiet zone is being
proposed quiet zone. B. Notice of Intent—§ 222.43(b) continued after the effective date of the rule.
d. Statement of efforts taken to work with The purpose of the Notice of Intent is to All Pre-Rule, Pre-Rule Partial, Intermediate
affected railroads and the State agency provide notice to the railroads and State and Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones must
responsible for grade crossing safety, agencies that the public authority is planning provide this Notice of Quiet Zone
including a list of any objections raised by on creating a New Quiet Zone and to provide Continuation no later than June 3, 2005 to
the railroads or State agency. an opportunity for the railroad and the state ensure that train horns are not sounded at
e. A commitment to implement the agencies to give input to the public authority public crossings when the rule becomes
proposed safety measures. during the quiet zone development process. effective on June 24, 2005. This will enable
f. Demonstrate through data and analysis (Note: This includes Intermediate and railroads to properly comply with the
that the proposed measures will reduce the Intermediate Partial Quiet Zones that must requirements of the Final Rule.
Quiet Zone Risk Index to, or below, either the qualify as New Quiet Zones in order to keep Each public authority that is continuing an
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or the the train horn silenced as of June 24, 2006.) existing Pre-Rule, Pre-Rule Partial,
Risk Index with Horns. The State agencies and railroads will be Intermediate and Intermediate Partial Quiet
g. A copy of the application must be given sixty days to provide information and Zone must provide written notice, by
provided to all railroads operating over the comments to the public agency. Each public certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
public highway-rail grade crossings within authority that is creating a New Quiet Zone following:
the quiet zone; the highway or traffic control must provide written notice, by certified 1. All railroads operating over the public
or law enforcement authority having mail, return receipt requested, to the highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet
jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at grade following: zone.
crossings within the quiet zone; the 1. All railroads operating within the 2. The highway or traffic control or law
landowner having control over any private proposed quiet zone. enforcement authority having jurisdiction
crossings within the quiet zone; the State 2. State agency responsible for highway over vehicular traffic at grade crossings
agency responsible for highway and road and road safety. within the quiet zone.
safety; the State agency responsible for grade 3. State agency responsible for grade 3. The landowner having control over any
crossing safety; and the Associate crossing safety. private crossings within the quiet zone.
Administrator. (§ 222.39(b)(3)) The Notice of Intent must contain the 4. The State agency responsible for
8. Upon receiving written approval from following information: highway and road safety.
FRA of the quiet zone application, the public 1. A list of each public highway-rail grade 5. The State agency responsible for grade
authority may then provide the Notice of crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, crossing safety.
Quiet Zone Establishment and implement the and pedestrian crossings within the proposed 6. The Associate Administrator.
quiet zone. If the quiet zone is established by quiet zone. The crossings are to be identified The Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation
reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to a level by both the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory must contain the following information:
equal to, or less than, the Nationwide Number and the street or highway name. 1. A list of each public highway-rail grade
Significant Risk Threshold, FRA will 2. A statement of the time period within crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing,
annually recalculate the Nationwide which the restrictions would be in effect on and pedestrian crossing within the quiet
Significant Risk Threshold and the Quiet the routine sounding of train horns (i.e., 24 zone, identified by both U.S. DOT National
Zone Risk. If the Quiet Zone Risk Index for hours or from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory
the quiet zone is above the Nationwide 3. A brief explanation of the public Number and street or highway name.
Significant Risk Threshold, FRA will notify authority’s tentative plans for implementing 2. A specific reference to the regulatory
the public authority so that appropriate improvements within the proposed quiet provision that provides the basis for quiet
measures can be taken (See § 222.51(b)). zone. zone continuation, citing as appropriate,
Note: The provisions stated above for 4. The name and title of the person who § 222.41 or 222.42.
crossing closures, grade separations, wayside will act as the point of contact during the 3. A statement of the time period within
horns, pre-existing SSMs and pre-existing quiet zone development process and how which restrictions on the routine sounding of
modified SSMs apply for Public Authority that person can be contacted. the locomotive horn will be imposed (i.e., 24
Application to FRA as well. 5. A list of the names and addresses of each hours or nighttime hours only.)
party that will receive a copy of the Notice 4. An accurate and complete Grade
Section IV—Required Notifications of Intent. Crossing Inventory Form for each public
The parties that receive the Notice of Intent highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-
A. Introduction will be able to submit information or rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing
The public authority is responsible for comments to the public authority for 60 days. within the quiet zone that reflects conditions
providing notification to parties that will be The public authority will not be able to currently existing at the crossing.
affected by the quiet zone. There are several establish the quiet zone during the 60 day 5. The name and title of the person
different types of notifications and a public comment period unless each railroad and responsible for monitoring compliance with
the requirements of this part and the manner The parties that receive the Notice of include a copy of the FRA web page that
in which that person can be contacted. Detailed Plan will be able to submit contains the quiet zone data upon which the
6. A list of the names and addresses of each information or comments to the public public authority is relying.
party that will receive the Notice of Quiet authority for 60 days. The public authority (b) If the Notice of Quiet Establishment
Zone Continuation. must provide an affirmation that each of the contains a specific reference to § 222.39(b), it
7. A statement signed by the chief parties has provided been provided the shall include a copy of FRA’s notification of
executive officer of each public authority Notice of Detailed Plan and provide the date approval.
participating in the continuation of the quiet that the notice was mailed. 3. If a diagnostic team review was required
zone, in which the chief executive officer under § 222.25 (private crossings) or § 222.27
certifies that the information submitted by E. Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment— (pedestrian crossings), the Notice of Quiet
the public authority is accurate and complete § 222.43(e) Establishment shall include a statement
to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. The purpose of the Notice of Quiet Zone affirming that the State agency responsible
Public authorities should remember that Establishment is to provide a means for the for grade crossing safety and all affected
this notice is required to ensure that train public authority to formally advise affected railroads were provided an opportunity to
horns will remain silent. Even if a public parties that a quiet zone is being established. participate in the diagnostic team review.
authority has not been able to determine Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment must be The Notice of Quiet Establishment shall also
whether its Pre-Rule or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet provided under the following circumstances: include a list of recommendations made by
Zone qualifies for automatic approval under 1. A New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet the diagnostic team.
the rule, it should issue a Notice of Quiet Zone is being created. 4. A statement of the time period within
Zone Continuation to keep the train horns 2. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or a Pre-Rule which restrictions on the routine sounding of
silent after the effective date of the rule. Partial Quiet Zone that qualifies for the locomotive horn will be imposed (i.e., 24
automatic approval under the rule is being hours or from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.).
D. Notice of Detailed Plan—§ 222.43(d) established. 5. An accurate and complete Grade
The purpose of the Notice of Detailed Plan 3. An Intermediate Quiet Zone or Crossing Inventory Form for each public
is to provide notice to the railroads and State Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone that is highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-
agencies that the public authority is planning creating a New Quiet Zone under the rule. rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing
on filing a detailed plan for a Pre-Rule or Pre- Please note that these quiet zones must be within the quiet zone that reflects the
Rule Partial Quiet Zone that was not brought into compliance with the rule by conditions existing at the crossing before any
established by automatic approval under June 24, 2006. new SSMs or ASMs were implemented.
§ 222.41. The public authority is required to 4. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or a Pre-Rule 6. An accurate, complete and current Grade
provide to FRA a detailed plan on how the Partial Quiet Zone that was not established Crossing Inventory Form for each public
quiet zone will be brought into compliance by automatic approval and has since highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-
with the rule. The Notice of Detailed Plan implemented improvements to establish a rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing
will provide an opportunity for the railroad quiet zone in accordance to the rule. within the quiet zone that reflects SSMs and
and the state agencies to give input to the Each public authority that is establishing a ASMs in place upon establishment of the
public authority during the quiet zone quiet zone under the above circumstances quiet zone. SSMs and ASMs that cannot be
development process. The Notice of Detailed must provide written notice, by certified fully described on the Inventory Form shall
Plan must be provided at least four months mail, return receipt requested, to the be separately described.
before the public authority submits its following: 7. If the public authority was required to
detailed plan to FRA. The State agencies and 1. All railroads operating over the public provide a Notice of Intent:
railroads will be given 60 days to provide highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet (a) The Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
information and comments to the public zone. shall contain a statement affirming that the
agency. 2. The highway or traffic control or law Notice of Intent was provided in accordance
Each public authority that is required to enforcement authority having jurisdiction with the rule. This statement shall also state
provide FRA with a detailed plan must over vehicular traffic at grade crossings the date on which the Notice of Intent was
provide written notice, by certified mail, within the quiet zone. mailed.
return receipt requested, to the following: 3. The landowner having control over any (b) If the Notice of Quiet Zone
1. All railroads operating within the quiet private crossings within the quiet zone. Establishment will be mailed less than 60
zone. 4. The State agency responsible for days after the date on which the Notice of
2. State agency responsible for highway highway and road safety. Intent was mailed, the Notice of Quiet Zone
and road safety. 5. The State agency responsible for grade Establishment shall also contain a written
3. State agency responsible for grade crossing safety. statement affirming that comments and/or
crossing safety. 6. The Associate Administrator. written waiver statements have been received
The Notice of Detailed Plan must contain The Notice of Quiet Establishment must from each railroad operating over public
the following information: contain the following information: grade crossings within the proposed quiet
1. A list of each public highway-rail grade 1. A list of each public highway-rail grade zone, the State agency responsible for grade
crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, crossing safety, and the State agency
and pedestrian crossing within the quiet and pedestrian crossing within the quiet responsible for highway and road safety.
zone. The crossings are to be identified by zone, identified by both U.S. DOT National 8. If the public authority was required to
both the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory provide a Notice of Detailed Plan, the Notice
Number and the street or highway name. Number and street or highway name. of Quiet Zone Establishment shall contain a
2. A statement of the time period within 2. A specific reference to the regulatory statement affirming that the Notice of
which the restrictions would be in effect on provision that provides the basis for quiet Detailed Plan was provided and the date on
the routine sounding of train horns (i.e., 24 zone establishment, citing as appropriate, which the Notice of Detailed Plan was
hours or nighttime hours only). § 222.39(a)(1), 222.39(a)(2)(i), 222.39(a)(2)(ii), mailed.
3. A brief explanation of the public 222.39(a)(3), 222.39(b), 222.41(a)(1)(i), 9. The name and title of the person
authority’s tentative plans for implementing 222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii), responsible for monitoring compliance with
improvements within the proposed quiet 222.41(a)(1)(iv), 222.41(b)(1)(i), the requirements of this part and the manner
zone. 222.41(b)(1)(ii), 222.41(b)(1)(iii), or in which that person can be contacted.
4. The name and title of the person who 222.41(b)(1)(iv). 10. A list of the names and addresses of
will act as the point of contact during the (a) If the Notice of Quiet Establishment each party that is receiving a copy of the
quiet zone development process and how contains a specific reference to Notice of Quiet Establishment.
that person can be contacted. § 222.39(a)(2)(i), 222.39(a)(2)(ii), 222.39(a)(3), 11. A statement signed by the chief
5. A list of the names and addresses of each 222.41(a)(1)(ii), 222.41(a)(1)(iii), executive officer of each public authority
party that will receive a copy of the Notice 222.41(a)(1)(iv), 222.41(b)(1)(ii), participating in the establishment of the quiet
of Detailed Plan. 222.41(b)(1)(iii), or 222.41(b)(1)(iv), it shall zone, in which the chief executive officer
shall certify that the information submitted sounding (‘‘Crossing Risk Index w/Horns’’) in risk in the proposed quiet zone taking into
by the public authority is accurate and the second. The third column, ‘‘Crossing Risk consideration the increased risk caused by
complete to the best of his/her knowledge Index w/o Horns,’’ is the risk index for each the lack of train horns and the reductions in
and belief. crossing after it has been inflated by 66.8% risk attributable to the installation of SSMs.
to account for the lack of train horns. The For this example, it is assumed that the
Section V—Examples of Quiet Zone fourth column, ‘‘SSM Eff,’’ is the
Implementations Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold is
effectiveness of the SSM at the crossing. A 17,030. In order for the proposed quiet zone
Example 1—New Quiet Zone zero indicates that no SSM has been applied.
to qualify under the rule, the Quiet Zone Risk
The last column, ‘‘Crossing Risk Index w/o
(a) A public authority wishes to create a Index must be reduced to a level at, or below,
Horns Plus SSM,’’ is the inflated risk index
New Quiet Zone over four public crossings. for the crossing after being reduced by the the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
All of the crossings are equipped with implementation of the SSM. At the bottom of (17,030) or the Risk Index with Horns.
flashing lights and gates, and the length of the table are two values. The first is the Risk (c) Table 2 shows the existing conditions
the quiet zone is 0.75 mile. There are no Index with Horns (‘‘RIWH’’) which in the proposed quiet zone. SSMs have not
private crossings within the proposed zone. represents the average initial amount of risk yet been installed. The Risk Index with
(b) The tables that follow show the street in the proposed quiet zone with the train Horns for the proposed quiet zone is 11,250.
name in the first column, and the existing horn sounding. The second is the Quiet Zone The Quiet Zone Risk Index without any
risk index for each crossing with the horn Risk Index (‘‘QZRI’’), which is the average SSMs is 18,765.
TABLE 2
Crossing risk
Crossing risk Crossing risk
Street SSM EFF index w/o horns
index w/horns index w/o horns plus SSM
A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0 20016

B ....................................................................................................... 10000 16680 0 16680
C ...................................................................................................... 8000 13344 0 13344
D ...................................................................................................... 15000 25020 0 25020
RIWH QZRI
11250 18765
(d) The public authority decides to install of traffic channelization devices is 0.75. reduced to 14,073.75. This reduction in risk
traffic channelization devices at D Street. Table 3 shows the changes in the proposed would qualify the quiet zone as the risk has
Reducing the risk at the crossing that has the quiet zone corridor that would occur when been reduced lower than the Nationwide
highest severity risk index will provide the traffic channelization devices are installed at Significant Risk Threshold which is 17,030.
greatest reduction in risk. The effectiveness D Street. The Quiet Zone Risk Index has been
TABLE 3
Crossing risk
A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0 20016

B ....................................................................................................... 10000 16680 0 16680
C ...................................................................................................... 8000 13344 0 13344
D ...................................................................................................... 15000 25020 0.75 6255
RIWH QZRI
11250 14073.75
(e) The public authority realizes that Risk Threshold (14,074 to 17,030), there is a by the use of traffic channelization devices at
reducing the Quiet Zone Risk Index to a level reasonable chance that the Quiet Zone Risk A Street. Table 4 shows the results of this
below the Nationwide Significant Risk Index may some day exceed the Nationwide change. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is now
Threshold will result in an annual re- Significant Risk Threshold. This would result 10,320.75 which is less than the Risk Index
calculation of the Quiet Zone Risk Index and in the quiet zone no longer being qualified with Horns of 11,250. The quiet zone now
comparison to the Nationwide Significant and additional steps would have to be taken qualifies by fully compensating for the loss
Risk Threshold. As the Quiet Zone Risk to keep the quiet zone. Therefore, the public of train horns and will not have to undergo
Index is close to the Nationwide Significant authority decides to reduce the risk further annual reviews of the Quiet Zone Risk Index.
TABLE 4
Crossing risk
A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0.75 5004

B ....................................................................................................... 10000 16680 0 16680
C ...................................................................................................... 8000 13344 0 13344
D ...................................................................................................... 15000 25020 0.75 6255
RIWH QZRI
11250 10320.75
Example 2—Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Index w/Horns’’, is the risk index for each taking into consideration the increased risk
(a) A public authority wishes to qualify a crossing after it has been adjusted to reflect caused by the lack of train horns and
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone which did not meet the what the risk would have been had train reductions in risk attributable to the
requirements for Automatic Approval horns been sounding. This is mathematically installation of SSMs. Once again it is
because the Quiet Zone Risk Index is greater done by dividing the existing risk index for assumed that the Nationwide Significant Risk
than twice the Nationwide Significant Risk the three gated crossing by 1.668. The risk at Threshold is 17,030. The Quiet Zone Risk
Threshold. There are four public crossings in the passive crossing at Z Street is divided by Index must be reduced to either the
the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone. Three of the 1.749. (See the above discussion in ‘‘Pre-Rule Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
crossings are equipped with flashing lights Quiet Zones—Establishment Overview’’ for (17,030) or to the Risk Index with Horns in
and gates, and the fourth (Z Street) is more information.) The fourth column, ‘‘SSM
order to qualify under the rule.
passively signed with a STOP sign. The Eff’’, is the effectiveness of the SSM at the
crossing. A zero indicates that no SSM has (c) Table 5 shows the existing conditions
length of the quiet zone is 0.6 mile, and there in the proposed quiet zone. SSMs have not
are no private crossings within the proposed been applied. The last column, ‘‘Crossing
Risk Index w/o Horns Plus SSM’’, is the risk yet been installed. The Risk Index with
zone.
(b) The tables that follow are very similar index without horns for the crossing after Horns for the proposed quiet zone is
to the tables in Example 1. The street name being reduced for the implementation of the 18,705.83. The Quiet Zone Risk Index
is shown in the first column, and the existing SSM. At the bottom of the table are two without any SSMs is 31,375. Since the
risk index for each crossing (‘‘Crossing Risk values. The first is the Risk Index with Horns Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold is less
Index w/o Horns’’) in the second. This is a (RIWH), which represents the average initial than the calculated Risk Index with Horns,
change from the first example because the amount of risk in the proposed quiet zone the public authority’s goal will be to reduce
risk is calculated without train horns with the train horn sounding. The second is the risk to at least value of the Risk Index
sounding because of the existing ban on the Quiet Zone Risk Index (‘‘QZRI’’), which with Horns. This will qualify the Pre-Rule
whistles. The third column, ‘‘Crossing Risk is the average risk in the proposed quiet zone Quiet Zone under the rule.
TABLE 5
Crossing risk
index w/o horns index w/horns plus SSM
W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

X ....................................................................................................... 42000 25179.86 0 42000
Y ....................................................................................................... 33500 20083.93 0 33500
Z ....................................................................................................... 15000 8576.33 0 15000
RIWH QZRI
18705.83 31375
(d) The Z Street crossing is scheduled to authority may take credit for the risk contribute to the risk reduction necessary to
have flashing lights and gates installed as reduction achieved by the improvement from qualify under the rule. Table 6 shows the
part of the state’s highway-rail grade crossing a passive STOP sign crossing to a crossing quiet zone corridor after including the
safety improvement plan (Section 130). equipped with flashing lights and gates. warning device upgrade at Z Street. The
While this upgrade is not directly a part of Unlike New Quiet Zones, upgrades to Quiet Zone Risk Index has been reduced to
the plan to authorize a quiet zone, the public warning devices in Pre-Rule Quiet Zones do 29,500.
TABLE 6
Crossing risk
W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

X ....................................................................................................... 42000 25179.86 0 42000
Y ....................................................................................................... 33500 20083.93 0 33500
Z ....................................................................................................... 7500 8576.33 0 7500
RIWH QZRI
18705.83 29500
(e) The public authority elects to install detection at X Street. As shown in Table 7, 20,890. This risk reduction is not sufficient
four-quadrant gates without vehicle presence this reduces the Quiet Zone Risk Index to to qualify as quiet zone under the rule.
TABLE 7
Crossing risk
W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

X ....................................................................................................... 42000 25179.86 0.82 7560
Y ....................................................................................................... 33500 20083.93 0 33500
Z ....................................................................................................... 7500 8576.33 0 7500
RIWH QZRI
18705.83 20890
(f) The public authority next decides to use is now reduced to 14,327.5. This risk with Horns. The quiet zone is qualified under
traffic channelization devices at W Street. reduction fully compensates for the loss of the rule.
Table 8 shows that the Quiet Zone Risk Index the train horn as it is less than the Risk Index
TABLE 8
Crossing risk
W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0.75 8750

X ....................................................................................................... 42000 25179.86 0.82 7560
Y ....................................................................................................... 33500 20083.93 0 33500
Z ....................................................................................................... 7500 8576.33 0 7500
RIWH QZRI
18705.83 14327.5
Appendix D to Part 222 ‘‘Determining Risk (d) The resulting basic prediction is 1. Predicted Cost of Fatalities = PC ×
Levels improved in two ways. It is enriched by the P(FC|C) × (Average Number of Fatalities
particular crossing’s collision history for the Observed In Fatal Collisions) × $3 million.
Introduction 2. Predicted Cost of Injuries = PC ×
previous five years and it is calibrated by
The Nationwide Significant Risk resetting normalizing constants. The (P(CC|C) ¥ P(FC|C)) × (Average Number of
Threshold, the Crossing Corridor Risk Index, normalizing constants are reset so that the Injuries in Collisions Involving Injuries) ×
and the Quiet Zone Risk Index are all sum of the predicted accidents in each $1,167,000.
measures of collision risk at public highway- warning device group (passive, flashing PC, P(CC|C), and P(FC|C) are direct outputs of
rail grade crossings that are weighted by the lights, gates) for the top twenty percent most the DOT prediction formulas.
severity of the associated casualties. Each hazardous crossings exactly equals the (b) The average number of fatalities
crossing can be assigned a risk index. number of accidents which occurred in a observed in fatal collisions and the average
(a) The Nationwide Significant Risk recent period for the top twenty percent of number of injuries in collisions involving
Threshold represents the average severity that group. This adjustment factor allows the injuries were calculated by FRA as follows.
weighted collision risk for all public formulas to stay current with collision (c) The highway-rail incident files from
highway-rail grade crossings equipped with trends. The calibration also corrects for errors 1999 through 2003 were matched against a
lights and gates nationwide where train such as data entry errors. The final output is data file containing the list of whistle ban
horns are routinely sounded. FRA developed the predicted number of collisions (PC). crossings in existence from January 1,1999
this index to serve as a threshold of through December 31, 2003 to identify two
(e) The severity formulas answer the
permissible risk for quiet zones established types of collisions involving trains and motor
question, ‘‘What is the chance that a fatality
under this rule. vehicles: (1) those that occurred at crossings
(or casualty) will happen, given that a
(b) The Crossing Corridor Risk Index where a whistle ban was in place during the
collision has occurred?’’ The fatality formula
represents the average severity weighted period, and (2) those that occurred at
collision risk for all public highway-rail calculates the probability of a fatal collision
given that a collision occurs (i.e., the crossings equipped with automatic gates
grade crossings along a defined rail corridor. where a whistle ban was not in place. Certain
(c) The Quiet Zone Risk Index represents probability of a collision in which a fatality
occurs) P(FC|C). Similarly, the casualty records were excluded. These were incidents
the average severity weighted collision risk where the driver was not in the motor
for all public highway-rail grade crossings formula calculates the probability of a
casualty collision given that a collision vehicle, or the motor vehicle struck the train
that are part of a quiet zone. beyond the 4th locomotive or rail car that
occurs P(CC|C). As casualties consist of both
The Prediction Formulas fatalities and injuries, the probability of a entered the crossing. FRA believes that
non-fatal injury collision is found by sounding the train horn would not be very
(a) The Prediction Formulas were
subtracting the probability of a fatal collision effective at preventing such incidents.1
developed by DOT as a guide for allocating
from the probability of a casualty collision. (d) Collisions in the group containing the
scarce traffic safety budgets at the State level.
To convert the probability of a fatal or gated crossings nationwide where horns are
They allow users to rank candidate crossings
casualty collision to the number of expected routinely sounded were then identified as
for safety improvements by collision
fatal or casualty collisions, that probability is either fatal, injury only, or no casualty.
probability. There are three formulas, one for
multiplied by the number of predicted Collisions were identified as fatal if one or
each warning device category:
collisions (PC). more deaths occurred, regardless of whether
1. Automatic gates with flashing lights;
or not injuries were also sustained. Collisions
2. Flashing lights with no gates; and (f) For the prediction and severity index
were identified as injury only when injuries,
3. Passive warning devices. formulas, please see the following DOT
but no fatalities, resulted.
(b) The prediction formulas can be used to publications: Summary of the DOT Rail-
(e) The collisions (incidents) selected were
derive the following for each crossing: Highway Crossings Resource Allocation
summarized by year from 1999 through 2003.
1. The predicted collisions (PC) Procedure—Revised, June 1987, and the Rail-
The total number of collisions for the period
2. The probability of a fatal collision given Highway Crossing Resource Allocation
was 2,161. The fatality rate for each year was
that a collision occurs (P(FC|C)) Procedure: User’s Guide, Third Edition,
calculated by dividing the number of
3. The probability of a casualty collision August 1987. Both documents are in the
fatalities (‘‘Deaths’’) by the number of fatal
given that a collision occurs (P(CC|C)) docket for this rulemaking and also available
incidents (‘‘Number’’). The injury rates were
(c) The following factors are the through the National Technical Information
calculated by dividing the number of injuries
determinants of the number of predicted Service located in Springfield, Virginia in injury only incidents (‘‘Injured’’) by the
collisions per year: 22161. number of injury only incidents (‘‘Number’’).
1. Average annual daily traffic
2. Total number of trains per day Risk Index
1 The data used to make these exclusions is
3. Number of highway lanes (a) The risk index is basically the predicted
contained in blocks 18—Position of Car Unit in
4. Number of main tracks cost to society of the casualties that are
Train; 19—Circumstance: Rail Equipment Struck/
5. Maximum timetable train speed expected to result from the predicted Struck By Highway User; 28—Number of
6. Whether the highway is paved or not collisions at a crossing. It incorporates three Locomotive Units; and 29—Number of Cars of the
7. Number of through trains per day during outputs of the DOT prediction formulas. The current FRA Form 6180–57 Highway-Rail Grade
daylight hours two components of a risk index are: Crossing Accident/Incident Report.
There were 274 fatal incidents resulting in wayside horn is operating as intended in should check, while in the field, to see that
324 fatalities and yielding a fatality rate sufficient time to enable the locomotive inventory information is up-to-date and
1.1825 for the period. There were 551 injury- engineer to sound the locomotive horn for at accurate. Outdated inventory information
only incidents resulting in 733 injuries and least 15 seconds prior to arrival at the should be updated as part of the quiet zone
yielding an injury rate 1.3303 for the period. crossing in the event the wayside horn is not development process.
(f) Per guidance from DOT, $3 million is operating as intended; When in the field, the diagnostic team
the value placed on preventing a fatality. The 3. The railroad must adopt an operating should take note of the physical
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) developed by rule, bulletin or special instruction requiring characteristics of each crossing, including the
the Association for the Advancement of that the train horn be sounded if the wayside following items:
Automotive Medicine categorizes injuries horn indicator is not visible approaching the 1. Can any of the crossings within the
into six levels of severity. Each AIS level is crossing or if the wayside horn indicator, or proposed quiet zone be closed or
assigned a value of injury avoidance as a an equivalent system, indicates that the consolidated with another adjacent crossing?
fraction of the value of avoiding a fatality . system is not operating as intended; Crossing elimination should always be the
FRA rates collisions that occur at train 4. Horn system must provide a minimum preferred alternative and it should be
speeds in excess of 25 mph as an AIS level sound level of 92 dB(A) and a maximum of explored for crossings within the proposed
5 ($2,287,500) and injuries that result from 110 dB(A) when measured 100 feet from the quiet zone.
collisions involving trains traveling under 25 centerline of the nearest track; 2. What is the number of lanes on each
mph as an AIS level 2 ($46,500). About half 5. Horn system must sound at a minimum highway approach? Note the pavement
of grade crossing collisions occur at speeds of 15 seconds prior to the train’s arrival at the condition on each approach, as well as the
greater than 25 mph. Therefore, FRA crossing and while the lead locomotive is condition of the crossing itself.
estimates that the value of preventing the traveling across the crossing. It is permissible 3. Is the grade crossing surface smooth,
average injury resulting from a grade crossing for the horn system to begin to sound well graded and free draining?
collision is $1,167,000 (the average of an simultaneously with activation of the 4. Does the alignment of the railroad tracks
AIS–5 injury and an AIS–2 injury.) flashing lights or descent of the crossing arm; at the crossing create any problems for road
(g) Notice that the quantity [PC*P(FCC)] 6. Horn shall be directed toward users on the crossing? Are the tracks in
represents the expected number of fatal approaching traffic. superelevation (are they banked on a curve?)
collisions. Similarly, {PC*[P(CC|C)–P(FC|C)]} and does this create a conflict with the
represents the expected number of injury Appendix F to Part 222—Diagnostic Team vertical alignment of the crossing roadway?
collisions. These are then multiplied by their Considerations 5. Note the distance to the nearest
respective average number of fatalities and For purposes of this part, a diagnostic team intersection or traffic signal on each
injuries (from the table above) to develop the is a group of knowledgeable representatives approach (if within 500 feet or so of the
number of expected casualties. The final of parties of interest in a highway-rail grade crossing or if the signal or intersection is
parts of the expressions attach the dollar crossing, organized by the public authority determined to have a potential impact on
values for these casualties. responsible for that crossing who, using highway traffic at the crossing because of
(h) The Risk Index for a Crossing is the crossing safety management principles, queuing or other special problems).
integer sum of the Predicted Cost of Fatalities evaluate conditions at a grade crossing to 6. If a roadway that runs parallel to the
and the Predicted Cost of Injuries. make determinations or recommendations for railroad tracks is within 100 feet of the
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold the public authority concerning the safety railroad tracks when it crosses an intersecting
needs at that crossing. Crossings proposed for road that also crosses the tracks, the
The Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold inclusion in a quiet zone should be reviewed appropriate advance warning signs should be
is simply an average of the risk indexes for in the field by a diagnostic team composed posted as shown in the MUTCD.
all of the gated crossings nationwide where of railroad personnel, public safety or law 7. Is the posted highway speed (on each
train horns are routinely sounded. FRA approach to the crossing) appropriate for the
enforcement, engineering personnel from the
identified 35,803 gated non-whistle ban alignment of the roadway and the
State agency responsible for grade crossing
crossings for input to the Nationwide configuration of the crossing?
safety, and other concerned parties.
Significant Risk Threshold. 8. Does the vertical alignment of the
This diagnostic team, using crossing safety
The Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold crossing create the potential for a ‘‘hump
management principles, should evaluate
rounds to 17,030. This value is recalculated crossing’’ where long, low-clearance vehicles
conditions at a grade crossing to make
annually. might get stuck on the crossing?
determinations and recommendations
Crossing Corridor Risk Index concerning safety needs at that crossing. The 9. What are the grade crossing warning
diagnostic team can evaluate a crossing from devices in place at each crossing? Flashing
The Crossing Corridor Risk Index is the
many perspectives and can make lights and gates are required for each public
average of the risk indexes of all the crossings
in a defined rail corridor. Communities recommendations as to what safety measures crossing in a New Quiet Zone. Are all
seeking to establish ‘‘Quiet Zones’’ should authorized by this part might be utilized to required warning devices, signals, pavement
initially calculate this average for potential compensate for the silencing of the train markings and advance signing in place,
corridors. horns within the proposed quiet zone. visible and in good condition for both day
and night time visibility?
Quiet Zone Risk Index All Crossings Within a Proposed Quiet Zone 10. What kind of train detection is in place
The Quiet Zone Risk Index is the average The diagnostic team should obtain and at each crossing? Are these systems old or
of the risk indexes of all the public crossings review the following information about each outmoded; are they in need of replacement,
in a Quiet Zone. It takes into consideration crossing within the proposed quiet zone: upgrading, or refurbishment?
the absence of the horn sound and any safety 1. Current highway traffic volumes and 11. Are there sidings or other tracks
measures that may have been installed. percent of trucks; adjacent to the crossing that are often used
2. Posted speed limits on all highway to store railroad cars, locomotives, or other
Appendix E to Part 222—Requirements for approaches; equipment that could obscure the vision of
Wayside Horns 3. Maximum allowable train speeds, both road users as they approach the crossings in
This appendix sets forth the following passenger and freight; the quiet zone? Clear visibility may help to
minimum requirements for wayside horn use 4. Accident history for each crossing under reduce automatic warning device violations.
at highway-rail grade crossings: consideration; 12. Are motorists currently violating the
1. Highway-rail crossing must be equipped 5. School bus or transit bus use at the warning devices at any of the crossings at an
with constant warning time device, if crossing; and excessive rate?
reasonably practical, and power-out 6. Presence of U.S. DOT grade crossing 13. Do accident statistics for the corridor
indicator; inventory numbers clearly posted at each of indicate any potential problems at any of the
2. Horn system must be equipped with an the crossings in question. crossings?
indicator or other system to notify the The diagnostic team should obtain all 14. If school buses or transit buses use
locomotive engineer as to whether the inventory information for each crossing and crossings within the proposed quiet zone
corridor, can they be rerouted to use a single State or local law requires it? 1. How often is the pedestrian crossing
crossing within or outside of the quiet zone? Railroad safety rule requires it? used?
Private Crossings Within a Proposed Quiet 7. Are there any nearby crossings where 2. What kind of signing or pavement
Zone train horns sound that might also provide markings are in place at the pedestrian
some warning if train horns were not crossing?
In addition to the items discussed above, sounded at the private crossing?
a diagnostic team should note the following 3. What is the volume, speed, and type of
8. What are the approach (corner) sight train traffic over the crossing?
issues when examining any private crossings distances?
within a proposed quiet zone: 4. Do approaching trains sound the horn at
9. What is the clearing sight distance for all
1. How often is the private crossing used? approaches? the pedestrian crossing?
2. What kind of signing or pavement 10. What are the private roadway approach State or local law requires it?
markings are in place at the private crossing? grades? Railroad safety rule requires it?
3. What types of vehicles use the private 11. What are the private roadway pavement
crossing? 5. Are there any crossings where train
surfaces? horns sound that might also provide some
School buses
Large trucks Pedestrian Crossings Within a Proposed warning if train horns were not sounded at
Hazmat carriers Quiet Zone the pedestrian crossing?
Farm equipment In addition to the items discussed in the 6. What are the approach sight distances?
4. What is the volume, speed and type of section titled, ‘‘’’All crossings within a 7. What is the clearing sight distance for all
train traffic over the crossing? proposed quiet zone’’, a diagnostic team approaches?
5. Do passenger trains use the crossing? should note the following issues when
6. Do approaching trains sound the horn at examining any pedestrian crossings within a Appendix G to Part 222—Schedule of Civil
the private crossing? proposed quiet zone: Penalties 1
Section Violation Willful Violation
Subpart B—Use of Locomotive Horns

§ 222.21 Use of locomotive horn:
(a) Failure to sound horn at grade crossing ............................................................................................ $5,000 $7,500
Failure to sound horn in proper pattern ............................................................................................ 1,000 3,000
(b) Failure to sound horn at least 15 and no more than 20 seconds before crossing; ........................... 5,000 7,500
Routine sounding of the locomotive horn more than 1⁄4-mile in advance of crossing ..................... 5,000 7,500
§ 222.33
Failure to sound horn when conditions of § 222.33 are not met ............................................................. 5,000 7,500
§ 222.45
Routine sounding of the locomotive horn at a grade crossing within a quiet zone ................................ 5,000 7,500
§ 222.49
(b) Failure to provide Grade Crossing Inventory Form information ......................................................... 2,500 5,000
§ 222.59
(d) Routine sounding of the locomotive horn at a grade crossing equipped with wayside horn ............ 5,000 7,500
PART 229—[AMENDED] audible warning device that produces a from the engineer’s usual position
maximum sound level in excess of 110 during operation of the locomotive.
■ 2. The authority citation for part 229 dB(A) and/or a minimum sound level (b)(1) Each locomotive built on or
continues to read as follows: below 96 dB(A), as measured 100 feet after June 24, 2005 shall be tested in
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, forward of the locomotive in the accordance with this section to ensure
20133, 20137–20138, 20143, 20701–20703, direction of travel. that the horn installed on such
21301–21302, 21304; 49 CFR 149(c), (m) * * * * * locomotive is in compliance with
Lot means a collection of locomotives, paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 229.5 [Amended]
equipped with the same horn model, Locomotives built on or after June 24,
■ 3. Section 229.5 is amended by configuration, and location, and the 2005 may, however, be tested in
removing paragraph designations (a) same air pressure and delivery system, accordance with an acceptance
through (p), transferring the definition of which has been manufactured or sampling scheme such that there is a
‘‘electronic air brake’’ so that it appears processed under essentially the same probability of .05 or less of rejecting a
in alphabetical order, and adding the conditions. lot with a proportion of defectives equal
following definitions in alphabetical * * * * * to an AQL of 1% or less, as set forth in
order to read as follows:
■ 4. Section 229.129 is revised to read as 7 CFR part 43.
Acceptable quality level (AQL). The
follows: (2) Each locomotive built before June
AQL is expressed in terms of percent
defective or defects per 100 units. Lots § 229.129 Audible warning device. 24, 2005 shall be tested in accordance
having a quality level equal to a (a) Each lead locomotive shall be with this section before June 24, 2010 to
specified AQL will be accepted provided with an audible warning ensure that the horn installed on such
approximately 95 percent of the time device that produces a minimum sound locomotive is in compliance with
when using the sampling plans level of 96dB(A) and a maximum sound paragraph (a) of this section.
prescribed for that AQL. level of 110 dB(A) at 100 feet forward (3) Each locomotive when rebuilt, as
* * * * * of the locomotive in its direction of determined pursuant to 49 CFR 232.5,
Defective means, for purposes of this travel. The device shall be arranged so shall be tested in accordance with this
part, a locomotive equipped with an that it can be conveniently operated section to ensure that the horn installed
1 A penalty may be assessed against an individual reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to $27,000 for any violation where circumstances
only for a willful violation. The Administrator warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.
on such locomotive is in compliance humidity is between 20 percent and 95 change in the before and after
with paragraph (a). percent inclusively; wind velocity is not calibration levels shall be less than 0.5
(c) Testing of the locomotive horn more than 12 miles per hour and there dB. After the output from the
sound level shall be in accordance with is no precipitation. locomotive horn system has reached a
the following requirements: (7) With the exception of cab- stable level, the A-weighted equivalent
(1) A properly calibrated sound level mounted or low-mounted horns, the sound level (slow response) for a 10-
meter shall be used that, at a minimum, microphone shall be located 100 feet second duration (LAeq, 10s) shall be
complies with the requirements of forward of the front knuckle of the obtained either directly using an
International Electrotechnical locomotive, 15 feet above the top of the integrating-averaging sound level meter,
Commission (IEC) Standard 61672–1 rail, at an angle no greater than 20 or recorded once per second and
(2002–05) for a Class 2 instrument. degrees from the center line of the track, calculated indirectly. The arithmetic-
(2) An acoustic calibrator shall be and oriented with respect to the sound average of a series of at least six such
used that, at a minimum, complies with source according to the manufacturer’s 10-second duration readings shall be
the requirements of IEC Standard 60942 recommendations. For cab-mounted and used to determine compliance. The
(1997–11) for a Class 2 instrument. low-mounted horns, the microphone standard deviation of the readings shall
(3) The manufacturer’s instructions be less than 1.5 dB.
shall be located 100 feet forward of the
pertaining to mounting and orienting
front knuckle of the locomotive, four (10) Written reports of locomotive
the microphone; positioning of the
feet above the top of the rail, at an angle horn testing required by this part shall
observer; and periodic factory
no greater than 20 degrees from the be made and shall reflect horn type; the
recalibration shall be followed.
(4) A microphone windscreen shall be center line of the track, and oriented date, place, and manner of testing; and
used and tripods or similar microphone with respect to the sound source air flow and sound level measurements.
mountings shall be used that minimize according to the manufacturer’s These reports, which shall be signed by
interference with the sound being recommendations. The observer shall the person who performs the test, shall
measured. not stand between the microphone and be retained by the railroad, at a location
(5) The test site shall be free of large the horn. of its choice, until a subsequent
reflective structures, such as barriers, (8) Background noise shall be locomotive horn test is completed and
hills, billboards, tractor trailers or other minimal: the sound level at the test site shall be made available, upon request,
large vehicles, locomotives or rail cars immediately before and after each horn to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.
on adjacent tracks, bridges or buildings, sounding event shall be at least 10
(d) This section does not apply to
within 200 feet to the front and sides of dB(A) below the level measured during
locomotives of rapid transit operations
the locomotive and microphone. The the horn sounding.
which are otherwise subject to this part.
locomotive shall be positioned on (9) Measurement procedures. The
straight, level track. sound level meter shall be set for A- Appendix B to Part 229—[Amended]
(6) Measurements shall be taken only weighting with slow exponential
when ambient air temperature is response and shall be calibrated with ■ 4. The entry for § 229.129 ‘‘Audible
between 32 degrees and 104 degrees the acoustic calibrator immediately warning devices’’ in appendix B to Part
Fahrenheit inclusively; relative before and after compliance tests. Any 229 is revised to read as follows:
Willful
Violation Violation
229.129 Audible warning device:

(a) prescribed sound levels .......................................................................................................................................... $2,500 $5,000
arrangement of device .......................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000
(b) testing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000
(c) test procedures ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000
(c)(10) records of tests ................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21,

2005.
Robert D. Jamison,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–8285 Filed 4–22–05; 8:54 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

Rule: Railroad Safety: Locomotive Horns Use at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Sounding Requirements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Railroad Safety: Locomotive Horns Use at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Sounding Requirements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday,

April 27, 2005

49 CFR Parts 222 and 229

Appendix B: Non-Engineering ASMs:

TABLE 1.—RISK INDEX DIVISOR VALUES

U.S. .................................................................................................................................. 1.749 1.309 1.668

A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0 20016

A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0 20016

A ....................................................................................................... 12000 20016 0.75 5004

W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0 35000

W ...................................................................................................... 35000 20983.21 0.75 8750

Section Violation Willful Violation

Subpart B—Use of Locomotive Horns

229.129 Audible warning device:

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21,

You might also like