49 C.F.R. § 222.25

How does this rule affect private highway-rail grade crossings?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

This rule does not require the routine sounding of locomotive horns at private highway-rail grade crossings. However, where State law requires the sounding of a locomotive horn at private highway-rail grade crossings, the locomotive horn shall be sounded in accordance with § 222.21 of this part. Where State law requires the sounding of a locomotive audible warning device other than the locomotive horn at private highway-rail grade crossings, that locomotive audible warning device shall be sounded in accordance with §§ 222.21(b) and (d) of this part.

(a) Private highway-rail grade crossings located within the boundaries of a quiet zone must be included in the quiet zone.

(b)(1) Private highway-rail grade crossings that are located in New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones and allow access to the public, or which provide access to active industrial or commercial sites, must be evaluated by a diagnostic team and equipped or treated in accordance with the recommendations of such diagnostic team.

(2) The public authority shall provide the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety and all affected railroads an opportunity to participate in the diagnostic team review of private highway-rail grade crossings.

(c)(1) At a minimum, each approach to every private highway-rail grade crossing within a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone shall be marked by a crossbuck and a “STOP” sign, which are compliant with MUTCD standards unless otherwise prescribed by State law, and shall be equipped with advance warning signs in compliance with § 222.35(c) of this part.

(2) At a minimum, each approach to every private highway-rail grade crossing within a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone shall, by June 24, 2008, be marked by a crossbuck and a “STOP” sign, which are compliant with MUTCD standards unless otherwise prescribed by State law, and shall be equipped with advance warning signs in compliance with § 222.35(c) of this part.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: BNSF Ry. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 218 Cal. App. 4th 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 218 Cal. App. 4th 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “( 49 C.F.R. §§ 222.25 , 222.27 (2006); 71 Fed.”

Tim Nay v. Bnsf Ry. Co. (9th Cir. 2023). “See 49 C.F.R. § 222.25 (stating that where state law requires the sounding of a horn at a private crossing, the horn must be sounded in a particular manner).”

White v. CSX Transp., Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 2023). “, 49 C.F.R. §§ 222.25 , 222.27, does not evidence an intent to ‘substantially subsume’ warning requirements across the board.”

Nay v. BNSF Ry. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “13 Nay’s summary judgment response relies on the federal regulation regarding the 14 use of horns at private crossings, 49 C.F.R. § 222.25 . That regulation explains both that 15 federal law does not require the routine use of a horn at private crossings, and that where 16 state…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.