Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)
DOCID: FR Doc 06-6912
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229
Docket ID: [Docket No. FRA-1999-6439, Notice No. 17]
RIN ID: RIN 2130-AB73
NOTICE: Part IV
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
DATES: The effective date is September 18, 2006.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of FRA's April 27, 2005 final rule that required that the locomotive horn be sounded while trains approach and enter public highwayrail grade crossings. This document amends and clarifies the final rule, in response to petitions for reconsideration and associated letters in support that have been submitted by interested parties, including the railroad industry, rail unions, and a manufacturer of traffic channelization devices.
SUMMARY:
Transportation Department, Federal Railroad Administration,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Background
On January 13, 2000, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (65 FR 2230) addressing the use of locomotive horns at public highwayrail grade crossings. This rulemaking was mandated by Public Law 103440, which added section 20153 to title 49 of the United States Code. The statute requires the Secretary of Transportation (whose authority in this area has been delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator under 49 CFR 1.49) to issue regulations that require the use of locomotive horns at public grade crossings, but gives the Secretary the authority to make reasonable exceptions.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), FRA solicited written comments from the public. By the close of the comment period on May 26, 2000, approximately 3,000 comments had been filed with this agency regarding the NPRM and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As is FRA's practice, FRA held the public docket open for late filed comments and considered them to the extent possible.
Due to the substantial and wideranging public interest in the NPRM, FRA conducted a series of public hearings throughout the United States in which local citizens, local and State officials, Congressmen, and Senators provided testimony. Twelve hearings were held (Washington, DC; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Pendleton, Oregon; San Bernadino, California; Chicago, Illinois (four hearings were held in the greater Chicago area); Berea, Ohio; South Bend, Indiana; Salem, Massachusetts; and Madison, Wisconsin) at which more than 350 people testified.
On December 18, 2003, FRA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 70586). Even though FRA could have proceeded directly to the final rule stage, FRA chose to issue an interim final rule in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on changes that had been made to the rule. FRA also held a public hearing in Washington, DC on February 4, 2004. By the close of the extended comment period, over 1,400 comments had been filed with the agency regarding the Interim Final Rule. As is FRA's practice, FRA held the public docket open for latefiled comments and considered them to the extent possible. In order to avoid imposing inconsistent regulatory standards for quiet zone creation and establishment, FRA extended the effective date of the Interim Final Rule on November 22, 2004 (69 FR 67858) and on March 18, 2005 (70 FR 13117) so that the Interim Final Rule would not take effect before the final rule was issued.
On April 27, 2005, FRA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 21844). After the final rule was published, FRA received petitions for reconsideration and associated letters in support from the Association of American Railroads, Mr. James Adams of Placentia, California, GE TransportationRail, United Transportation Union, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, BNSF Railway Company and Qwick Kurb, Inc. In addition, the Association of American Railroads submitted a petition for Emergency Order, which was subsequently denied.
2. Statutory Mandate
On November 2, 1994, Congress passed Public Law 103440 (``Act'') which added section 20153 to title 49 of the United States Code (``title 49''). Subsections (I) and (j) were added on October 9, 1996 when section 20153 was amended by Public Law 104264. The Act requires the use of locomotive horns at public highwayrail grade crossings, but gives FRA the authority to make reasonable exceptions.
FRA's Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings (Final Rule) complied with the statutory mandate contained within section 20153 of title 49. As required by section 20153(b) of title 49, the final rule requires locomotive horn sounding by trains that approach and enter public highwayrail grade crossings. (See rule Sec. 222.21.) However, as allowed by 49 U.S.C. 20153(c), the final rule contains exceptions for certain categories of rail operations and highwayrail grade crossings.
Section 222.33 of the rule provides that a railroad operating over a public highwayrail grade crossing may, at its discretion, choose not to sound the locomotive horn if the locomotive speed is 15 miles per hour or less and the train crew or appropriately equipped flaggers provide warning to motorists. FRA has determined that these limited types of rail operations do not present a significant risk of loss of life or serious personal injury.
Locomotive horn sounding is also not required within highwayrail grade crossing corridors that are equipped with supplementary safety measures (SSMs) at each public highwayrail grade crossing. In addition, locomotive horn sounding is not required within highwayrail grade crossing corridors that have a Quiet Zone Risk Index at or below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk Index With Horns. These highwayrail grade crossing corridors have been deemed, by the Administrator, to constitute categories of highwayrail grade crossings that do not present a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury or that fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. Therefore, communities with highwayrail grade crossing corridors that meet either of these standards may silence the locomotive horn within the crossing corridor, if all other applicable quiet zone requirements have been met. (See Sec. 222.39.)
Section 20153(i) of title 49 requires FRA to ``take into account
the interest of communities that have in effect restrictions on the
sounding of a locomotive horn at highwayrail grade crossings.'' FRA
has complied with this requirement in several ways. Until December 24, 2005, the final rule
[[Page 47615]]
allowed communities to establish PreRule Quiet Zones, if the Quiet
Zone Risk Index was at, or below, two times the Nationwide Significant
Risk Threshold and there were no relevant collisions within the quiet
zone since April 27, 2000. (See Sec. 222.41.) It should also be noted
that the final rule allows communities to establish PreRule Quiet
Zones, if SSMs have been implemented at every public grade crossing
within the quiet zone or if the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at, or below,
the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.) Additionally, the rule
allows PreRule Quiet Zone communities to take additional time (up to
eight years from the effective date of the final rule) within which to
implement safety improvements that will bring them into compliance with
the requirements of the rule. This ``grace period'' has been included
in the rule in order to comply with 49 U.S.C. 20153(i)(2), which
requires FRA to provide ``a reasonable amount of time for [preexisting whistle ban] communities to install SSMs''.
Section 20153 of title 49 prohibits FRA from entertaining single party petitions for waiver from the regulatory requirements issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 20153, unless FRA determines that this prohibition against singleparty waiver petitions ``* * * is not likely to contribute significantly to public safety.'' Therefore, Sec. 222.15 of the final rule, which governs the process for obtaining a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 222, requires joint filing of waiver petitions by the railroad and public authority, unless the Associate Administrator makes the determination that joint submission of an individual waiver petition would not be likely to significantly contribute to public safety.
Section 222.55 of the final rule addresses the manner in which new SSMs and ASMs are demonstrated and approved for use. Paragraph (c) of this section, which reflects the requirements contained within 49 U.S.C. 20153(e), specifically provides that the Associate Administrator may order railroad carriers operating over a crossing or crossings to temporarily cease sounding the locomotive horn at the crossing(s) to demonstrate proposed new SSMs and ASMs that have been subject to prior testing and evaluation.
Section 20153(f) of title 49 explicitly gives discretion to the Secretary as to whether private highwayrail grade crossings, pedestrian crossings, and crossings utilized primarily by nonmotorized and other special vehicles should be subject this regulation. FRA has decided to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over crossings utilized primarily by nonmotorized and other special vehicles in this final rule. FRA has, however, exercised its jurisdiction, in a limited manner, over private and pedestrian grade crossings. Under the final rule amendments issued today, the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at private and pedestrian crossings will be governed by this rule, if State law requires the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at these crossings. (Sec. Sec. 222.25 and 222.27) However, routine locomotive horn sounding is prohibited at private and pedestrian grade crossings located within quiet zones, even if other locomotive audible warning devices must be sounded at these crossings per State and local law.
Section 222.7 of the rule contains a concise statement of the rule's impact with respect to 49 U.S.C. 20106 (national uniformity of regulation). This statement of the rule's effect on State and local law, which was required by 49 U.S.C. 20153(h), provides that the rule, when effective, will preempt State and local laws that govern locomotive horn use at public highwayrail grade crossings. Under the final rule amendments issued today, State and local laws that require the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at public, private and pedestrian grade crossings will be preempted to the limited extent described in Sec. Sec. 222.21(e), 222.25 and 222.27 of the rule. However, as stated in Sec. 222.7(b), this rule does not preempt State and local laws governing the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at Chicago Region highwayrail grade crossings where railroads were excused from sounding the locomotive horn by the Illinois Commerce Commission, and where railroads did not sound the horn, as of December 18, 2003.
Lastly, the final rule also complied with the statutory oneyear delay requirement. Section 20153(j) of title 49 prohibits any regulations issued under its authority from becoming effective before the 365th day following the date of publication of the final rule. On December 18, 2003, FRA published an Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highwayrail Grade Crossings, which had the same force and effect as a final rule. After reviewing approximately 1,400 comments on the interim final rule, FRA issued a final rule that granted additional relief to States and local communities and became effective on June 24, 2005. The final rule has therefore complied with 49 U.S.C. 20153(j) because more than the required 365 days elapsed between issuance of the interim final rule on December 18, 2003 and the effective date of the rule on June 24, 2005.
3. Emergency Order 15
Emergency Order 15, issued in 1991, requires the Florida East Coast Railway Company to sound locomotive horns at all public grade crossings. The Emergency Order preempted State and local laws that permitted nighttime bans on the use of locomotive horns. Amendments to the Emergency Order did, however, permit the establishment of quiet zones if supplementary safety measures were implemented at every crossing within a proposed quiet zone. The supplementary safety measures specified in the Emergency Order are similar, but are not identical, to the supplementary safety measures contained in FRA's Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings (70 FR 21844).
FRA has not yet rescinded Emergency Order 15. Therefore, FRA's Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings does not apply to public highwayrail grade crossings within the State of Florida that are currently subject to Emergency Order 15. On April 15, 2005, a public conference was held in Florida, at which FRA solicited comments on the appropriate excess risk estimate that should be applied to public highwayrail grade crossings that are currently subject to Emergency Order 15. While FRA intends to specifically address this issue in the near future, comments that have been received on this issue are still under consideration at this time. 4. Rule Changes
This brief overview of the major amendments that have been made to
the Final Rule is provided for the reader's convenience. Because this
section merely provides an overview, it should not be relied upon for a
comprehensive discussion of all final rule amendments. Indeed, this
full document should be read together with the previous documents
issued in the proceeding. Inasmuch as the Final Rule, Interim Final
Rule and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contained extensive discussion
of both the background of the issues involved in this rulemaking and
the rationale behind decisions relating to those issues, FRA emphasizes
that these amendments should be read in conjunction with the Final
Rule, Interim Final Rule and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Unless the
positions and rationale expressed in those documents have explicitly
changed in the subsequent rulemaking documents, the reader should understand that those
[[Page 47616]]
positions and rationale remain those of FRA.
Summary of Changes to the Final Rule
Section 222.1 What is the purpose of this regulation?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.3 What areas does this regulation cover?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.5 What railroads does this regulation apply to?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.7 What is this regulation's effect on State and local laws and ordinances?
In its petition for reconsideration, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) noted that the Final Rule does not specifically address the preemptive effect of the Final Rule on State and local laws that effectively prohibit and/or restrict the sounding of locomotive horns for testing purposes. Asserting that the Final Rule should preempt such State and local laws, the AAR requested confirmation of FRA's position on this issue.
FRA does not intend to preempt State and local noise ordinances that may have the effect of restricting the time period during which the locomotive horn may be sounded at locations other than grade crossings. FRA was directed to issue regulations that govern the sounding of locomotive horns at public highwayrail grade crossings, provided the interests of communities with preexisting restrictions on locomotive horn sounding were taken into consideration. Given the nature of this statutory directive, FRA is reluctant to disturb longstanding State and local noise ordinances that may restrict locomotive horn sounding at locations other than grade crossing locations without additional information on the adverse impact of these ordinances on the ability of locomotive manufacturers and railroads to conduct locomotive horn testing in accordance with Sec. 229.129 of this part.
Paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to reflect FRA's intent to refrain from preempting any State law, rule, regulation, or order governing the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices, including the locomotive horn, at any highwayrail grade crossing described in Sec. 222.3(c) of this part. Without this revision, FRA might have inadvertently preempted State law by requiring the sounding of the locomotive bell, at the highwayrail grade crossings described in Sec. 222.3(c) of this part, in accordance with this part.
Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section have not been revised. Section 222.9 Definitions
FRA is making a minor revision to the definition of ``channelization device'' in the Final Rule. FRA revised this definition in the Final Rule to prohibit the use of surfacemounted tubular markers and vertical panels within quiet zones as SSMs, where the surfacemounted tubular markers or vertical panels are not used in conjunction with a raised longitudinal channelizer. FRA did not, however, intend to prohibit the use of surfacemounted tubular markers or vertical panels, in conjunction with a raised longitudinal channelizer. FRA recognizes that the use of surfacemounted tubular markers and vertical panels, in conjunction with a raised longitudinal channelizer, can effectively reduce quiet zone risk.
FRA is also correcting an inadvertent error in the preamble discussion of the definition of ``channelization device'' in the Final Rule. In that discussion, FRA stated that ``it would be highly advisable to use raised longitudinal channelizers that are at least four inches high.'' (See 70 FR 21854.) However, in its petition for reconsideration, Qwick Kurb, Inc. (``Qwick Kurb'') noted that FRA partially relied upon the results of statesponsored tests on the efficacy of Qwick Kurb installations, which consist of three and one half inch high longitudinal channelizers with vertical elliptical markers attached, when determining that Qwick Kurb installations had an effectiveness rating of at least .75. Qwick Kurb also noted that Qwick Kurb installations were successfully tested by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under FHWA's NCHRP 350 criteria as a crashworthy traffic control device.
FRA notes that the regulatory text itself does not require use of
raised longitudinal channelizers that are at least four inches high.
Indeed, FRA never intended to discourage the use of raised longitudinal
channelizers that are at least three and onehalf inches high. Even
though Qwick Kurb subsequently withdrew its objection to the preamble
discussion of the definition of ``channelization device'' in the Final
Rule, FRA recognizes that there may be some communities that have
already purchased and installed raised longitudinal channelizers that
are three and onehalf inches in height. Therefore, FRA is clarifying
that raised longitudinal channelizers of at least three and onehalf
inches in height, when affixed with vertical panels or tubular
delineators, constitute acceptable channelization devices for [[Page 47617]]
purposes of this part. Lastly, FRA is removing all references to
specific MUTCD sections from the definition of ``channelization
device'', in recognition of the somewhat transitory nature of MUTCD section citations.
A definition of ``locomotive audible warning device'' has been added to the Final Rule, in recognition of the expanded scope of the Final Rule with respect to the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices , as opposed to just locomotive horns, at public, private and pedestrian grade crossings.
The definition of ``locomotive horn'' has been revised by adding a specific reference to locomotive horns used in rapid transit operations.
The definition of ``MUTCD'' has been revised to correct an inadvertent typographical error.
The definition of ``New Partial Quiet Zone'' has been revised to correct an inadvertent typographical error.
The definition of ``pedestrian grade crossing'' has been revised in order to clarify that the requirements for pedestrian crossings contained within this part only apply to pedestrian grade crossings. Nonetheless, despite the limited scope of these requirements, the terms ``pedestrian crossing'' and ``pedestrian grade crossing'' have been used interchangeably for purposes of this part.
The definition of ``private highwayrail grade crossing'' has been revised to correct an inadvertent typographical error.
Even though the definition of ``PreRule Quiet Zone'' has not been revised, FRA is providing further clarification on the definition of this term. While reviewing Notices of Quiet Zone Continuation that have been submitted by public authorities seeking to continue locomotive horn restrictions in PreRule Quiet Zones, it has come to FRA's attention that disagreements have arisen between public authorities and railroads on whether local ordinances that seem to prohibit locomotive horn sounding at certain highwayrail grade crossings have, in fact, been ``enforced or observed''. In these situations, the public authority and railroad must determine whether locomotive horns were routinely sounded at the grade crossings in question on October 9, 1996 and December 18, 2003, despite locomotive horn sounding restrictions that were ostensibly imposed by State or local law. Railroad timetables that reflect locomotive horn sounding practices on October 9, 1996 and December 18, 2003 will provide dispositive proof on this issue.
Even though the definition of ``quiet zone'' has not been revised,
FRA is providing further clarification on the definition of this term.
A quiet zone may only contain consecutive public highwayrail grade
crossings located on a segment of a rail line. Therefore, a public
authority may find it necessary to establish more than one quiet zone
within the boundaries of a local community. For example, if there are
two railroad tracks running through a local community that are not
adjacent to each other and which do not share grade crossing warning
system devices, a community that wishes to silence the locomotive horn
at grade crossings along both tracks must create separate quiet zones
for each railroad track or rightofway. Also, if there is both a main
line track and an industrial spur track within town limits, a community
that wishes to silence the locomotive horn at grade crossings located
on both tracks must create separate quiet zones for the main line track
and the industrial spur track, unless the main line track and the
industrial spur track share grade crossing warning system devices.
Section 222.11 What are the penalties for failure to comply with this regulation?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.13 Who is responsible for compliance?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.15 How does one obtain a waiver of a provision of this regulation?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.17 How can a State agency become a recognized State agency?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.21 When must a locomotive horn be used?
This section has been revised in order to address the movement of locomotives with inoperative horns, extend the compliance date of paragraph (b) of this section by 120 days, provide a goodfaith exception for locomotive engineers who sound the locomotive horn for more than 20 seconds when approaching public crossings, address the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at public highwayrail grade crossings when required by State and local law and provide a limited exception to the minimum audible warning requirement for trains and locomotives that have stopped in close proximity to a public highwayrail grade crossing.
Paragraph (a) of this section requires locomotive engineers to initiate locomotive horn sounding, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and to continue sounding the locomotive horn until the lead locomotive blocks access to the crossing from all roadway approaches. FRA received a petition for reconsideration on this issue from James Adams, a resident of Placentia, California, who suggested that FRA require the locomotive engineer to sound only those locomotive horns which point in the direction of locomotive travel, in order to reduce unnecessary horn noise impacts from the sounding of locomotive horns that are pointed against the direction of travel. Most locomotive horns, particularly in freight service, are designed to provide warning in both directions of travel; and the engineer has no ability to select warning only in the forward direction. FRA will, however, continue research into more selective and effective means of providing audible warnings and may make further proposals in subsequent proceedings.
Minor typographical revisions have been made in paragraph (a) of this section. Paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to provide an exception to the locomotive horn sounding requirements for locomotive engineers who discover that the locomotive horn on the lead locomotive has failed enroute. Should this situation occur, the locomotive must be moved for repair in accordance with Sec. 229.9 of this chapter. In addition, any movement of the locomotive with the inoperative horn over highwayrail grade crossings must be made in accordance with all applicable railroad operating rules.
Paragraph (b) of this section has also been revised in response to petitions for reconsideration that were submitted by the AAR and the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), as well as letters that were submitted by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU), which were submitted in support of certain provisions contained within the AAR's petition for reconsideration.
In the AAR's petition for reconsideration, the AAR asserted that
the current compliance date for the locomotive horn sounding
requirements set forth in this paragraph would require a rapid
transition from State law. The AAR asserted that such a transition
would not be in the public interest, as locomotive engineers would be
required to comply with timebased audible warning requirements without
the benefit of training and/or properly placed whistle posts. Therefore, the AAR requested that FRA postpone the
[[Page 47618]]
compliance date of these requirements for one year.
FRA notes that railroads have been aware of the timebased audible warning requirements of this section for some time, as FRA's Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings, which was published on December 18, 2003, contained a 1520 second audible warning requirement. While FRA is aware of the fact that the AAR objected to the 1520 second audible warning requirement in its comments on the Interim Final Rule, the 1520 second audible warning requirement contained within the Final Rule should not have been a complete surprise to the railroad industry. Nonetheless, in the interest of railroad safety, FRA has added paragraph (b)(1) to this section, which delays the compliance date of the timebased audible warning requirement by 120 days from the date of publication of this Notice in order to give railroads additional time within which to adjust whistle posts and/or issue appropriate instructions to train crews. In the interim, railroads must either comply with the locomotive horn sounding requirements that were in effect immediately prior to June 24, 2005 (i.e., State law or, in the absence of State law, railroad operating rules) or this section.
The AAR, BNSF, BLET, and UTU also indicated significant concerns that situations may arise in which engineers are unable to precisely estimate the point at which sounding of the horn should be initiated in order to meet the 1520 second criterion of the final rule. The AAR, BLET and UTU suggest that a good faith exception be employed where circumstances make it difficult to estimate the time of arrival, citing concerns about liability. This could include cases where whistle boards are placed irregularly (confounding an engineer's attempt to begin a ``countdown'' at a fixed point), where weather conditions make identification of landmarks difficult, where the train is accelerating or braking on approach to the crossing, and under other circumstances.
In sum, AAR's petition appeared to focus on short and long audible warnings, while the BLET and the UTU expressed concern with respect to exceeding the 20second audible warning requirement. On the other hand, BNSF expressed concern with the timebased nature of the locomotive horn sounding requirement and requested that the locomotive horn continue to be sounded from a fixed point of reference, such as a whistle post.
FRA appreciates these concerns. FRA is also cognizant that previously existing State law requirements, and requirements of railroad operating rules have required distancebased use of the horn for many years, with attendant liability for noncompliance where collisions occur. However, FRA believes that adjustment to a timebased approach can, and should be readily accomplished, since locomotive engineers are required to be familiar with their territory and are accustomed to meeting these kinds of challenges. The timebased approach will allow the railroads to provide effective warning without incurring the animus of local communities associated with sounding the horn for a full quartermile when trains are operated a low speed. The timebased approach incorporates the strategy used by the locomotive engineer who ``took mercy'' on the community by exercising discretion, when operating a slowmoving train, to delay the onset of horn sounding at grade crossings.
FRA believes that it is important that sufficient warning be provided to the motorist who needs time to recognize the audible signal, understand its message, initiate a reaction, and take appropriate action when approaching the crossing. Other standards for other active warning at highwayrail crossings call for at least 20 seconds of advance warning (see 49 CFR 234.225), and it is typical for basic signal arrangements to provide 30 seconds' warning or more. At crossings equipped with active warning devices, the locomotive horn generally provides a lastminute, additional warning to the motorist of the impending arrival of a train. Thus, it appears quite necessary and appropriate to retain the minimum 15second warning requirement, given the need for uniformity and the wide range of conditions on the roadway approach to highwayrail crossings (including road speeds as high as 55 miles per hour).
Nevertheless, FRA agrees that employees should err on the side of safety when there is any uncertainty. In a case where situational awareness is partially compromised, an employee should not hesitate to begin a horn sounding sequence because of fear that excessive warning might be provided. Accordingly, former paragraph (b)(1), which has been renumbered as paragraph (b)(2) of this section, has been amended to state explicitly that exceeding the maximum warning time up to a limit of 25 seconds will not constitute a violation of this section if the action is taken in good faith. This is intended to affirm the action of an employee who errs on the side of safety in a particular instance, and not to condone the actions of an engineer who willfully disregards the 20second limitation for normal operations. FRA will also utilize enforcement discretion for cases in excess of 25 seconds where unusual circumstances provide a justification.
Former paragraph (b)(2), which has been renumbered as paragraph (b)(3) of this section, has also been revised in order to correct a typographical error. Trains, locomotive consists (two or more locomotives traveling together without any train cars attached), and individual locomotives traveling at speeds in excess of 60 mph are prohibited from providing an advance warning more than onequarter mile in advance of public grade crossings, even if this means that high speed trains, locomotive consists, and individual locomotives cannot provide an advance warning of at least 15 seconds in duration.
Paragraph (c) of this section has not been revised.
Paragraph (d) has been added to this section to address locomotive horn sounding when a train, locomotive consist, or individual locomotive has stopped in close proximity to a public highwayrail grade crossing. Trains and locomotives may stop in close proximity to public grade crossings during switching and/or commuter rail operations, especially when passenger stations are located in close proximity to public highwayrail grade crossings. In light of the low train speed associated with initiating train or locomotive movement from a complete stop, as well as FRA's intent to minimize local noise impacts where feasible, paragraph (d) will allow the locomotive engineer to sound the locomotive horn for less than 15 seconds before entering a public highwayrail grade crossing, when initiating movement from a complete stop in the close proximity of a public highwayrail grade crossing. Even though passenger stations located adjacent to public highwayrail grade crossings were the impetus for this revision, FRA notes that this limited exception may apply in other situations where trains have stopped in close proximity to public highwayrail grade crossings.
FRA is refraining from providing an exact distance that would constitute ``close proximity'' as the length of time that it will take for a train to reach the crossing will vary greatly depending on the type and weight of the train. If a train is stopped at a location such that it will take less than fifteen seconds for it to occupy the crossing, it is deemed to be in close proximity.
[[Page 47619]]
Paragraph (e) has also been added to this section, in response to a petition for reconsideration submitted by the AAR, in which the AAR requested that 49 CFR Part 222 be revised to preempt State laws that govern the sounding of all locomotive audible warning devices at public highwayrail grade crossings. Without such preemption, the AAR asserted that railroads would be required to initiate locomotive bell sounding at a location specified by State law, which may be inconsistent with the timebased locomotive horn sounding requirement set forth in this section.
FRA is not exercising complete preemption of State laws on the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at public highwayrail grade crossings. Complete preemption of State laws on this issue could inadvertently remove the valuable warning currently provided by locomotive audible warning devices other than the locomotive horn because the Final Rule does not require the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices, other than the locomotive horn, at public highwayrail grade crossings.
FRA has, however, added this section to ensure that a consistent
locomotive audible warning will be provided at public highwayrail
grade crossings. Therefore, if State law requires the sounding of a
locomotive audible warning device other than the locomotive horn at
public highwayrail grade crossings, that locomotive audible warning
device must be sounded in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (d) of
this section. By exercising preemption in this limited manner, FRA
hopes to alleviate any potential confusion on the part of the
locomotive engineer who might otherwise have been forced to comply with
distancebased locomotive bell sounding requirements, as well as time
based locomotive horn sounding requirements, at the same public highwayrail grade crossing.
Section 222.23 How does this regulation affect sounding of a horn during an emergency or other situations?
Paragraph (a) of this section has not been revised.
Paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to correct an
inadvertent omission from the list of situations in which locomotive
horn use at quiet zone crossings would be permissible. In the Final
Rule, FRA stated that locomotive horn use would be permitted at a quiet
zone crossing equipped with a wayside horn, in the event of a wayside
horn malfunction. Similarly, the Final Rule states that locomotive horn
use would be permitted at a quiet zone crossing when active grade
crossing warning devices installed at the grade crossing are
malfunctioning or out of service. As indicated by this list of
potential scenarios, FRA has always intended to permit railroads to
sound the locomotive horn at a quiet zone crossing whenever engineering
improvements installed at the grade crossing become noncompliant.
Therefore, FRA has added paragraph (b)(4) to this section to clarify
that railroads are not required to comply with the general prohibition
against routine locomotive horn sounding at a quiet zone crossing, when
an SSM, modified SSM or engineering SSM installed at the quiet zone
crossing fails to comply with the requirements set forth in appendix A
of this part or the conditions contained within the Associate
Administrator's decision to approve the quiet zone in accordance with
section 222.39(b) of this part. The railroad should, however, attempt
to contact the person responsible for monitoring quiet zone compliance with this part (as designated in the Notice of Quiet Zone
Establishment), in order to inform the public authority of the non compliant condition of the quiet zone crossing.
Paragraph (c) of this section has not been revised. Section 222.25 How does this rule affect private highwayrail grade crossings?
This section has been revised in response to the AAR petition for reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, the AAR expressed support for FRA's decision to refrain from requiring locomotive horn sounding at every private highwayrail grade crossing. However, noting that some States require the sounding of a locomotive horn or the ringing of the locomotive bell at private highwayrail grade crossings, the AAR requested that FRA amend 49 CFR Part 222 by adding an explicit statement of FRA's intent to preempt State law, to the extent that State law requires the sounding of a locomotive audible warning device for a period of time or in a pattern different from the locomotive horn sounding requirements set forth in Sec. 222.21 of this part. After considering this request, as well as the potential for confusion that may result from requiring the locomotive engineer to provide a different audible warning at public highwayrail grade crossings than at private highwayrail grade crossings, FRA revised this section. Thus, if State law requires the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at private highwayrail grade crossings, the locomotive audible warning device must be sounded in accordance with the locomotive horn sounding requirements set forth in Sec. 222.21 of this part as of December 15, 2006. However, in recognition of the fact that some locomotive audible warning devices (such as the locomotive bell) cannot be sounded in accordance with the locomotive horn sounding pattern required by Sec. 222.21(a) of this part (i.e., two long blasts, one short blast, and one long blast), locomotive audible warning devices other than the locomotive horn need only be sounded in accordance with the timebased locomotive horn sounding requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 222.21(b) and (d) of this part.
Paragraph (a) of this section has also been revised, in response to the AAR's petition for reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, the AAR asserted that the permissive language in this provision could mislead public authorities into thinking that they are not required to address private highwayrail grade crossings when establishing their quiet zones. After considering this assertion, FRA noted that public authorities located in States that do not require locomotive horn sounding at private highwayrail grade crossings might erroneously assume that it will not be necessary to include and/or improve private highwayrail grade crossings located within the boundaries of their quiet zone. Therefore, FRA revised this paragraph in order to clarify that all private highwayrail grade crossings located within the boundaries of a quiet zone must be treated in accordance with this part.
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section has been revised to clarify that all private highwayrail grade crossings that are located in New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones must be evaluated by a diagnostic team and then equipped or treated in accordance with the diagnostic team recommendations, if the private highwayrail grade crossings allow access to the public or provide access to active industrial or commercial sites. Paragraph (b)(2) of this section has not been revised.
Paragraph (c) of this section has also been revised to clarify that
crossbucks and ``STOP'' signs must be installed at each approach to
private highwayrail grade crossings that are located within quiet zones.
Section 222.27 How does this rule affect pedestrian grade crossings?
This section has been revised in response to the AAR petition for
reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, the AAR expressed [[Page 47620]]
support for FRA's decision to refrain from requiring locomotive horn
sounding at pedestrian grade crossings. However, after asserting that
some States may require the sounding of a locomotive audible warning
device at pedestrian grade crossings, the AAR requested that FRA amend
49 CFR Part 222 by adding an explicit statement of FRA's intent to
preempt State law, to the extent that State law requires the sounding
of a locomotive audible warning device for a period of time or in a
pattern different from the locomotive horn sounding requirements set
forth in Sec. 222.21 of this part. After considering this request, as
well as the potential for confusion that may result from requiring the
locomotive engineer to provide a different audible warning at public
highwayrail grade crossings than at pedestrian grade crossings, FRA
revised this section. Therefore, if State law requires the sounding of
a locomotive audible warning device at pedestrian grade crossings, the
locomotive audible warning device must be sounded in accordance with
the locomotive horn sounding requirements set forth in Sec. 222.21 of
this part as of December 15, 2006. However, in recognition of the fact
that some locomotive audible warning devices (such as the locomotive
bell) cannot be sounded in accordance with the locomotive horn sounding
pattern required by Sec. 222.21(a) of this part (i.e., two long
blasts, one short blast, and one long blast), locomotive audible
warning devices other than the locomotive horn need only be sounded in
accordance with the timebased locomotive horn sounding requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 222.21(b) and (d) of this part.
Paragraph (a) of this section has also been revised, in response to the AAR's petition for reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, the AAR expressed concern that the permissive language contained in paragraph (a) of this section could mislead public authorities into thinking that they are not required to address pedestrian crossings when establishing their quiet zones. After considering this assertion, FRA noted that public authorities located in States that do not require locomotive horn sounding at pedestrian grade crossings might erroneously assume that it will not be necessary to include and/or improve pedestrian grade crossings located within the boundaries of their quiet zone. Therefore, FRA revised this paragraph in order to clarify that all pedestrian grade crossings located within the boundaries of a quiet zone must be treated in accordance with this part.
Paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to clarify that all pedestrian grade crossings that are located in New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones must be evaluated by a diagnostic team and then equipped or treated in accordance with the diagnostic team recommendations, if the pedestrian grade crossings allow access to the public or provide access to active industrial or commercial sites.
A minor typographical edit has been made to paragraph (c) of this section.
Paragraph (d) of this section has also been revised in response to the AAR petition for reconsideration. In its petition for
reconsideration, the AAR asserted that paragraph (d) of this section
requires the installation of signs at pedestrian crossings that could
potentially be misleading. In light of the fact that partial quiet
zones may be established in States that do not require locomotive horn
sounding at pedestrian grade crossings, the AAR expressed concern that
pedestrians encountering timespecific warning signs when the partial
quiet zone is not in effect might assume that the locomotive horn will
be sounded by approaching trains. After considering this issue, FRA
agreed that the Final Rule's warning sign requirement could be
misleading to pedestrians. Therefore, in order to minimize confusion,
paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section have been revised to give
public authorities the flexibility to install warning signs which
advise pedestrians that train horns will not be sounded, but do not
list the hours within which the partial quiet zone will be in effect.
Thus, if State law does not require locomotive horn sounding at
pedestrian grade crossings, signs that indicate that horns are not
sounded would be appropriate. However, if State law requires locomotive
horn sounding during nonquiet zone hours, then signs indicating that
horns are not sounded between stated hours of the partial quiet zone
would be appropriate. Paragraph (d) of this section has also been
revised to clarify that advance warning signs must be installed on each
approach to pedestrian grade crossings located within quiet zones.
Section 222.33 Can locomotive horns be silenced at an individual public
highwayrail grade crossing which is not within a quiet zone?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.35 What are the minimum requirements for quiet zones?
Minor typographical revisions have been made throughout this section.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) has been added to this section to address the configuration of multiple New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones along the same rail line within a single political jurisdiction. Even though FRA has refrained from establishing a minimum distance between neighboring quiet zones, there must be at least one public highwayrail grade crossing between New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones located on the same rail line within a single political jurisdiction unless a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone is being added onto an existing quiet zone. While it is perfectly acceptable for a community to create two quiet zones (each at least onehalf mile long) with a segment between them at which horns will sound, multiple New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones cannot be established on the same rail line within the boundaries of a single political jurisdiction unless they are separated by at least one public highwayrail grade crossing.
By establishing a single New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone to incorporate all public highwayrail grade crossings at which routine locomotive horn sounding will be restricted or prohibited, the administrative burden associated with quiet zone establishment will be lessened. In addition, FRA perceives no safetyrelated rationale for dividing a multiplecrossing New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone along a single rail line into fragmented quiet zones. Therefore, unless a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone is being added onto an existing quiet zone, New Quiet Zones and New Partial Quiet Zones created along the same rail line within a single political jurisdiction must be separated by at least one public highwayrail grade crossing.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section has been revised to correct an inadvertent restriction on the number of PreRule Quiet Zones that can be combined. Under the revised language in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, public authorities can combine more than two adjacent PreRule Quiet Zones or PreRule Partial Quiet Zones.
Paragraph (a)(3) of this section, which states that grade crossings on a segment of rail line that travels through more than one political jurisdiction may be included within a single quiet zone, has been revised. This paragraph has been revised in order to clarify that pedestrian crossings, located on the same segment of rail line as public highwayrail grade crossings, may also be included in multi jurisdictional quiet zones.
Paragraph (b) of this section has not been revised. [[Page 47621]]
Paragraph (c) of this section has been revised in response to the AAR's petition for reconsideration. In its petition for
reconsideration, the AAR asserted that paragraph (c) of this section
requires the installation of signs at private highwayrail grade
crossings that could potentially be misleading. In light of the fact
that partial quiet zones may be established in States that do not
require locomotive horn sounding at private highwayrail grade
crossings, the AAR expressed concern that motorists encountering time
specific warning signs when the partial quiet zone is not in effect
might assume that the locomotive horn will be sounded by approaching
trains. After considering this issue, FRA agreed that the Final Rule's
warning sign requirement could be misleading to motorists. Therefore,
in order to minimize confusion, paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of this
section have been revised to give public authorities the flexibility to
install warning signs which advise motorists that train horns will not
be sounded, but do not list the hours within which the partial quiet
zone will be in effect. Thus, if State law does not require locomotive
horn sounding at private highwayrail grade crossings, signs that
indicate that horns are not sounded would be appropriate. However, if
State law requires locomotive horn sounding during nonquiet zone
hours, then signs indicating that horns are not sounded between stated
hours of the partial quiet zone would be appropriate. These warning
signs must be installed on each approach to public and private highway rail grade crossings.
Paragraph (c)(5) has been added to this section to clarify that FRA does not intend to require public authorities to install advance warning signs at highwayrail grade crossings that are equipped with wayside horns that conform to the requirements set forth in Sec. 222.59 and Appendix E of this part, but are located within a quiet zone.
Paragraph (d) of this section has not been revised. Minor typographical edits have, however, been made in paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of this section.
Section 222.37 Who may establish a quiet zone?
Paragraph (a) of this section addresses the situation that may occur if a proposed quiet zone includes public highwayrail grade crossings that are under the authority and control of more than one public authority. This scenario could occur if the proposed quiet zone contains county roads and State highways that intersect the railroad tracks at adjacent crossings. This scenario could also occur if the railroad tracks or the roadway run along the border between two neighboring communities.
When faced with this scenario, paragraph (a) of this section states
that both public authorities must agree to establishment of the quiet
zone and must jointly, or by delegation, take such actions as are
required to comply with this part. Therefore, if two neighboring
communities are interested in quiet zone creation, the communities might want to consider working together to create a multi
jurisdictional quiet zone. If the neighboring communities are not,
however, interested in creating a single, multijurisdictional quiet
zone, any shared highwayrail grade crossing (i.e., a highwayrail
grade crossing that contains a roadway that runs along the border of
the neighboring communities) can only be attributed to one quiet zone.
Otherwise, the risk reduction credit associated with any safety
improvements at the shared highwayrail grade crossing would be ``doublecounted'', if claimed by adjacent quiet zones.
A minor typographical revision has been made to paragraph (a) of
this section. However, paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section have not been revised.
Section 222.38 Can a quiet zone be created in the Chicago Region?
This section has not been revised.
Section 222.39 How is a quiet zone established?
Paragraph (a) of this section has not been revised.
Minor typographical revisions have been made to paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, paragraph (b) of this section has been revised in response to the AAR's petition for reconsideration. In its petition, the AAR asserted that it may be unclear, in certain circumstances, as to what constitutes a pedestrian crossing. Therefore, the AAR recommended that the Final Rule be revised to require public authorities to indicate, in their quiet zone applications and notification packages, where pedestrian crossings are located. The AAR reasoned that this revision would eliminate any confusion as to where crossing signs must be located, in accordance with Sec. 222.27.
Even though public authorities are required to identify pedestrian crossings in their quiet zone notification packages, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Sec. 222.43, FRA notes that it had inadvertently failed to require public authorities to identify or provide information on pedestrian grade crossings in their quiet zone applications. Therefore, paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to require public authorities to submit Grade Crossing Inventory Forms for each pedestrian grade crossing located within a proposed quiet zone, as well as information concerning present safety measures and proposed improvements at these crossings. FRA also inadvertently failed to require public authorities to provide information on current and proposed safety improvements at private highwayrail grade crossings. Therefore, paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to require public authorities to submit information on present safety measures and proposed improvements at private highwayrail grade crossings located within the proposed quiet zone. With respect to public highwayrail grade crossings, paragraph (b) of this section has been revised to require public authorities to provide detailed information about all safety improvements, as opposed to just SSMs and ASMs, that have been proposed for implementation. In making these revisions, FRA hopes to obtain better information as to the overall level of safety within the proposed quiet zone.
Paragraph (b)(iv) of this section has been revised by inserting an explicit reference to the Notice of Intent requirement contained within Sec. 222.43 of this part. (An inadvertent omission of the State agency responsible for highway and road safety has also been corrected.) The public authority is required to provide a Notice of Intent, in accordance with Sec. 222.43 of this part, at least 60 days prior to the submission of its quiet zone application. All objections received from any railroad operating within the proposed quiet zone, the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety, and the State agency responsible for highway and road safety in response to the Notice of Intent must then be addressed by the public authority in the quiet zone application, in accordance with paragraph (b)(iv) of this section.
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section addresses the inclusion of newly
established public and private highwayrail grade crossings in quiet
zones. Any proposed quiet zone that contains a newly established public
highwayrail grade crossing must be established through public
authority application, unless one or more SSMs will be implemented at
every public highwayrail grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone
in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Quiet zones with
newly established public highwayrail grade crossings cannot be established through comparison to
[[Page 47622]]
either the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk Index With
Horns because the Quiet Zone Risk Index cannot be computed without
historical vehicle and rail traffic counts for each public highwayrail grade crossing within the quiet zone.
A minor typographical revision has been made in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. However, paragraph (b)(4) of this section has not been revised. Paragraph (c) of this section has also not been revised. Section 222.41 How Does This Rule Affect PreRule Quiet Zones and Pre Rule Partial Quiet Zones?
Minor typographical revisions have been made in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Paragraph (c) of this section has been revised in order to clarify the process that must be followed in order to continue existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions within a PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone that will not be established by automatic approval. Paragraph (c)(1) has been added to this section to clarify that the public authority must provide a Notice of Quiet Zone Continuation, in accordance with Sec. 222.43 of this part, in order to retain existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions until June 24, 2008. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section explains the process that must be followed, in order to continue existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions until June 24, 2010. Paragraph (c)(3) of this section explains the process that can be followed, in order to continue existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions until June 24, 2013, by providing a comprehensive Statewide implementation plan and funding commitment for the establishment of PreRule Quiet Zones and PreRule Partial Quiet Zones.
Paragraph (c)(2) of this section has been revised to clarify the process for continuing existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions beyond June 24, 2008 without interruption. As stated in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the public authority must mail a Notice of Intent, in accordance with Sec. 222.43 of this part, by February 24, 2008. The mailing of the Notice of Intent, which will provide a brief explanation of the public authority's plans for implementing improvements within the quiet zone, will trigger a 60day comment period, within which affected railroads, the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety, and the State agency responsible for highway and road safety can provide comments on the proposed improvements. This Notice of Intent replaces the Notice of Detailed Plan, which was previously required by the Final Rule.
After the Notice of Intent has been mailed and the subsequent 60 day comment period has run, paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) requires the public authority to file a detailed plan with the FRA Associate Administrator by June 24, 2008. The detailed plan must include a detailed explanation of each safety improvement that will be implemented at public, private, and pedestrian crossings within the PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone, in order to comply with Sec. Sec. 222.25, 222.27, 222.35 and 222.39 of this part. (The public authority may also choose to explain additional safety improvements that will be implemented within the quiet zone, but are not being relied upon to achieve compliance with this part.) The detailed plan must also include a timetable for the implementation of these safety improvements.
If the public authority plans to implement ASMs within the quiet zone, paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section (formerly paragraph (c)(4) of the Final Rule) advises the public authority to apply for FRA approval of the quiet zone by December 24, 2007, in order to ensure that FRA will have ample time within which to review the quiet zone application.
Providing a Notice of Intent and filing a detailed plan in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section will, however, only postpone routine locomotive horn sounding at public highwayrail grade crossings until June 24, 2010, unless the public authority establishes a PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) in the Final Rule, which specifically addressed the establishment of PreRule Quiet Zones and PreRule Partial Quiet Zones during the threeyear period following June 24, 2005, has been removed. However, PreRule Quiet Zones and PreRule Partial Quiet Zones that have Quiet Zone Risk Indices that fall to a level at or below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold during this threeyear period are now governed by paragraph (c)(4) of this section, which sets forth the procedure for establishing PreRule Quiet Zones and PreRule Partial Quiet Zones that will not be established by automatic approval.
Paragraph (c)(3) of this section explains the process that must be
followed by an appropriate State agency, in order to continue existing
locomotive horn sounding restrictions within PreRule Quiet Zones and
PreRule Partial Quiet Zones for an additional three years (until June 24, 2013) through the filing of a comprehensive Statewide
implementation plan and funding commitment. As stated in this
paragraph, existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions may remain in
place until June 24, 2013, if: a) a comprehensive Statewide
implementation plan and funding commitment is filed by the appropriate
State agency with the Associate Administrator by June 24, 2008; and b)
safety improvements are initiated within at least one PreRule Quiet
Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone in the State by June 24, 2009. The
comprehensive Statewide implementation plan must include an
explanation of the process that will be used to assist PreRule Quiet
Zones and PreRule Partial Quiet Zones to come into compliance with
Sec. Sec. 222.25, 222.27, 222.35 and 222.39 of this part, as well as a
timetable for the implementation of necessary safety improvements. As
of June 24, 2013, locomotive horn sounding will resume unless each
public authority establishes a PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial
Quiet Zones, in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
Paragraph (c)(4) of this section explains the process that must be followed in order to establish a PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone. As stated in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, a public authority can establish a PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone if: (a) The PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone complies with the PreRule Quiet Zone requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 222.25, 222.27, and 222.35 of this part; (b) the PreRule Quiet Zone or PreRule Partial Quiet Zone complies with the quiet zone standards set forth in Sec. 222.39 of this part; and (c) the public authority complies with all applicable notification and filing requirements contained within this paragraph (c) and Sec. 222.43 of this part.
The notification and filing requirements contained within this paragraph (c) and Sec. 222.43 of this part may include: a) mailing the Notice of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ron Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 2024936299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 2024936038).