Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation H-68-011
Details
Synopsis: AT 8:10 A.M. ON OCTOBER 2, 1967, A SCHOOL BUS CARRYING 13 CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, TRAVELING EAST ON COUNTY ROAD 29 NEAR WATERLOO, NEBRASKA, WAS DRIVEN ACROSS AN UNPROTECTED HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING 1/ AND WAS STRUCK BY A WESTBOUND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIN. THE TRAIN, COMPOSED OF A LOCOMOTIVE, 96 EMPTY FREIGHT CARS AND A CABOOSE, WAS TRAVELING AT 56 M.P.H. THE LOCOMOTIVE STRUCK AND HELD THE RIGHT REAR QUARTER OF THE BUS, DRAGGING IT BACKWARD, AND THEN DEFLECTED IT INTO A COMMUNICATIONS POLE. THE REAR OF THE BUS BODY WAS DISINTEGRATED. FOUR OF THE CHILDREN ON THE BUS WERE KILLED AND THE OTHER NINE INJURED. THERE WERE NO OTHER FATALITIES OR INJURIES IN THE ACCIDENT.
Recommendation: THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT SCHOOL BUSES OPERATE OVER UNPROTECTED GRADE CROSSINGS, PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE FOR A RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER THAN THE DRIVER, TO ALIGHT AND DETERMINE THAT NO TRAIN IS APPROACHING, AND TO SIGNAL THE DRIVER TO PROCEED OVER THE CROSSING.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Reconsidered
Mode: Highway
Location: Waterloo, NE, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: 79559
Accident Reports: ​Waterloo, Nebraska, Public School, School Bus and Union Pacific Railroad Company Freight Train Accident
Report #: HAR-71-01
Accident Date: 10/2/1967
Issue Date: 9/18/1968
Date Closed: 6/27/1975
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Commonwealth of Kentucky (Closed - Reconsidered)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Closed - Reconsidered)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Closed - Reconsidered)
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Closed - Reconsidered)
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Closed - Reconsidered)
Commonwealth of Virginia (Closed - Reconsidered)
District of Columbia (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Alabama (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Alaska (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Arizona (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Arkansas (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of California (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Colorado (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Connecticut (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Delaware (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Florida (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Georgia (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Hawaii (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Idaho (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Illinois (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Indiana (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Iowa (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Kansas (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Louisiana (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Maine (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Maryland (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Michigan (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Minnesota (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Mississippi (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Missouri (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Montana (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Nebraska (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Nevada (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of New Hampshire (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of New Jersey (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of New Mexico (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of New York (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of North Carolina (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of North Dakota (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Ohio (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Oklahoma (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Oregon (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Rhode Island (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of South Carolina (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of South Dakota (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Tennessee (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Texas (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Utah (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Vermont (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Washington (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of West Virginia (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Wisconsin (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Wyoming (Closed - Reconsidered)
Territory of American Samoa (Closed - Reconsidered)
Territory of Guam (Closed - Reconsidered)
Virgin Islands of the United States (Closed - Reconsidered)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: State of Alabama
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Alabama
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Arizona
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Arizona
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Arkansas
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Arkansas
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of California
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of California
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Colorado
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Colorado
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Connecticut
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Connecticut
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Delaware
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Delaware
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Florida
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Florida
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Georgia
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Georgia
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Idaho
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Idaho
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Illinois
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Illinois
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Indiana
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Indiana
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Iowa
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Iowa
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Kansas
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Kansas
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Louisiana
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Louisiana
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Michigan
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Michigan
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Minnesota
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Minnesota
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Missouri
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Missouri
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Montana
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Montana
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nebraska
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Nebraska
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nevada
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Nevada
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Jersey
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of New Jersey
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Mexico
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of New Mexico
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Carolina
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of North Carolina
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Ohio
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Ohio
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oklahoma
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Oklahoma
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Rhode Island
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Rhode Island
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of South Carolina
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of South Carolina
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of South Dakota
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of South Dakota
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Tennessee
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Tennessee
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Texas
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Texas
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Vermont
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Vermont
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Wisconsin
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Wisconsin
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Wyoming
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Wyoming
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Alaska
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of Alaska
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: District of Columbia
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: District of Columbia
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Kentucky
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Kentucky
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Virginia
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Virginia
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Territory of American Samoa
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Territory of American Samoa
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Territory of Guam
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Territory of Guam
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.

From: NTSB
To: Virgin Islands of the United States
Date: 7/15/1975
Response: 7/15/1975 This memorandum is for the record, inasmuch as there are some Safety Recommendations which have been closed by formal Board action; and no notification will be sent to the addressee. These have been discussed with Mr. Emerson Harris, SRM for BSTS. However, this memorandum can be filed with copies of letters sent to the modal administrators. To Secretary of State: Recommendation: I-72-0 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Legislatures, UPRR, et. al.,: H-7-68: on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-10 and H-68-14 on 6/27/1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action To State Boards of Education, et. al.: H-68-11 on 6/27/1975 Closed- Reconsidered To the State Motor Vehicle Administrations: H-68-15 on June 27, 1975 is Closed-Acceptable Action

From: NTSB
To: Virgin Islands of the United States
Date: 1/7/1970
Response: From NTSB: 1/7/1970: Notation 344A: Reference is made to the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed rulemaking in Docket Number 69-14, Notice I, concerning horns and other audible warning devices for highway vehicles. It is highly desirable that warning be both deliverable and receivable, in many operations of highway vehicles, and the consideration of this subject is very welcome. The Safety Board wishes to call attention to our prior recommendation regarding this subject. In our reports of the grade-crossing accident at Sacramento, California, and Waterloo, Nebraska, we recommended that “FHWA study the questionable audibility of external sound signals within motor vehicles, both in relation to grade-crossing signals and train horns, and for all other audible warnings which can assist a driver. Such a study should be executed in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration, and should be aimed toward creating a unified system of warnings and reliable reception which could be made effective through Federal regulation and State laws.” From the wording in Docket Number 69-14, it appears that our recommendation may not have been considered in the framing of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). The question of the audibility of external signals in other vehicles is discernible in the ANPRM only by implication. There is no indication of any concept of a unified system intended to address the entire problem of existing unreliable audible warnings, and of course that includes a warning systems by means other than audio signals. We believe it is necessary to define the conditions under which warnings are to be receivable, and the definition of these conditions is a substantial task which should precede the final notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for transmitting devices. Among the conditions which should be considered are (1) pedestrians and drivers of varying hearing ability (no State prohibits totally deaf drivers); (2) Interference within signals due to competing signals of other traffic; (3) reception interference caused by engine noise or noise of the receiving vehicle, radio sounds, air conditioner operation, children’s shouts or pet noises, and complete closing of the vehicle window. To meet these problems, the Board has been advised of a number of possible devices including such no radio-operated warning, external sound and sound filtering devices, dash methods. Many of these devices would involve modification of the receiving vehicle, whether the ANPRM… text unreadable…. It should also be observed that warning problems entirely made by audible signals will necessarily increase noise pollution and thus tend to degrade environmental quality. The Safety Board is aware of the contract issued by the Federal Railroad Administration for a study of train visual and audible warnings as related to highway grade crossings. We feel certain that some FHWA members of that group are cognizant of the need for a full approach which includes reliable reception; however, that need is not directly apparent in the ANPRM. It is recommended that the Safety Board’s recommendation in the Sacramento and Waterloo report be included in connection with the formulation of the next notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number 69-14. Specific and systematic consideration should be given to a definition by FHWA of the full spectrum of reception conditions which exist, including those mentioned above. FHWA should determine what is needed to operate under existing conditions effectively. Further, other methods of warning between vehicles should be considered, and especially those which do not add to noise pollution. Your consideration of this recommendation will be appreciated.