RECORD OF DECISION 

USE OF LOCOMOTIVE HORNS FINAL RULE 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

DECISION 

This Record of Decision (ROD) contains the reasoning employed by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) to reach a decision on issuance of the Final Rule 

on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. It is 

supported by the much more detailed analysis included in the preambles to the 

Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings (Interim Final Rule) and Final Rule. On December 5, 2003, Federal 

Railroad Administrator Allan Rutter approved the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Interim Final Rule. The final EIS notice of availability 

was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) on January 2, 2004. 

After carefully considering all of the information in the public record including: 

technical support documents, public and agency comments submitted on the 

draft EIS and final EIS and on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 

Interim Final Rule, public and agency comments at hearings, and the final EIS, 

the FRA has decided to proceed with the Action Alternative by issuing a Final 

Rule, which is being published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2005. The 

Action Alternative was identified as the agency’s Proposed Action in the final 

EIS. This Record of Decision (ROD) explains the agency’s decision and 

accompanies the release of the Final Rule. The preambles to the Final Rule 

and Interim Final Rule also contain exhaustive discussions of the history of the 

locomotive horn rule proceeding and the basis for the agency’s decisions in this 

complicated rulemaking. The Interim Final Rule was published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2003. 

The final EIS considered a No Action alternative and an Action alternative 

implementing the Interim Final Rule. In the EIS, FRA found that the Action 

Alternative would have impacts on the human environment with respect to 

noise and safety at over 150,000 locations across the United States, which 

would occur and accrue over a period of years after the rule goes into effect. 

The EIS found that while there is the potential for adverse noise impacts at 

existing whistleban locations (approximately 2,400), the Action Alternative 

would enable more than half of these locations to be converted into quiet zones 

without initial improvements and would provide opportunities to convert other 

whistleban locations to quiet zones with the application of safety measures. 

The final EIS also concluded that implementation of the Action Alternative is 

expected to have important public safety benefits in terms of lives saved as well 

as injuries and accidents averted. 
FRA provided printed summaries of the final EIS by mail, with a letter 

announcing the availability of the final EIS on the agency’s website, to 

approximately 600 persons and agencies that had commented on or expressed

an interest in the draft EIS. Only EPA commented on the Final EIS, and they 

indicated no objection to the Proposed Action. 

After reviewing approximately 1,400 comments on the Interim Final Rule, FRA 

is now issuing a final rule that clarifies certain provisions in the Interim Final

Rule and addresses comments raised on a number of issues. The Final Rule

will have beneficial environmental impacts and while having the potential for

some adverse environmental impacts, integral provisions can fully mitigate

those adverse impacts. The Final Rule will become effective on June 24, 2005

because delaying the effective date of the Interim Final Rule satisfied the oneyear statutory delay requirement.

In selecting the Action Alternative, FRA has determined that the Action 

Alternative is not only the preferred alternative from an overall standpoint, but

also the preferred alternative from an environmental standpoint. From an

overall standpoint, FRA is responsible for promoting the safety of America’s 

railroads for both railroad employees and the public. Collisions at highway-rail

crossings are one of the leading causes of death and serious injury associated

with railroad operations. Congress enacted the requirement for the FRA to 

issue a rule requiring the use of locomotive horns at public highway-rail 

crossings to address the safety implications of the adoption of whistle bans by

local communities across the Nation. As noted above, the Final Rule will have 

important safety benefits by saving lives and avoiding injuries. 

Implementation of the Final Rule will not only have important safety benefits 

but will set a maximum horn sound level that would reduce community noise

impacts nationally and provide an opportunity for communities to create new 

quiet zones or retain existing quiet conditions, which can fully mitigate 

potential direct noise impacts. The Final Rule also defers action with respect to

Chicago Region no whistle grade crossings as described in greater detail below. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 2, 1994, Congress passed Public Law 103-440 (“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 104-264. The Act requires the use of locomotive horns 

at public grade crossings, but gives FRA the authority to make reasonable

exceptions. 

On January 13, 2000, FRA published a NPRM in the Federal Register (65 FR 

2230) and Draft EIS addressing the use of locomotive horns at public highwayrail grade crossings. Due to the substantial and wide-ranging 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 on the NPRM and

2
Draft EIS (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. 

FRA solicited comments from the public on the Draft EIS as well as on the 

NPRM. By the close of the comment period on May 26, 2000, approximately 

3,000 entries had been filed in the docket regarding the NPRM. During this 

comment period approximately 950 individuals and organizations commented 

on the Draft EIS, who made distinct comments totaling almost 1,900 written 

comments and approximately 1,000 oral comments.

On December 18, 2003, FRA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal

Register (68 FR 70586) and a Final EIS. Because the Interim Final Rule had 

the same force and effect as a final rule, FRA delayed the effective date of the 

Interim Final Rule for one year, in order to comply with 49 U.S.C. 20153(j) and 

to give public authorities sufficient time to prepare for quiet zone 

implementation before the rule’s locomotive horn sounding requirements took 

effect. 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 on the Interim Final Rule 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. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

FRA considered the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative in the final 

EIS. 

The No-Action Alternative would preserve the status quo: states and 

municipalities could try to regulate the sounding of locomotive horns while 

railroads could continue to resist such regulation through litigation and other 

means. This rule is a statutory obligation and that does not provide the FRA 

with the authority to implement the No-Action Alternative. Adoption of the NoAction Alternative would involve congressional action to reverse its mandate to 

require the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings as set forth 

in 49 U.S.C. 20153.

The Proposed Action would satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C.

20153 and would address FRA concerns regarding horn sounding. First, the 

Proposed Action requires that horns be sounded at public at-grade highway-rail 

crossings in the United States. Second, it sets a maximum sound level for the 

sounding of locomotive horns. Third, it prescribes how and when locomotive

horns are to be sounded. Fourth and finally, it provides an opportunity for any 

community in the nation to establish a quiet zone. 

3
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

FRA is issuing the train horn rule to satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 20153 in a manner consistent with maximizing railroad safety, making 

regulations related to railroad safety nationally uniform to the extent

practicable (49 U.S.C. 20106) and consistent with other Department of

Transportation initiatives and programs related to the safety of highway-rail

grade crossings, and minimizing the impact of train horn noise where possible

without compromising safety. 

The opportunities to establish a quiet zone are intended to minimize potential

direct noise impacts in communities that are now subject to whistle bans and 

assist communities that may want to establish quiet zones in the future. The

Final Rule delineates and describes a series of supplementary and alternative

safety measures that can be employed to establish a quiet zone. These 

provisions constitute a means of substituting other safety measures for

locomotive horns. Establishment of a quiet zone can fully mitigate any 

potential direct adverse noise impact of the locomotive horn rule.

As required by 49 USC 20153, FRA has taken into account the interest of

communities that either have whistle bans in effect or are not currently subject

to the routine sounding of locomotive horns. In implementing the rule, FRA will

work in partnership with affected communities to provide technical assistance

and allow a reasonable amount of time for the communities to install added 

safety measures. 

This Final Rule complies with the statutory mandate contained within section

20153 of title 49 of the United States Code. With the exception of Chicago 

Region no whistle grade crossings, the Final Rule retains the locomotive horn

sounding requirement for trains that approach and enter public highway-rail 

grade crossings. (See rule § 222.21.) However, the rule contains exceptions for 

certain categories of rail operations and highway-rail grade crossings, in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20153(c)(1). Section 222.33 of the rule provides that 

a railroad operating over a public highway-rail 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. 

The rule also contains an exception for highway-rail grade crossing corridors 

that are equipped with Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) at each public

highway-rail grade crossing, or that have a Quiet Zone Risk Index at or below

the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or the Risk Index With Horns. These 

highway-rail grade crossing corridors have been deemed, by the Administrator, 

to constitute a category of highway-rail grade crossings that do not present a

significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury and/or fully 

compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. 

Therefore, communities with grade crossing corridors that meet either of these

4
standards may silence the locomotive horn within the crossing corridor, if all 

other applicable quiet zone requirements have been met. (See § 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 highway-rail grade crossings”. FRA has complied with this requirement

in several ways. The rule allows Pre-Rule Quiet Zone communities to continue 

to silence the locomotive horn, without any additional safety improvements, if

the Quiet Zone Risk Index is at, or below, two times the Nationwide Significant

Risk Threshold and there have not been any relevant collisions within the quiet

zone during the five years preceding April 27, 2005. (See § 222.41] It should

also be noted that Pre-Rule Quiet Zone communities can continue to silence the 

locomotive horn, without any additional safety improvements, 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 

or the Risk Index With Horns.) Additionally, the rule allows Pre-Rule Quiet

Zone communities to take additional time (up to 8 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

[pre-existing whistle ban] communities to install SSMs”. 

Section 20153(d) of title 49 states that “. . . the Secretary may not entertain an

application for waiver or exemption of the regulations issued under this section

unless such application shall have been submitted jointly by the railroad carrier

owning, or controlling operations over, the crossing and by the appropriate 

traffic control authority or law enforcement authority.” However, section

20153(i) authorizes the Secretary to “waive (in whole or in part) any 

requirement of this section .... that the Secretary determines is not likely to 

contribute significantly to public safety.” Therefore, § 222.15, which governs

the process for obtaining a waiver from the requirements of the rule, requires 

joint filing of waiver petitions by the railroad and public authority, unless the 

railroad and public authority cannot reach agreement. Should this occur, the 

FRA Associate Administrator must determine that a jointly filed submission

would not be likely to significantly contribute to public safety before waiving the 

requirement for joint submission. 

Section 222.55 addresses the manner in which new SSMs and Alternative

Safety Measures (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 highway-rail grade crossings, pedestrian crossings, and 

crossings utilized primarily by nonmotorized and other special vehicles should

5
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 grade and pedestrian crossings. Locomotive horn

use at private grade and pedestrian crossings will be subject to the 

requirements of this rule, if the private grade or pedestrian crossing is located 

within a quiet zone. Sections 222.25 and 222.27 address the specific 

requirements that pertain to private grade and pedestrian crossings within 

quiet zones.

Section 222.7 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 most State and local laws 

that govern locomotive horn use at public highway-rail grade crossings.

However, as stated in section 222.7(b) and described below, the rule will not

preempt State and local laws governing locomotive horn use at Chicago Region 

highway-rail 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. In addition, State and local laws 

that govern routine locomotive horn use at private grade and pedestrian 

crossings outside quiet zones will not be preempted. 

Lastly, this rule complies with the statutory one-year 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. Since the Interim Final Rule had the same force and effect as a 

final rule, FRA delayed the effective date of the Interim Final Rule for more than 

a year in order to comply with this requirement. 

Important issues surrounding the statistical analysis of crossing data for the 

Chicago Region (defined as the following six counties in the Chicago Region: 

Cook, DuPage, Lake, Kane, McHenry and Will) have led FRA to conclude that 

highway-rail grade crossings in the Chicago Region at which railroads were

excused from sounding the locomotive horn by the Illinois Commerce 

Commission, and where railroads did not sound the locomotive horn, as of

December 18, 2003 should be excepted from the Final Rule pending further

analysis. FRA has decided that it is prudent to inquire further into whether

known data quality issues–which themselves cannot be effectively addressed by

FRA without cooperation from other parties–have the potential to adversely 

affect the Chicago Region analysis. 

Therefore, FRA will arrange for an independent peer review of its conclusion on

this issue before issuing an amendment to this final rule which will address 

Chicago Region crossings. FRA will respond to the “peer review report” and 

place a copy of its response in the public docket. 

Pending completion of this Chicago Region re-analysis, FRA is excepting

existing Chicago Region no whistle crossings from the requirement to sound the

6
train horn. It is FRA’s intention to leave those crossings–and those crossings

alone–subject to existing Illinois State Law pending the further rulemaking

described above. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL RULE 

Les Blomberg, Mark Garvey, Ray Winters and Robert Guttman commented on 

the Interim Final Rule and raised questions about the consideration of potential

health effects from train horns. Les Blomberg commented that OSHA 

regulations, while inadequate, should be applied with other criteria to assess

the general population risk of hearing loss in the from train horn noise. He 

stated that FRA did not research the potential health effects of noise. Further

Les Blomberg commented that train horns expose persons adjacent to tracks on 

public or private property to noise levels that can cause hearing loss. Mark

Garvey commented that FRA’s survey of scientific literature was bad. Ray

Winters commented that buildings adjacent to railroad tracks could channel

horn noise. Robert Guttman commented that train horn noise causes OSHA 

problems for properties abutting railroad tracks. Another comment from the 

Concerned Citizens of Newbury suggested that the number of persons 

potentially impacted by the resumption of horn sounding there was higher than

the number reported in the FEIS.

FRA did address the potential health effects of train horn noise in the DEIS and 

FEIS. FRA prepared a literature summary report of published scientific studies 

titled “General Health Effects of Transportation Noise”, cited the report in the 

FEIS and made it available on the internet. Furthermore, the Final Rule is

likely to decrease the train horn noise exposure of persons nationally. Given

that horn noise is not being increased, except at the few indeterminate locations 

where whistlebans are canceled, the potential for health effects in the US 

population due to train horn noise would be expected to decrease. Even if a 

practical method were available to measure such risk, the conclusion would not 

be expected to differ. 

OSHA standards exist to protect employees in the workplace from among other 

things physical damage from noise exposure leading to hearing loss. Railroad 

operating employees whose principal exposure is in the locomotive cab are

currently protected by 49 CFR § 229.121 (in lieu of OSHA general industry

requirements), and FRA has proposed revisions to the regulation which will

include hearing conservation measures similar to those required by OSHA in

the future (69 FR 35146; June 23, 2004). All major railroads have provided 

and required use of hearing protectors where exposures would otherwise exceed 

the permissible dose.

FRA is not aware that intermittent horn sounding places abutters in violation of

OSHA regulations and the highly site-specific nature of this condition makes it

impractical to analyze on a national basis. However, exposure of most persons 

to horn noise occurs outdoors from train horn use as a warning device. This 

type of exposure to horn noise only momentarily reaches the highest levels

when the moving train passes the person adjacent to the tracks. Persons in 

7
buildings or vehicles are shielded from this noise and their exposure is

lessened. Hearing loss can result from extended exposure to similar noise

levels but not from momentary exposure of train horn noise at the levels

reached near railroad lines, even if repeated occasionally. In addition, train air

horns have been in common use for the better part of a century and no data is 

available to suggest that standard warning signals from train horns have

caused hearing loss amongst bystanders. The typical response of bystanders is 

to move away from the train both to reduce their noise exposure and to

maintain a safe distance from the train. Additionally, persons in buildings 

close to the tracks are not likely to be subject to injurious noise levels from 

train horns because buildings act as barriers and insulators to the train noise. 

The calculations of persons potentially impacted by the resumption of train 

horn sounding in communities with whistle bans was based upon

contemporary highway-rail grade crossing inventory information and a 

calibrated train horn impact calculation model. The FRA noise impact

assessment methodology adds train horn noise events within a 24-hour period 

and compares the train horn noise to existing noise to determine the impact 

area. The suggested simple circle around a grade crossing of 1⁄2 or 1⁄4 mile 

radius would not accurately represent the effect of train horn noise exposure. 

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

The Final Rule will reduce total noise exposure nationwide by setting a 

maximum horn sounding duration and a maximum horn sound level. These

provisions will apply to all crossings and will eliminate existing estimated 

impacts to more than 3.4 million persons, 1.9 million of them with severe 

impacts. This will reduce horn noise impacts by an estimated 38 percent 

nationwide. 

The potential adverse noise impacts of the rule on populations adjacent to

existing whistleban crossings were analyzed in the final EIS although FRA 

expects most whistlebans to convert to Pre-Rule Quiet Zones. Using empirical 

information about locomotive horn sound, current population statistics, and 

computer models, potential noise impacts were modeled to estimate the 

maximum number of people potentially affected in the vicinity of about 1,600 

crossings with current whistle bans. Because FRA estimates that 

approximately 66% of whistleban crossings may be eligible for conversion to

Pre-Rule Quiet Zones without any initial improvements, the potential for

adverse noise impacts is much less than the final EIS noise analysis indicated.

FRA also estimates that only 2% of current whistleban crossings are likely to be

discontinued and that most needed improvements will be made so that

whistlebans can be converted into Quiet Zones. Additionally, any persons

impacted would also share in the benefits of the maximum horn sound level 

and horn sounding duration provisions of the rule. 

Provisions that reduce existing horn noise exposure as well as potential direct

noise impacts are a prominent feature of the Final Rule. These provisions will 

allow affected communities to create new quiet zones or retain existing quiet

8
9

zones. In addition, the provisions for a maximum horn sound level and 

duration limits will reduce community noise impacts nationally. These 

provisions reflect the intent of Congress and meet the requirements for an 

integral opportunity for mitigation set forth in 49 U.S.C. 20153 and would be 

available to all localities, including those communities that do not currently 

have whistle bans. 

To make quiet zones both effective and available, the Final Rule details a list of 

SSMs and ASMs that would be available to local jurisdictions that wish to avoid 

potential noise impacts in their communities. As provided for in the Final Rule, 

communities will have the sole discretion to designate a quiet zone, if the SSMs 

listed in Appendix A of the Final Rule are used. Alternatively, a community 

may implement ASMs at some or all of the crossings within a quiet zone upon 

demonstrating the total effectiveness of these measures to FRA. FRA is 

prepared to provide technical assistance to communities seeking to implement 

quiet zones, including information regarding public education and awareness 

resources. 

FRA views the provisions for quiet zones as an ample and unlimited measure to 

address and mitigate direct horn noise impacts that would be available to all 

localities, including those communities that do not currently have whistle bans. 

FRA is also confident that many communities will seek to formally adopt quiet 

zones to further mitigate locomotive horn noise impacts. FRA estimates that 

over half of the current whistle ban crossings would not require any 

improvements for inclusion in pre-rule quiet zones that would maintain the 

existing prohibition on the sounding of locomotive horns. Accordingly, FRA has 

concluded that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 

from the selected alternative have been included. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the factors outlined above, it is my decision to approve the Use of 

Locomotive Horns Final Rule. 

/s/ Robert D. Jamison 

Acting Administrator 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Date: April 21, 2005