Excess Risk Estimate for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Along the Florida East Coast Railway Line, 46384-46394 [E9-21380]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 9, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46384-46394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21380]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-1999-6439, Notice No. 21]

49 CFR Part 222


Excess Risk Estimate for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Along the 
Florida East Coast Railway Line

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulations regarding the use of 
locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade crossings by establishing 
an excess risk estimate of 90.9 percent for public highway-rail grade 
crossings along the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) line. When 
this final rule is effective, public authorities will be permitted to 
establish New Quiet Zones along the FEC line, in accordance with the 
existing regulations, through application of the excess risk estimate 
provided herein.

DATES: The effective date is November 9, 2009. However, public 
authorities may begin to provide quiet zone-related documentation to 
FRA and other parties 30 days after September 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Ries, Office of Safety, Mail 
Stop 25, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone: (202) 493-6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of Chief 
Counsel, Mail Stop 10, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6038).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 26, 1991, FRA issued Emergency Order No. 15 (EO 15), which 
requires FEC trains to sound train borne audible warning devices when 
approaching public highway-rail grade crossings. This Emergency Order 
preempts a Florida statute that became effective on July 1, 1984. The 
Florida statute authorized counties and municipalities to ban the use 
of train horns and whistles between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. by 
FEC trains approaching public highway-rail grade crossings that were 
equipped with flashing lights, bells, crossing gates, and highway signs 
indicating train horns and whistles would not be sounded at night.
    Amendments to EO 15, issued on August 31, 1993, permitted Florida 
communities to obtain relief from the EO through the implementation of 
alternative remedial measures on a crossing-by-crossing basis, provided 
the alternative remedial measures have been certified by the Florida 
Department of Transportation (FDOT) as being fully compliant with all 
relevant performance specifications. However, FRA's final rule on the 
Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (49 CFR Part 
222) issued on April 27, 2005, provides communities substantially 
greater flexibility in establishing quiet zones than that allowed to 
communities covered by EO 15. The final rule allows public authorities 
in the rest of the nation (with the exception of certain highway-rail 
grade crossings located in the six-county Chicago Region) to prohibit 
routine sounding of the locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings 
through the selective implementation of various grade crossing 
improvements on a corridor-wide basis, as opposed to implementing grade 
crossing improvements at each quiet zone crossing.
    As early as January 13, 2000, when FRA issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding, FRA proposed to apply a higher 
excess risk estimate to FEC public crossings than other public highway-
rail grade crossings nationwide, based on FRA's analysis of the pre-ban 
and post-ban collision data associated with FEC public crossings. Since 
FRA's analysis of collision data at public highway-rail grade crossings 
nationwide did not include collision data associated with FEC public 
crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans, FRA also 
solicited public comment as to what extent the pre-ban and post-ban 
collision data associated with FEC public crossings may be relevant to 
public highway-rail grade crossings located in other areas.
    Shortly thereafter, FRA conducted a public hearing on March 28, 
2000 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, during which FRA noted that it was 
grappling with the issue of whether or not a differential requirement 
for mitigating crossing risk should be instituted for FEC public 
crossings and solicited comments on this issue. After the March 28, 
2000 public hearing, FRA received comments from a number of Florida 
cities, including Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, and West Palm Beach, 
who urged FRA to make its proposed regulation applicable to FEC 
crossings and allow the Federal regulation to supersede EO 15. FRA 
addressed these comments in the preamble to its Interim Final Rule on 
the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Interim 
Final Rule) and expressed its intent to rescind EO 15 and make the 
Federal regulation applicable to all highway-rail grade crossings 
within the State of Florida. However, FRA further stated that it would 
first need to resolve the issue of whether a regional estimate as to 
the effect of silencing the train horn should be applied to EO 15 
crossings.
    In an effort to re-examine the post-ban accident rate increases 
that occurred at FEC crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans, FRA 
conducted a public conference in Florida on April 15, 2005. At the 
conference, FRA again solicited comments on the appropriate excess risk 
estimate that should be applied by public authorities who wish to 
establish Federal quiet zones along the FEC line. Oral comments were 
provided at the public conference by representatives of nine 
organizations, including the United Transportation Union (UTU), the 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the 
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), FEC, PVB Consulting, Inc., the 
Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City of 
Hollywood, Florida, the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and FDOT.
    The City of Hollywood, Florida expressed interest in establishing a

[[Page 46385]]

Federal quiet zone, noting that it has been working closely with the 
Tri-Rail Authority and FDOT to implement a four-quadrant gate system 
that appears to provide a level of safety comparable to that provided 
by routine sounding of the locomotive horn. In line with its previously 
submitted comments on FRA's proposed and final regulation, the City of 
Hollywood expressed its support of a rule that would strike a balance 
between quality of life concerns, while maintaining the current level 
of safety provided by routine sounding of the train horn.
    The Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization asserted that 
about ten percent of the State's population resides in Broward County 
(which contains a number of public highway-rail grade crossings along 
the FEC line) and that there are projections of an additional million 
residents over the next 20 to 25 years. The UTU also noted that the FEC 
highway-rail grade crossings at issue are located in an urban setting 
with a high number of tourists and non-English speaking immigrants. Due 
to international recognition of the locomotive horn as a universal 
signal of an approaching train, the UTU argued that the locomotive horn 
may be the sole device that could effectively warn pedestrians who 
access the FEC right-of-way of the impending arrival of the train, 
especially at night. Accordingly, the UTU urged FRA to retain the 195-
percent excess risk estimate \1\ that was derived from FRA's prior 
analysis on the effect of routine sounding of the locomotive horn at 
public highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The excess risk estimate is a figure that represents the 
amount by which collision frequency has been estimated to increase 
when routine sounding of the locomotive horn at public highway-rail 
grade crossings is restricted. When FRA conducted a study on the 
effect of nighttime whistle bans on the accident rate at public 
highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line, FRA found that the 
nighttime accident rate at impacted FEC crossings increased 195 
percent after nighttime whistle bans were imposed. This 195-percent 
increase in the nighttime accident rate at impacted FEC crossings is 
the 195-percent excess risk estimate that the UTU representative has 
urged FRA to apply to all public highway-rail grade crossings along 
the FEC line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Echoing its previously submitted comments on FRA's regulation, the 
BRS asserted that the data shows that grade crossing accidents increase 
when locomotive horn sounding is eliminated. Accordingly, the BRS 
stated that people who are unfamiliar with railroad operations are the 
people who really need the last-minute audible warning of approaching 
trains that is provided by the locomotive horn. As follow-up to its 
previously submitted statement on FRA's regulation, during which a BLET 
representative noted that train crews are also placed at risk when 
accidents occur at highway-rail grade crossings, the BLET pointed out 
that none of the alternative safety measures and supplemental safety 
measures allowed under 49 CFR part 222 will lessen the traumatic stress 
syndrome that is often experienced by locomotive engineers after a 
grade crossing accident.
    PVB Consulting, Inc. argued that the root cause of the 195-percent 
increase in the nighttime accident rate at impacted FEC grade crossings 
during the five-year period that followed the enactment of nighttime 
whistle bans in Florida was the absence of education, engineering, and 
enforcement initiatives. PVB Consulting noted that a more aggressive 
program should have been undertaken to educate area citizens of the 
pros and cons of nighttime whistle bans, combined with increased police 
presence and crossing cameras at impacted crossings. Asserting that the 
provisions of this part will facilitate the use of education, 
engineering and enforcement initiatives at quiet zone crossings, PVB 
Consulting stated that the nationwide excess risk estimate of 66.8 
percent should be applied to gated public highway-rail grade crossings 
along the FEC line.
    The City of Palm Beach Gardens and the Broward County Metropolitan 
Planning Organization expressed interest in establishing city-wide or 
county-wide excess risk estimates, which would be based on available 
demographic data. However, FRA indicated that it would be difficult to 
calculate reliable city-wide or county-wide excess risk estimates that 
would have an acceptable level of statistical significance due to the 
small number of crossings that would be subject to analysis.
    FDOT and FEC also provided oral and written comments, which will be 
discussed in more detail below.

A. FDOT

    FDOT submitted two sets of written comments to FRA after FRA's 
April 15, 2005 public conference dated August 17, 2005 and January 13, 
2006, respectively. In its written comments, FDOT asserted that local 
communities in the State of Florida should have the opportunity to 
exercise their right to designate a Federal quiet zone based on the 
same nationwide standard that is currently applied to other local 
communities. In support of this assertion, FDOT quoted FRA reports that 
referenced a similar increase in the accident rate (200 percent) after 
whistle bans were implemented in Oregon. However, FDOT noted that 
Oregon communities who wish to establish quiet zones are permitted to 
use the nationwide 66.8-percent excess risk estimate when calculating 
the increase in risk that may result from prohibiting routine 
locomotive horn use at grade crossings located within proposed quiet 
zone corridors. FDOT further noted that FRA had proposed to apply an 
even lower excess risk estimate (17.3 percent) to certain gated 
highway-rail grade crossings in the Chicago Region. Thus, FDOT 
requested that FRA permit local communities in Florida that are located 
on the FEC line to take advantage of the nationwide 66.8-percent excess 
risk estimate that is currently applied to public highway-rail grade 
crossings that are proposed for inclusion in a Federal quiet zone.
    FRA notes that while there may have been some similarities between 
the regional whistle ban experience in Oregon and Florida, the Oregon 
and Florida whistle ban experience differ widely in scope. Local 
whistle bans in Oregon affected 26 highway-rail grade crossings located 
in two cities, which experienced two pre-ban collisions and nine post-
ban collisions. In contrast, as of December 31, 1989, local whistle ban 
ordinances in Florida affected 511 highway-rail grade crossings, at 
which 39 pre-ban collisions and 115 post-ban collisions occurred.
    In FRA's interim final rule, FRA proposed to apply an excess risk 
estimate of 17.3 percent to gated highway-rail grade crossings in the 
Chicago Region that were subject to pre-existing locomotive horn 
sounding restrictions. This proposal was derived from FRA's analysis of 
the effect of locomotive horn use at these crossings. FRA's analysis 
indicated that gated crossings in the Chicago Region that had been 
subject to pre-existing locomotive horn sounding restrictions (which 
accounted for the biggest concentration of ``whistle bans'' in the 
country prior to the issuance of FRA's Final Rule on the Use of 
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings) had a statistical 
profile that was distinctly different from gated crossings in the rest 
of the nation that were subject to local whistle bans. FRA notes that a 
number of unique factors may have contributed to this result, including 
the discretionary compliance by railroads with local no-whistle 
policies.
    FDOT also asserts that FRA's analysis of the Florida whistle ban 
experience was flawed because FRA failed to consider utilization of the 
affected rail corridor(s) by the railroad. As reflected in FRA's Report 
on Florida's Train Whistle Ban issued in October 1995,

[[Page 46386]]

FRA compared the accident data on the basis of Accidents per Crossing 
Month. FDOT asserts that this approach is flawed because it does not 
measure the true opportunity for an incident to occur. FDOT asserts 
that the true opportunity for grade crossing accidents to occur should 
be normalized using the number of trains that operated over the subject 
grade crossing (which could be reflected by grade crossing activation 
rates), as opposed to measuring the accident rate as a unit of time.
    FRA acknowledges that train traffic volume could have an impact on 
the accident rate at specific highway-rail grade crossings. However, 
any potential impact would necessarily depend on highway traffic 
patterns as well. Obviously, for a grade crossing accident to occur, 
train and highway traffic must be present at the crossing at the same 
time. However, FRA focused its analysis on comparisons between the 
number of nighttime accidents reported at FEC crossings subject to 
nighttime whistle bans with the number of accidents associated with two 
control groups, in order to determine the impact of nighttime whistle 
bans at those crossings.
    Assuming that the number of trains operating along the FEC line 
remained constant during the study period, FDOT also noted a large 
differential between pre-ban accident rates at FEC grade crossings that 
were subject to nighttime whistle bans and corresponding pre-ban 
accident rates at FEC grade crossings that remained unaffected by 
nighttime whistle bans, when analyzed in relation to the number of 
crossing activations per accident. In light of this data, which has 
been presented below, FDOT asserts that there must be a measurable, 
causal element that has not yet been thoroughly considered in previous 
analyses on this issue:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Pre-ban          Post-ban
                                            crossing         crossing
                                        activations per  activations per
                                            accident         accident
                                         (approximate)    (approximate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEC w/Ban.............................          289,000           96,000
FEC No Ban............................          135,000          162,000
CSX No Ban............................           40,000           62,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite FDOT's objection to the method used by FRA to calculate 
crossing accident rates, FDOT's comparison of the pre-ban and post-ban 
accident rates at FEC crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle 
bans seems to reinforce FRA's earlier findings that the risk level at 
FEC highway-rail grade crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans 
deteriorated significantly after routine locomotive horn sounding 
practices were discontinued. According to calculations provided by 
FDOT, there was approximately one accident for every 289,000 crossing 
activations at FEC grade crossings that would later be impacted by 
nighttime whistle bans. During the five-year period following 
implementation of nighttime whistle bans, however, there was 
approximately one accident for every 96,000 crossing activations at FEC 
grade crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans.
    FRA disagrees with the conclusion that the data presented by FDOT 
must be interpreted as being indicative of a measurable element that 
has not yet been thoroughly considered by previous analyses on this 
issue. Even though accident rates associated with FEC grade crossings 
that were subject to nighttime whistle bans may differ from accident 
rates associated with FEC grade crossings that were not impacted by 
nighttime whistle bans when evaluated in relation to the number of 
crossing activations per accident, this result is potentially 
misleading. As noted above, any potential impact associated with train 
traffic volume must be evaluated in light of highway traffic patterns 
at the specific highway-rail grade crossings at issue before any 
conclusion should be drawn as to the existence of a measurable element 
that has not yet been thoroughly considered by previous analyses on 
this issue.
    FDOT also asserts that FRA's Final Report on Florida's Train 
Whistle Ban (``1995 FRA Report'') issued in September 1995, does not 
provide sufficient background information to support the pre-ban and 
post-ban accident rates associated with FEC crossings subject to 
nighttime whistle bans. In particular, FDOT notes that the 1995 FRA 
Report does not explain how the ``Number of Crossing Months'' value was 
calculated for these crossings.
    FRA disagrees with this assertion. In Appendix C to the 1995 FRA 
Report, FRA provided an explanation of how the ``Number of Crossing 
Months'' value was calculated for FEC crossings that were subject to 
nighttime whistle bans. An explanation was also provided on page 9 of 
the Second Edition of FRA's Report on Florida's Train Whistle Ban 
(``1992 FRA Report'') issued in September 1992. As stated in these 
reports, the ``Number of Crossing Months'' value was calculated by 
multiplying the number of crossings impacted by each local ordinance by 
the number of months during which the local ordinance was in effect and 
then totaling the results for all FEC crossings that were subject to 
nighttime whistle bans. FRA provided background information on the data 
used to calculate the effect of nighttime whistle bans, so that 
interested parties could review, verify and comment upon FRA's 
findings.
    FDOT also asserts that the pre-ban and post-ban accident rates for 
FEC crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans should not 
have been calculated using the same ``Number of Crossing Months'' 
value. FRA acknowledges that different ``Number of Crossing Months'' 
values were used to calculate the pre-ban and post-ban accident rates 
associated with FEC No Ban and CSX crossings. However, FRA purposefully 
used the same ``Number of Crossing Months'' value when evaluating pre-
ban and post-ban accident rates for FEC crossings subject to nighttime 
whistle bans. As stated above, the ``Number of Crossing Months'' value 
for FEC crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans was calculated by 
multiplying the number of crossings impacted by each local ordinance 
times the number of months during which the local ordinance was in 
effect and then totaling the results for all crossings that were 
subject to nighttime whistle bans. For example, there was only one 
month of post-ordinance accident data available for crossings in Holly 
Hill, Florida because the applicable whistle ban ordinance did not take 
effect until November 4, 1989. Therefore, researchers used only one 
month of pre-ordinance data (October 1989) in their analysis. In 
contrast, FRA compared 59 months of pre-ban accident data (February 
1980 through December 1984) with 59 months of post-ban accident data 
(February 1985 through December 1999) for FEC

[[Page 46387]]

highway-rail grade crossings located in Lantana and New Smyrna Beach. 
Since the variables used to calculate this ``Number of Crossing 
Months'' value would not change when evaluating pre-ban or post-ban 
accident totals associated with FEC crossings that were subject to 
nighttime whistle bans, FRA used the same ``Number of Crossing Months'' 
value to calculate pre-ban and post-ban accident rates for these 
highway-rail grade crossings.
    In contrast, the FEC No Ban and CSX crossings that were studied 
were not subject to nighttime whistle bans. Therefore, FRA calculated 
the ``Number of Crossing Months'' value by multiplying the number of 
crossings under consideration times the number of months in either the 
pre-ban or post-ban study period. Since these variables would 
necessarily change when evaluating pre-ban or post-ban accident data, 
FRA used different ``Number of Crossing Months'' values to calculate 
pre-ban and post-ban accident rates for the FEC No Ban and CSX 
crossings that were studied.
    FDOT notes the exemplary collision history associated with five 
improved highway-rail grade crossings in Broward, Palm Beach and Dade 
counties (counties that also contain FEC grade crossings). Four of 
these grade crossings have undivided approaches and are equipped with 
four-quadrant gate systems. The remaining grade crossing, which is 
equipped with four-quadrant gates and medians, constituted the only 
official quiet zone within the State of Florida on the date on which 
FDOT's comments were filed. FDOT asserts that there have not been any 
vehicle-train collisions at any of these improved highway-rail grade 
crossings since the installation of four-quadrant gate systems.
    FDOT also provides an accident history summary for 27 CSX grade 
crossings located in the Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties, which 
have been improved through engineering improvements since 1995. These 
engineering improvements include six-inch barrier curbs and four-
quadrant gate systems. Applying FDOT's accident rate analysis discussed 
above, FDOT compared the accident rate for the 27 improved grade 
crossings to pre-ban and post-ban accident rates for 224 CSX crossings 
that were comparable to the FEC crossings that were subject to 
nighttime whistle bans. FDOT concluded that the estimated accident rate 
for the 27 improved grade crossings (one accident for every 174,000 
crossing activations) is much lower than the estimated pre-ban and 
post-ban accident rates for the 224 CSX crossings that were comparable 
to the FEC crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans. This 
would seem to indicate that engineering improvements, such as four-
quadrant gate systems and non-traversable curbs, installed at 
comparable grade crossings along the FEC line could compensate for an 
increase in risk caused by the absence of warning provided by the 
locomotive horn.
    In its second set of written comments dated January 13, 2006, FDOT 
provided additional information about the significant changes that have 
occurred since EO 15 was issued, which have improved safety at grade 
crossings within the State of Florida. FDOT notes that there has been 
expanded use of bi-lingual and tri-lingual signs and rail awareness 
campaigns to provide information about highway-rail grade crossing 
hazards via literature, television, and radio media, as well as rail 
crossing safety placards and slogans on bus, transit and commuter rail 
terminals. In addition, numerous engineering design improvements in the 
area of highway-rail grade crossing safety have been implemented, 
including the installation of median treatments and the increased use 
of constant warning time devices that are interconnected with traffic 
control devices. As of January 13, 2006, FDOT asserted that active 
highway-rail grade crossing warning devices had been installed at over 
71 percent of public highway-rail grade crossings within the State of 
Florida and that there were an increasing number of four-quadrant gate 
systems. An automated video monitoring and surveillance system has also 
been installed at the McNab Road quiet zone crossing, which allows the 
system to collect real-time data on vehicle flow, crossing usage, and 
train volume for use by the railroad and regional roadway 
transportation authorities.

B. FEC

    FEC is a regional, Class II railroad that, as of October 12, 2005, 
operated over approximately 719 highway-rail grade crossings along 
Florida's east coast. FEC asserts that it operates through some of the 
most heavily populated communities in the country and intersects some 
of the most heavily traveled roadways in Florida. In response to the 
FRA public conference that was held on April 15, 2005, FEC submitted 
two sets of written comments, dated April 15, 2005 and October 12, 
2005. In these comments, FEC requested that FRA retain the current 195 
percent excess risk estimate for public FEC highway-rail grade 
crossings.
    In support of this request, FEC notes that the risks when 
locomotive horns are silenced at public FEC grade crossings have been 
separately studied, analyzed, and reviewed in-depth. As a result of 
these studies, FRA has consistently found that the imposition of 
nighttime whistle bans at public FEC highway-rail grade crossings 
resulted in at least a 195-percent increase in the nighttime accident 
rate at these crossings. In fact, the nationwide 66.8-percent excess 
risk estimate was derived from studies of nationwide grade crossing 
data that excluded collision information related to FEC crossings. 
Asserting that the 66.8-percent nationwide excess risk estimate is 
simply not applicable to public FEC highway-rail grade crossings, FEC 
argues that the 195-percent excess risk estimate should continue to 
apply to ensure that the substitution of supplementary (or alternative) 
safety measures at certain crossings within a proposed quiet zone will 
adequately compensate for the increased risk that results from the lack 
of routine locomotive horn use.
    In its written comments dated October 12, 2005, FEC asserts that 
FDOT is questioning the results of the FRA studies on Florida's Train 
Whistle Ban without sufficient explanation and without full, supporting 
data. Although FEC noted FDOT's contentions that certain recalculations 
are needed and further considerations should be undertaken by FRA in 
view of the fact that Florida has 14 operating railroads, FEC asserts 
that FDOT summarily concluded its comments by asking that the 66.8-
percent nationwide excess risk estimate be applied to all highway-rail 
grade crossings within the State of Florida, without providing any 
evidence that this estimate would be appropriate for public FEC 
highway-rail grade crossings.
    FRA remains confident that its prior analysis of the effect of 
nighttime whistle bans produced a statistically significant estimate of 
the effect of prohibiting routine nighttime locomotive horn use at 
public FEC highway-rail grade crossings during the mid-1980s to early 
1990s. However, FRA is also cognizant of the fact that engineering 
improvements have had a recognizable effect on grade crossing safety at 
public highway-rail grade crossings throughout the State of Florida. As 
noted by FDOT in its written comments, grade crossing accident rates 
have significantly declined at ``improved'' CSX highway-rail grade 
crossings in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties after engineering 
improvements such as four-quadrant

[[Page 46388]]

gate systems and non-traversable curbs have been implemented. Thus, it 
would appear that the supplementary safety measures identified in 
Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 222 would provide a comparable increase in 
safety upon implementation at comparable FEC crossings. The difficulty 
presented by this proceeding is determining comparability. FRA has once 
again attempted to determine local conditions in order to establish 
comparability as much as possible.

II. Calculation of the 90.9-Percent Excess Risk Estimate for Public 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Along the FEC Line

    In addition to the increased nighttime accident rate at gated FEC 
grade crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans, FRA's 
analysis indicated that there was a 67-percent increase in nighttime 
accident rates at 224 comparable CSX highway-rail grade crossings that 
were not subject to nighttime whistle bans. These CSX grade crossings 
were carefully screened, so that the characteristics of these CSX grade 
crossings would closely match FEC grade crossings that were subject to 
nighttime whistle bans during the study period. FRA's analysis also 
indicated that there was a 23-percent increase in nighttime accident 
rates at 89 public FEC highway-rail grade crossings that were not 
subject to nighttime whistle bans (``FEC No Ban'' grade crossings). 
Upon further review of the accident data, FRA has determined that these 
nighttime accident rate increases are particularly relevant to the 
determination of the excess risk estimate that should be applied to 
public highway-rail crossings along the FEC line. It appears reasonable 
to conclude that there would have been an increase in the nighttime 
accident rate at FEC grade crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans 
similar to that experienced at the CSX and FEC No Ban grade crossings, 
regardless of the change in locomotive horn sounding practices. 
Operating under this premise, FRA calculated the average nighttime 
accident rate increases for the group of 313 CSX and FEC grade 
crossings that were not subject to nighttime whistle bans per the 
following formula:

Average Rate Increase = ((89 FEC No Ban Grade Crossings * 23% 
increase in their accident rate) + (224 Comparable CSX Grade 
Crossings * 67% increase in their accident rate))/313 Total CSX and 
FEC No Ban Crossings

Accordingly, the average nighttime accident rate increase for the group 
of 313 public highway-rail grade crossings, comprised of comparable CSX 
grade crossings and FEC No Ban grade crossings was 54.5 percent during 
the post-ban study period.

    These distinct nighttime accident rate increases, which occurred 
during the post-ban study period at the 224 comparable CSX grade 
crossings and 89 FEC No Ban grade crossings, were not incorporated into 
FRA's calculation of the 195-percent nighttime accident rate increase 
at FEC grade crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans. 
Therefore, FRA has revised its previous estimate of the impact of 
nighttime whistle bans during the post-ban period on FEC grade 
crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans by ``backing 
out'' any effect related to a generalized increase in general crossing 
risk in the region. As discussed above, the comparison sets chosen were 
FEC No Ban grade crossings and comparable CSX grade crossings, and the 
study period and selection criteria were the same as for the FEC grade 
crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans. It was observed 
that collisions at FEC grade crossings subject to nighttime whistle 
bans increased 195 percent during the post-ban study period (from a 
constructive value of 100, representing the total of pre-ban accidents, 
to 295, the sum of the prior level and the increase), while FEC No Ban 
grade crossings and comparable CSX grade crossings in the control group 
increased 54.5 percent (from a constructive base value of 100, 
representing the total of prior accidents, to 154.5). The percentage of 
increase required to achieve 295 from the 154.5 base for the control 
group is approximately 90.9 percent (e.g., .909 * 154.5 = 140.441, and 
140.441 + 154.5 = 294.941). Thus, FRA concludes that a good measure of 
the increase in collision risk from silencing the train horn in the 
region is on the order of 90.9 percent.
    FRA is aware that many changes have occurred in the region since 
the period in question. These include engineering improvements, 
demographic changes, increases in road traffic levels, and likely some 
improvements in public education and awareness related to crossing 
safety. Many of these changes apply to FEC crossings that are currently 
subject to EO 15 and to crossings not so affected. There is no 
particular reason to believe, however, that--as to the differential 
risk involved--the 90.9 percent estimate would not be valid.
    FRA is cognizant of the fact that the FEC bans were nighttime-only 
bans and that 24-hour quiet zones may be sought in the future. FRA has 
no body of information that would permit it to apply a different excess 
risk estimate in connection with 24-hour bans. Engineering improvements 
are the principal means used by communities under Part 222 to achieve 
risk reduction and quality for quiet zones. So far as FRA is aware, 
engineering improvements are equally effective regardless of time of 
day. Indeed, communities along the FEC line will benefit in terms of 
qualifying for quiet zones for many locations where lengthy medians and 
other arrangements are in place. Improvements that have been made in 
the interim on the CSX/Tri-Rail corridor, including simple four-
quadrant gate arrangements, show how success can be fully achieved. 
Although FRA might speculate that 24-hour effects are less dramatic 
(e.g., because motorists expect the horn to sound, and it does not 
sound for a portion of the day), FRA has no empirical basis to do this. 
To the extent that we err, we err in favor of the safety objectives 
behind the legislation giving rise to FRA's regulation on the Use of 
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.

III. Rescission of FRA Emergency Order No. 15

    On the effective date of this final rule, EO 15 will be rescinded 
and the provisions of this part will apply to highway-rail grade 
crossings along the FEC line. Therefore, locomotive horn sounding will 
continue to be required at all public highway-rail grade crossings 
along the FEC line that are not located within Federal quiet zones. In 
addition, as of the effective date of this final rule, locomotive horn 
sounding at public highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line will 
have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements contained in 
section 222.21 of this part.
    As discussed in the preamble to the interim final rule, FEC 
submitted comments noting that FRA's proposed regulation did not 
address its intended effect on pre-existing restrictions on the 
sounding of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings that 
remain on the books. While FEC explained that it assumed that all local 
ordinances preempted by EO 15 would remain null and void when FRA's 
regulation on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossings is made applicable to all highway-rail grade crossings within 
the State of Florida, FEC requested that FRA specifically address the 
status of impacted crossings in the final rule so as to avoid any 
confusion among former whistle ban jurisdictions.
    Unlike EO 15, the provisions contained within this part only have a 
limited preemptive effect on State laws governing the use of locomotive 
audible

[[Page 46389]]

warning devices other than the locomotive horn at public highway-rail 
grade crossings. As reflected in section 222.21(e) of this part, FRA 
regulations do not require the sounding of locomotive audible warning 
devices other than the locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade 
crossings. However, if State law requires the sounding of a locomotive 
audible warning device other than the locomotive horn at public 
highway-rail grade crossings, then the requirements contained in 
subsections (b) and (d) of section 222.21 of this part will apply to 
the sounding of the locomotive audible warning device.
    In addition, as of the effective date of this final rule, the 
provisions contained within this part will have limited preemptive 
effect on State laws governing the use of train borne audible warnings 
at private highway-rail grade crossings, as well as pedestrian grade 
crossings. For example, section 222.45 prohibits routine locomotive 
horn sounding at private highway-rail grade crossings and pedestrian 
grade crossings located within duly established Federal quiet zones. 
FRA regulations do not, however, require the sounding of locomotive 
audible warning devices at private highway-rail grade crossings or 
pedestrian grade crossings. Only if State law requires the sounding of 
locomotive audible warning devices at private highway-rail grade 
crossings or pedestrian grade crossings will the requirements set forth 
in this part apply.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If State law requires locomotive horn sounding at private 
highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings, the 
requirements contained in section 222.21 of this part will apply. 
However, if State law requires the sounding of a locomotive audible 
warning device other than the locomotive horn at private highway-
rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings, then the 
requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of section 222.21 of this 
part will apply to the sounding of that locomotive audible warning 
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the interim final rule, FRA discussed the types 
of quiet zones (i.e., New Quiet Zone versus Pre-Rule Quiet Zone) that 
could be established by public authorities seeking to restrict routine 
locomotive horn sounding at highway-rail grade crossings which are 
currently subject to EO 15. As stated in the preamble, since the 
authorizing Florida statute and related local ordinances that imposed 
nighttime whistle bans at certain FEC crossings were not enforced or 
observed on October 9, 1996, and no quiet zones containing FEC 
crossings had been established as of that date pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in the EO 15 amendments, public authorities who 
wish to establish Federal quiet zones that include highway-rail grade 
crossings currently subject to EO 15 will not be able to qualify for 
Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status. Therefore, any public authority seeking to 
establish a Federal quiet zone that contains any highway-rail grade 
crossing currently subject to EO 15 will need to comply with the 
requirements for New Quiet Zones (or New Partial Quiet Zones) contained 
in 49 CFR Part 222.
    On or after the effective date of this final rule, public 
authorities will, however, be authorized to implement wayside horns at 
public highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and 
gates, pursuant to the requirements contained within this part, as an 
alternative to the audible warning provided by routine sounding of the 
locomotive horn.\3\ FRA acknowledges that, when EO 15 was issued, FRA 
was not prepared to endorse the implementation of wayside horns at 
highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line as an acceptable 
substitute for routine sounding of the locomotive horn. However, 
subsequent to the issuance of EO 15, a number of studies were conducted 
on the effectiveness of wayside horn installations, the results of 
which indicated that the use of wayside horns at highway-rail grade 
crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates has merit under 
certain well-defined conditions.\4\ In addition to a significant 
reduction in noise impacts on the surrounding community when compared 
to routine locomotive horn sounding practices, these studies revealed 
that the implementation of wayside horn systems at highway-rail grade 
crossings equipped with active warning devices does not appear to 
degrade safety after routine locomotive horn sounding practices have 
been discontinued. FRA also notes that, in its comments on the NPRM and 
interim final rule, FDOT expressed support for the use of wayside horns 
in certain instances where it is impossible or impracticable to install 
supplementary safety measures. While FRA does not agree that the use of 
wayside horns should be limited to situations where the implementation 
of supplementary safety measures would be impractical or impossible, 
based on the results of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of 
wayside horn installations, the provisions of part 222 which address 
the implementation of wayside horn systems will apply to highway-rail 
grade crossings along the FEC line as of the effective date of this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A wayside horn system typically consists of horns mounted on 
poles that are placed at the highway-rail grade crossing. A horn is 
directed towards each direction of oncoming vehicular traffic. The 
system is activated by the same track circuits used to detect the 
train's approach for purposes of other automated warning devices at 
the crossing (flashing lights and gates) and produces an audible 
warning similar to warning provided by an approaching train.
    \4\ A detailed discussion of the studies that were conducted on 
the effectiveness of wayside horn system installations can be found 
in FRA's Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (68 FR 70586, 70607-70609).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Section-By-Section Analysis

Appendix G--Excess Risk Estimates for Public Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossings

    Appendix G has been added to this part to establish a 90.9-percent 
excess risk estimate for public highway-rail grade crossings that are 
located along the FEC line. The excess risk estimate is a figure that 
represents the amount by which collision frequency has been estimated 
to increase when routine locomotive horn sounding is restricted at 
public highway-rail grade crossings. Please refer to the previous 
section titled, ``Calculation of the 90.9-Percent Excess Risk Estimate 
for Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Along the FEC Line'', for more 
information about the calculations that were used to derive the excess 
risk estimate for public highway-rail grade crossings located along the 
FEC line.
    Appendix G only provides an excess risk estimate for public FEC 
crossings that are equipped with flashing lights and gates. FRA has not 
provided excess risk estimates for passive FEC crossings or public FEC 
crossings that are only equipped with flashing lights because public 
authorities will only be permitted to establish New Quiet Zones (or New 
Partial Quiet Zones) on the FEC line. As stated in section 222.35(b), 
all public highway-rail grade crossings located in New Quiet Zones or 
New Partial Quiet Zones must be equipped with active grade crossing 
warning devices comprising both flashing lights and gates.
    Public authorities who are interested in establishing a New Quiet 
Zone (or New Partial Quiet Zone) on the FEC line are advised to use 
FRA's Quiet Zone Calculator, which can be accessed from FRA's Web site 
at https://www.fra.dot.gov. FRA's Quiet Zone Calculator will 
automatically apply the 90.9-percent excess risk estimate to public 
highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line. The calculator can be 
used as a tool by public authorities for determining which combination 
of Supplementary Safety Measures and Alternative Safety Measures (if 
any) will be necessary to reduce their Quiet Zone Risk Index to an 
acceptable level for quiet zone establishment (i.e., the Nationwide 
Significant Risk Threshold

[[Page 46390]]

or the Risk Index With Horns). Please refer to Appendix C of this part 
for a detailed guide to the establishment of quiet zones under this 
part.

Appendix H--Schedule of Civil Penalties

    The former Appendix G to this part has been redesignated as 
Appendix H. No other revisions have been made to this Appendix.

V. Regulatory Impact

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule has been evaluated and determined not to be a 
``significant regulatory action'', as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, nor a ``significant regulation'' under the 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by DOT (44 FR 11034). 
FRA has determined that this final rule will have a minimal cost impact 
with positive net benefits. Under this final rule, locomotive horn 
sounding will continue to be required at public grade crossings along 
the FEC line, unless the public authority decides to include the public 
grade crossing within a Federal quiet zone. Due to the voluntary nature 
of quiet zone establishment, Florida cities and counties will establish 
quiet zones only if the quiet zone benefits exceed the costs. FRA 
estimates that this rule will potentially affect the 72 governmental 
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, etc.) that 
are located along the FEC line. Of these 72 jurisdictions, the 
municipalities most likely to be affected are the 15 cities and seven 
counties listed below that had whistle bans during the 1980s and early 
1990s, who may wish to re-impose restrictions on routine locomotive 
horn sounding at grade crossings through the establishment of Federal 
quiet zones.

                                  Consolidated Prior Whistle Ban Jurisdictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Small      Large
                     Municipality                       Effective date     city       city      County    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dade County...........................................       7/29/1984                                1
City of Hollywood.....................................      11/11/1984                     1
City of Daytona Beach.................................      11/12/1984                     1
City of South Daytona.................................      11/19/1984          1
City of New Smyrna Beach..............................        1/7/1985          1
Martin County.........................................       1/21/1985                                1
City of Fort Lauderdale...............................        3/4/1985                     1
City of Hallandale....................................        7/1/1985          1
City of Wilton Manors.................................       8/12/1985          1
City of Pompano Beach.................................        9/9/1985                     1
City of Deerfield Beach...............................      11/27/1985                     1
City of Oakland Park..................................       3/20/1986          1
Indian River County...................................       2/25/1987                                1
City of Port Orange...................................        6/4/1988                     1
St. Lucie County......................................        8/1/1988                                1
St. Johns County......................................       9/27/1988                                1
Palm Beach County.....................................       3/25/1989                                1
City of Sebastian.....................................       7/14/1989          1
City of Ormond Beach..................................       10/9/1989          1
City of Holly Hill....................................       11/4/1989          1
Brevard County........................................      11/27/1989                                1
City of Edgewater.....................................       1/29/1990          1
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..........................................                          9          6          7       22
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
        Percentage....................................                        41%        27%        32%     100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Cities that were later covered under a county whistle ban ordinance are not listed here.
Note 2: A small city is one that has a population of less than 50,000 people (according to the SBA).
Source: FRA Report ``Florida's Train Whistle Ban'' (October 1995); U.S. Census Bureau.

    FRA sampled three out of the 9 small cities (33 percent), two out 
of the six large cities (33 percent), and three out of the seven 
counties (43 percent) on the FEC line that had whistle bans during the 
1980s and early 1990s. Thus, the total sample analyzed was a 36-percent 
sample (8/22 = 36%). These sampled jurisdictions were selected on the 
basis of being representative of the jurisdictions contained within 
each category of prior whistle ban jurisdictions. Based on a 36-percent 
sample of prior whistle ban jurisdictions along the FEC line, the 
average total cost of this final rule over 20 years for the 15 cities 
and seven counties that had whistle bans during the 1980s and early 
1990s and may wish to re-impose restrictions on routine locomotive horn 
sounding is estimated to be about $7.5 million or $6.3 million in 
present value cost (in 2008 dollars, 7 percent discount rate). The 
table below shows a breakdown of these total costs by category.

      Total Costs per Category for Prior Whistle Ban Jurisdictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total
                       Category                          (undiscounted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Cities.........................................           $549,000
Large Cities.........................................            840,000
Counties.............................................          6,104,000
                                                      ------------------
    Grand Total Costs................................          7,493,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These costs will only be incurred if the local government believes 
the quiet zone benefits exceed the costs. As stated above, locomotive 
horn sounding will continue to be required at public grade crossings 
along the FEC line. However, this final rule will allow local 
governments along the FEC line to impose restrictions on locomotive 
horn

[[Page 46391]]

sounding at grade crossings, provided measures are taken to compensate 
for any excess risk associated with the locomotive horn sounding 
restrictions. Thus, the impact of this final rule is expected to be 
similar to that found in the analysis for new quiet zones that FRA 
conducted for the final rule titled, ``Use of Locomotive Horns at 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'', which was issued on April 27, 2005 (70 
FR 21844). Because new quiet zone establishment requirements were 
designed to ensure that safety levels would be maintained and 
communities establish quiet zones only to the extent that they believe 
benefits from doing so will exceed costs, that analysis concluded that 
the rule would be cost beneficial. That argument applies to this rule 
as well.
    Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected 
cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not 
warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that 
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full 
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a 
determination has been made for this final rule. Thus, a full 
regulatory evaluation was not prepared. FRA has, therefore, determined 
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not a 
``significant regulation'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on 
small entities, unless the agency certifies that the rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act covers a wide range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates that 
governmental jurisdictions, which include cities, counties, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with 
populations of less than 50,000 people, are small entities. (5 U.S.C. 
601) Among the 66 governmental jurisdictions along the FEC line that 
would potentially be impacted by this final rule, data from the 2000 
U.S. Census indicates that 49 jurisdictions had populations of less 
than 50,000 people, while 17 jurisdictions had populations of greater 
than 50,000 people.
    Approximately 74 percent (49/66 = 74%) of the potentially affected 
governmental jurisdictions along the FEC line would be considered small 
entities under SBA criteria, based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census. 
For comparison purposes, data from the 2006 Population Estimates 
(source: U.S. Census Bureau) is also shown in the next table. Even 
though data from the 2000 U.S. Census reflects actual population 
counts, the estimated population figures contained in the 2006 
Population Estimates are more up-to-date. (The next U.S. Census survey 
that will provide an actual population count will not be conducted 
until 2010.) The 49 small entities with known population counts that 
could be impacted by this final rule are listed in the table below:

                                        Small Entities Along the FEC Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       2006
            Number                      County                     City             2000 Census     Population
                                                                                    population       Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Brevard.................  Cocoa..................          16,412          16,743
2............................  Brevard.................  Malabar................           2,622           2,743
3............................  Brevard.................  Mims...................           9,147             ???
4............................  Brevard.................  Rockledge..............          20,170          24,290
5............................  Brevard.................  Titusville.............          40,670          44,027
6............................  Broward.................  Dania..................          20,061          28,802
7............................  Broward.................  Hallandale.............          34,282          39,372
8............................  Broward.................  Oakland Park...........          30,966          42,384
9............................  Broward.................  Wilton Manors..........          12,697          12,909
10...........................  Dade....................  Coral Gables...........          42,249          42,794
11...........................  Dade....................  Cutler Ridge...........          24,781             ???
12...........................  Dade....................  El Portal..............           2,505           2,399
13...........................  Dade....................  Florida City...........           7,843           9,445
14...........................  Dade....................  Goulds.................           7,453             ???
15...........................  Dade....................  Homestead..............          31,909          53,767
16...........................  Dade....................  Medley.................           1,098           1,050
17...........................  Dade....................  Miami Shores...........          10,380           9,882
18...........................  Dade....................  Perrine (East).........           7,079           7,477
19...........................  Dade....................  Perrine (West).........           8,600           9,084
20...........................  Dade....................  North Miami Beach......          40,786          39,030
21...........................  Flagler.................  Bunnell................           2,122           1,706
22...........................  Indian River............  Sebastian..............          16,181          20,255
23...........................  Indian River............  Vero Beach.............          17,705          16,939
24...........................  Martin..................  Hobe Sound.............          11,376             ???
25...........................  Martin..................  Port Salerno...........          10,141             ???
26...........................  Martin..................  Sewalls Point..........           1,946           2,024
27...........................  Martin..................  Stuart.................          14,633          16,155
28...........................  Palm Beach..............  Belle Glade............          14,906          15,233
29...........................  Palm Beach..............  Belle Glade Camp.......           1,141             ???
30...........................  Palm Beach..............  Hypoluxo...............           2,015           2,596
31...........................  Palm Beach..............  Jupiter................          39,328          48,847
32...........................  Palm Beach..............  Lake Park..............           8,721           8,893
33...........................  Palm Beach..............  Lake Worth.............          35,133          35,980
34...........................  Palm Beach..............  Lantana................           9,437          10,334
35...........................  Palm Beach..............  Mangonia Park..........           1,283           1,262
36...........................  Palm Beach..............  Pahokee................           5,985           6,581

[[Page 46392]]

 
37...........................  Palm Beach..............  Palm Beach Gardens.....          35,058          48,914
38...........................  Palm Beach..............  Riviera Beach..........          29,884          35,846
39...........................  Palm Beach..............  South Bay..............           3,859           4,554
40...........................  Palm Beach..............  Tequesta...............           5,273           5,942
41...........................  St. Johns...............  St. Augustine..........          11,592          12,064
42...........................  St. Lucie...............  Fort Pierce............          37,516          39,365
43...........................  Volusia.................  Edgewater..............          18,668          21,486
44...........................  Volusia.................  Holly Hill.............          12,119          13,325
45...........................  Volusia.................  New Smyrna Beach.......          20,048          22,732
46...........................  Volusia.................  Oak Hill...............           1,378           1,575
47...........................  Volusia.................  Ormond Beach...........          36,301          38,504
48...........................  Volusia.................  Port Orange............          45,823          54,851
49...........................  Volusia.................  South Daytona..........          13,177          13,541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Seventeen of these small entity jurisdictions had whistle bans in 
place during the 1980s and early 1990s. These seventeen jurisdictions, 
which are most likely to be affected by this final rule, are shown 
below:

                                   Small Entity FEC Whistle Ban Jurisdictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       2006
         Number              Municipality           County        Effective date   2000  Census     Population
                                                                  of whistle ban    population       Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  City of Hypoluxo *  Palm Beach........       9/24/1984           2,015           2,596
2.......................  Village of          Palm Beach........      10/23/1984           5,273           5,942
                           Tequesta *.
3.......................  City of South       Volusia...........      11/19/1984          13,177          13,541
                           Daytona.
4.......................  Town of Lantana *.  Palm Beach........        1/7/1985           9,437          10,334
5.......................  City of New Smyrna  Volusia...........        1/7/1985          20,048          22,732
                           Beach.
6.......................  Town of Jupiter *.  Palm Beach........       1/29/1985          39,328          48,847
7.......................  City of Lake Worth  Palm Beach........       2/15/1985          35,133          35,980
                           *.
8.......................  City of Hallandale  Broward...........        7/1/1985          34,282          39,372
9.......................  City of Wilton      Broward...........       8/12/1985          12,697          12,909
                           Manors.
10......................  City of Oakland     Broward...........       3/20/1986          30,966          42,384
                           Park.
11......................  City of Fort        St. Lucie.........       6/28/1986          37,516          39,365
                           Pierce **.
12......................  Town of Malabar     Brevard...........       4/13/1988           2,622           2,743
                           ***.
13......................  City of Titusville  Brevard...........       5/20/1988          40,670          44,027
                           ***.
14......................  City of Sebastian.  Indian River......       7/14/1989          16,181          20,255
15......................  City of Ormond      Volusia...........       10/9/1989          36,301          38,504
                           Beach.
16......................  City of Holly Hill  Volusia...........       11/4/1989          12,119          13,325
17......................  City of Edgewater.  Volusia...........       1/29/1990          18,668          21,486
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These cities were la