68862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The discussion under this section (II)(A) 

concerns the statutory authority for the reporting 

provisions of Part 225 only, e.g., 49 CFR 225.11 and 

225.21, and does not address the statutory authority 

for the penalty, investigative, or other provisions of 

Part 225. 

2This final rule adds a fourth statute to the 

statutory foundation for the accident/incident 

reporting requirements in Part 225: 28 U.S.C. 1746, 

Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury. 

Public Law 94–550, sec. 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 

2534. Pursuant to that statute, the requirement in 

49 U.S.C. 20901 that accident reports be submitted 

‘‘under oath’’ (and, therefore, signed and notarized) 

has been converted into one of two alternative 

requirements, the second being submission of a 

signed, unsworn declaration saying that it is being 

made subject to penalty of perjury. 

3Federal requirements that railroads report their 

accidents date back to before 1910, as evidenced by 

two provisions in the Accident Reports Act as 

originally enacted. The first section of the Accident 

Reports Act contained a proviso that relieved 

carriers ‘‘from the duty of reporting accidents in 

their annual financial and operating reports made 

to the commission[,]’’ and Section 6 repealed an 

accident reporting law enacted in 1901, ‘An Act 

requiring common carriers * * * to make full 

reports of all accidents to the Interstate Commerce 

Commission.‘ Approved March third, nineteen 

hundred and one * * *’’ 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 225 

[Docket No. FRA–2006–26173; Notice No. 

3] 

RIN 2130–AB82 

Miscellaneous Amendments to the 

Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Accident/Incident Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises FRA’s 

existing regulations addressing 

accident/incident reporting in order to 

clarify ambiguous regulations and to 

enhance the quality of information 

available for railroad casualty analysis. 

In addition, FRA has revised the FRA 

Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident 

Reports (FRA Guide), its accident/ 

incident recording and reporting forms 

and its Companion Guide: Guidelines 

for Submitting Accident/Incident 

Reports by Alternative Methods 

(Companion Guide). 

DATES: The final rule is effective 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnel B. Rivera, Staff Director, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration, Office of 

Safety Analysis, RRS–22, Mail Stop 25, 

West Building 3rd Floor, Room W33– 

306, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202– 

493–1331); or Gahan Christenson, Trial 

Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 

RCC–10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 

3rd Floor, Room W31–204, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–1381). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. The FRA Guide and the Companion 

Guide 

In addition to revising its regulations 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, FRA 

has revised the FRA Guide. The FRA 

Guide is posted on FRA’s Web site at 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

officeofsafety. Hard copies of the FRA 

Guide will be available upon request. 

Information on requesting hard copies 

of the FRA Guide can be found in 

§ 225.21, ‘‘Forms,’’ of this final rule. 

FRA has also revised its Companion 

Guide containing instructions for 

electronically submitting monthly 

reports to FRA. The Companion Guide 

is posted on FRA’s Web site at http:// 

safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety. 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Authority for the Accident/ 

Incident Reporting Requirements in 49 

CFR Part 225 (Part 225) 

FRA’s accident/incident reporting 

requirements 1 in Part 225, both as they 

exist today and as they are amended by 

this final rule, were issued under the 

statutory authority of the following 

three statutes: 2

• 49 U.S.C. 20901 (formerly, part of 

the Accident Reports Act); 

• 49 U.S.C. 20103(a) (formerly, part of 

the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970); 

and 

• 49 U.S.C. 322(a) (formerly, part of 

the Department of Transportation Act). 

The Accident Reports Act was 

enacted in 1910,3 Public Law 165, the 

Act of May 6, 1910, ch. 208, 36 Stat. 350 

(1910). Section 1 of the Accident 

Reports Act required— 

every common carrier engaged in interstate 

or foreign commerce by railroad to make to 

the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] 

* * * a monthly report, under oath, of all 

collisions, derailments, or other accidents 

arising from the operation of such railroad 

under such rules and regulations as may be 

prescribed by the [ICC,] which report shall 

state the nature and causes thereof and the 

circumstances connected therewith * * *. 

Emphasis added. In addition, Section 5 

of the Accident Reports Act authorized 

the ICC ‘‘to prescribe for such common 

carriers a method and form for making 

the reports hereinbefore provided.’’ 

Together, Sections 1 and 5 of the 

Accident Reports Act afforded the ICC 

authority to promulgate regulations to 

carry out the reporting provisions of the 

Accident Reports Act. 

In 1960, the Accident Reports Act was 

amended to remove language in Section 

1 conferring rulemaking authority on 

the ICC to require railroads to (‘‘report 

* * * under such rules and regulations 

as may be prescribed by the [ICC]’’) and 

to add to Section 5 clearer language 

conferring that rulemaking authority 

(‘‘The [ICC] is authorized to prescribe 

such rules and regulations and such 

forms for making the reports herein 

before provided as are necessary to 

implement and effectuate the purpose of 

this Act.’’). Public Law 86–762 

(September 13, 1960), 74 Stat. 903. In 

1966, the Department of Transportation 

Act transferred the responsibility for 

prescribing regulations to carry out the 

Accident Reports Act, as amended, from 

the ICC to the Secretary of 

Transportation. Sec. 6(e)(1)(K) of Public 

Law 89–670 (October 15, 1966), 80 Stat. 

939. In addition, the Secretary delegated 

this responsibility to the Administrator 

of the Federal Railroad Administration 

by regulation. 49 CFR 1.49(c)(11). Later, 

in 1988, the Accident Reports Act was 

amended so as to expand its 

applicability from ‘‘common carriers 

engaged in interstate commerce by 

railroad’’ to include all ‘‘railroads.’’ Sec. 

15 of Public Law 100–342 (June 22, 

1988), 102 Stat. 633. The same 

legislation required railroads to include 

in any of their reports that assigned 

employee error as a cause of an 

accident/incident to include, at the 

employee’s option, a statement 

‘‘explaining any factors the employee 

alleges contributed to the accident or 

incident.’’ Id. at Sec. 24. 

In 1994, the Accident Reports Act, as 

amended (then codified at 45 U.S.C. 38– 

43a), along with virtually all of the other 

Federal railroad safety laws, was 

repealed, and its provisions were 

revised, reenacted as positive law, and 

recodified without substantive change at 

49 U.S.C. 20901–20903, Accidents and 

Incidents, with its penalty provisions in 

49 U.S.C. chapter 213, Penalties, Public 

Law 103–272, 108 Stat. 745 (July 5, 

1994). During the 1994 recodification of 

the rail safety laws, Congress repealed, 

but did not reenact or recodify the text 

of Section 5 of the Accident Reports 

Act, as amended (then codified at 45 

U.S.C. 42), which authorized the 

Secretary ‘‘to prescribe such rules and 

regulations and such forms for making 

the reports hereinbefore provided as are 

necessary to implement and effectuate 

the purposes of [the Accident Reports 

Act].’’ Congress concluded that this 

section was ‘‘[un]necessary because of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68863 

4 It should be noted that the OSHA 200 form has 

been subsequently renamed as the OSHA 300 form. 

49 [U.S.C.] 322(a).’’ See H.R. Rep. No. 

103–180, 502, 584 (1993); reprinted in 

1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1319, 1401. Although 

Public Law 103–272 was not intended 

to change the substance of the laws as 

recodified, this is an example of how its 

repeal of an ‘‘unnecessary’’ law 

apparently changed the statutory basis 

of a regulation. Of course, recodification 

did not change any law substantively, so 

in a sense, Section 5 of the Accident 

Reports Act survives to the extent that 

it is legally necessary. 

The preamble to this final rule refers 

to the current, recodified version of 

what was formerly known as the 

Accident Reports Act, by its section 

numbers in title 49 of the U.S. Code. 

Currently, § 20901 requires, in part, that 

railroad carriers file with the Secretary 

of Transportation reports on ‘‘all 

accidents and incidents resulting in 

injury or death to an individual or 

damage to equipment or a roadbed 

arising from the carrier’s operations 

during the month.’’ 

The second major statutory authority 

for the accident/incident reporting 

requirements in Part 225 is 49 U.S.C. 

20103, formerly § 202 of the Federal 

Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA). 

Public Law 91–458 (October 16, 1970), 

84 Stat. 971. Like the Accident Reports 

Act, the FRSA was repealed in 1994, 

and its provisions were revised, 

reenacted as positive law, and 

recodified without substantive change 

primarily at 49 U.S.C. chapter 201, with 

penalty provisions in 49 U.S.C. chapter 

213. As amended, 49 U.S.C. 20103(a) 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

Secretary of Transportation, as 

necessary, shall prescribe regulations 

and issue orders for every area of 

railroad safety supplementing laws and 

regulations in effect on October 16, 

1970.’’ The Secretary also delegated this 

authority to the Administrator of FRA. 

49 CFR 1.49(m). In 1974, FRA reissued 

its accident reporting regulations under 

the added authority of the FRSA to 

cover additional railroads and require 

reporting of occupational illnesses. 39 

FR 43222, December 11, 1974. 

The third major statutory authority for 

the accident/incident reporting 

requirements in Part 225 is 49 U.S.C. 

322(a), which was enacted in 1966, and 

codified in § 9(e) of the Department of 

Transportation Act. The statutory 

provision at 49 U.S.C. 322(a) reads as 

follows: 

The Secretary of Transportation may 

prescribe regulations to carry out the duties 

and powers of the Secretary. An officer of the 

Department of Transportation may prescribe 

regulations to carry out the duties and 

powers of the officer. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), an officer of the 

Department of Transportation may 

prescribe regulations to carry out the 

duties of the officer. Section 103(d) of 

title 49, U.S. Code, provides that the 

head of the FRA is the Administrator, 

and the Administrator of FRA is an 

‘‘officer of the Department of 

Transportation,’’ within the meaning of 

49 U.S.C. 322(a). Section 103(g)(1) of 

title 49, U.S. Code, provides that ‘‘the 

Administrator shall carry out—* * * 

duties and powers related to railroad 

safety vested in the Secretary by * * * 

chapters 203–211 of this title, and by 

chapter 213 of this title for carrying out 

chapters 203 through 211.’’ 

Consequently, the duty of carrying out 

49 U.S.C. chapter 209 is clearly one of 

the ‘‘duties of the officer,’’ within the 

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 322(a). 

Accordingly, the FRA Administrator 

may prescribe regulations to carry out 

49 U.S.C. chapter 209. 

B. Occupational Safety and Health Act 

Although not a statutory authority for 

the accident/incident reporting 

requirements of Part 225, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSH Act), which Congress enacted in 

1970, has shaped these requirements. 

Public Law 91–596, codified as 

amended at 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. While 

the OSH Act gives the Secretary of 

Labor a broad, general authority to 

regulate working conditions that affect 

the occupational safety and health of 

employees, it also recognized the 

existence of similar authority in other 

Federal agencies. Section 4(b)(1) of the 

OSH Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. 

653(b)(1), provides that the OSH Act 

shall not apply to working conditions as 

to which another Federal agency 

exercises statutory authority to prescribe 

or enforce standards or regulations 

affecting occupational safety or health. 

Because FRA exercises statutory 

authority to prescribe and enforce 

standards and regulations for all areas of 

railroad safety under 49 U.S.C. chapter 

201, OSHA’s jurisdiction may be 

preempted by FRA under section 4(b)(1) 

of the OSH Act with regards to certain 

matters related to railroad safety. See 

Policy Statement asserting FRA 

jurisdiction over matters involving the 

safety of railroad operations, 43 FR 

10584, March 14, 1978. 

With respect to employee injury and 

illness recordkeeping, however, OSHA’s 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission ruled that the railroad 

industry must comply with OSHA 

requirements and must afford the 

Secretary of Labor’s representatives 

access to these records. Secretary of 

Labor v. Conrail (OSHRC Docket No. 

80–3495, 1982). In doing so, the 

Commission indicated that employee 

injury and illness recordkeeping does 

not come within the purview of section 

4(b)(1) of the OSH Act and, therefore, 

OSHA’s jurisdiction has not been 

displaced by FRA’s employee injury and 

illness recordkeeping and reporting 

regulations. Nevertheless, the 

Commission did state, ‘‘[t]his does not 

mean that railroad industry employers 

must use the OSHA form, No. 200, 

mentioned in section [29 CFR] 

1904.2(a). Section 1904.2(a) allows an 

employer to maintain ‘an equivalent 

which is as readable and 

comprehensible [as the OSHA 200 form] 

to a person not familiar with it.’ ’’ 4

Under OSHA’s current regulations, 49 

CFR 1904.3 states that ‘‘[i]f you create 

records to comply with another 

government agency’s injury and illness 

recordkeeping requirements, OSHA will 

consider those records as meeting 

OSHA’s Part 1904 recordkeeping 

requirements if OSHA accepts the other 

agency’s records under a memorandum 

of understanding with that agency, or if 

the other agency’s records contain the 

same information as this Part 1904 

requires you to record.’’ Accordingly, 

because FRA’s employee injury and 

illness recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements employ equivalent 

standards to those promulgated by 

OSHA, OSHA does not require railroad 

carriers to maintain OSHA records in 

addition to FRA records. Rather, 

railroad carriers are only required to 

report employee injuries and illnesses to 

FRA in accordance with FRA’s 

regulations. FRA makes all railroad 

employee injury and illness data 

available to OSHA for use in its 

complementary program of regulation, 

and provides this data to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) each year for 

inclusion in the Department of Labor’s 

national occupational injury and illness 

database. 

C. Overview of Part 225 and Recent 

Amendments 

Part 225 contains a series of specific 

accident/incident recording and 

reporting requirements. The purpose of 

FRA’s accident/incident recordkeeping 

and reporting regulations is ‘‘to provide 

the Federal Railroad Administration 

with accurate information concerning 

the hazards and risks that exist on the 

Nation’s railroads. FRA needs this 

information to effectively carry out its 

statutory responsibilities under 49 

U.S.C. chapters 201–213. FRA also uses 

this information for determining 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

comparative trends of railroad safety 

and to develop hazard elimination and 

risk reduction programs that focus on 

preventing railroad injuries and 

accidents.’’ 49 CFR 225.1. Part 225’s 

central provision requires that each 

railroad subject to Part 225 submit to 

FRA monthly reports of all accidents 

and incidents that meet FRA’s reporting 

criteria. 49 CFR 225.11. Railroad 

accidents/incidents are divided into 

three groups, each of which corresponds 

to the type of reporting form that a 

railroad must file with FRA: (1) 

Highway-rail grade crossing accidents/ 

incidents; (2) rail equipment accidents/ 

incidents; and (3) deaths, injuries and 

occupational illnesses. See 49 CFR 

225.19. 

In 1996, FRA published extensive 

amendments to its accident/incident 

reporting regulations. 61 FR 30940, June 

18, 1996; 61 FR 67477, December 23, 

1996. This was the first major revision 

of the accident/incident reporting 

requirements since 1974. The primary 

purpose of the revision was to increase 

the accuracy, completeness, and utility 

of FRA’s accident database and to 

clarify certain definitions and regulatory 

requirements. Among other things, these 

amendments required railroads to adopt 

and comply with an Internal Control 

Plan (ICP) to ensure accurate reporting 

of accidents and incidents. 

In 2003, FRA again published 

extensive amendments to its accident/ 

incident reporting regulations (FRA’s 

2003 Final Rule). 68 FR 10107–10140, 

March 3, 2003. The primary purpose of 

these revisions was to conform FRA’s 

accident/incident reporting 

requirements to OSHA’s newly revised 

occupational injury and illness 

recording and reporting requirements. 

66 FR 5916–6135, January 19, 2001 

(codified at 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 

1952) (OSHA’s 2001 Final Rule). FRA’s 

2003 Final Rule also addressed other 

issues and provided for an alternative 

method of recording claimed 

occupational illnesses with the advent 

of Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Record for Illness Claimed to be WorkRelated.’’ 

III. Proceedings to Date 

On September 9, 2008, FRA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), which proposed miscellaneous 

amendments to FRA’s accident/incident 

reporting regulations in order to clarify 

ambiguous regulations and to enhance 

the quality of information available for 

railroad casualty analysis. See 73 FR 

52496. The NPRM also proposed 

revisions to the 2003 FRA Guide and 

FRA’s Accident/Incident recording and 

reporting forms. 

The NPRM further requested 

comments and suggestions on four 

issues of concern. First, FRA requested 

comments and suggestions for any 

additional information that might be 

gathered on Form FRA F 6180.57, 

‘‘Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Accident/Incident Report,’’ that would 

be useful in determining how and why 

highway-rail grade crossing accidents/ 

incidents occur. Second, FRA requested 

comments and suggestions on whether 

FRA should require railroads to 

complete the longitude and latitude 

blocks on Form FRA F 6180.55a, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Continuation Sheet)’’ (blocks 5s and 5t), 

for reportable trespasser casualties only, 

and on Form FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Report’’ 

(blocks 50 and 51). Third, FRA 

requested comments and suggestions on 

whether FRA should change the method 

by which telephonic reports of 

accidents/incidents, as required by 

§ 225.9, are made to FRA. Fourth, FRA 

requested comments and suggestions on 

whether FRA should require railroads to 

report to FRA on Form FRA F 6180.55a 

suicides and attempted suicides, 

otherwise referred to as ‘‘suicide data,’’ 

and on concerns regarding State access 

to such reports. 

On September 10, 2008, during the 

36th Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee (RSAC) meeting, RSAC Task 

No. 2008–02 was presented for 

acceptance. The task offered to the 

RSAC for consideration was to review 

comments received on FRA’s NPRM and 

would have allowed the RSAC to make 

recommendations for the content of the 

final rule. The task was withdrawn at 

the meeting without RSAC acceptance. 

Following publication of the NPRM in 

the Federal Register, FRA held a public 

hearing in Washington, DC on December 

18, 2008, and extended the comment 

period for an additional thirty (30) days 

following the hearing. The hearing 

enabled the exchange of information 

regarding FRA’s proposed amendments, 

and allowed the public to articulate 

their issues and concerns regarding the 

NPRM, so that such concerns could be 

addressed in the final rule. The hearing 

was attended by a number of railroads, 

organizations representing railroads, 

and labor organizations. FRA received 

oral and written testimony at the 

hearing as well as written comments 

during the extended comment period. A 

copy of the hearing transcript was 

placed in Docket No. FRA–2006–26173 

on http://www.regulations.gov. During 

the initial and extended comment 

period, FRA received comments and 

heard testimony from the following 

organizations, in addition to comments 

from individuals, listed in alphabetical 

order: 

• American Association for Justice (AAJ); 

• Association for American Railroads 

(AAR); 

• American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA); 

• BNSF Railway Company (BNSF); 

• Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET); 

• Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED); 

• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman 

(BRS); 

• California Public Utilities Commission 

(CPUC); 

• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL); 

• Illinois Commerce Commission/ 

Transportation Bureau/Rail Safety Section 

(ICC); 

• Kansas City Southern Railway Company 

(KCS); 

• Metro-North Commuter Railroad 

Company (MNCW); 

• National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak); 

• New York State Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority (NYSMT); 

• NJ Transit Rail Operations (NJT); 

• Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS); 

• Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority (SPTA); 

• Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); 

and 

• United Transportation Union (UTU). 

As an initial matter, when developing 

this final rule, FRA carefully considered 

all of the comments, information, data, 

and proposals submitted to Docket No. 

FRA–2006–26173 and discussed during 

the hearing. In addition, FRA’s 

extensive knowledge and experience 

with enforcing the existing accident/ 

incident reporting regulations was also 

relied upon when developing this final 

rule. FRA addresses the comments in 

the Section-by-Section Analysis of this 

final rule and elsewhere as appropriate. 

One such comment to the NPRM 

stated that FRA should have used an 

RSAC working group for this 

rulemaking. FRA, however, is not 

required to engage the RSAC in 

formulating regulations. Here, as 

discussed above, FRA held a hearing 

and provided two comment periods 

during which interested parties had 

opportunities to comment on the NPRM. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Technical Amendment 

Throughout the rule text, this final 

rule updates the agency’s address and 

other mailing addresses, when 

appropriate, to reflect FRA’s relocation 

to the new U.S. Department of 

Transportation headquarters building. 

This revision affects §§ 225.7(a), 

225.11(b), 225.12(g)(3), and the 

introductory paragraph of § 225.21. This 

change is also reflected in the FRA 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68865 

Guide, the accident/incident reporting 

and recording forms, and the 

Companion Guide. 

§ 225.1 Purpose. 

The final rule removes the 

preemption language dealing with part 

225 from this section. FRA believes that 

this language is unnecessary because 49 

U.S.C. 20106 sufficiently addresses the 

preemptive effect of FRA’s regulations. 

Providing a separate Federal regulatory 

provision concerning the regulation’s 

preemptive effect is duplicative and 

unnecessary. 

§ 225.3 Applicability. 

In this section, the final rule makes a 

technical amendment to the 

introductory text of paragraph (b) with 

respect to that paragraph’s reference to 

FRA’s required ICP elements. Currently, 

paragraph (b) refers only to ICP 

elements 1 through 10. The final rule 

revises the paragraph to include element 

number 11 (added in FRA’s 2003 Final 

Rule), which requires railroads to 

include in their ICPs a statement that 

specifies the name, title, and address of 

the custodian of the railroad’s Form 

FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related’’ 

records and all supporting 

documentation, as well as the location 

of such documents. See 68 FR 10107, 

10139, March 3, 2003. 

§ 225.5 Definitions. 

The final rule amends paragraph (1) of 

the definition of ‘‘Accident/incident’’ to 

clarify the definition and to conform to 

the FRA Guide. In the NPRM, FRA set 

forth to clarify the definition of 

accident/incident with respect to 

impacts at highway-rail grade crossings. 

Commenters generally indicated that 

further clarification was necessary 

regarding under what circumstances 

sidewalks and pathways are considered 

to be part of a highway-rail grade 

crossing site. 

In response to these comments, FRA 

determined that the proposed definition 

required revision. As such, the final rule 

provides that ‘‘Accident/incident’’ 

means, in part, any impact between 

railroad on-track equipment and a 

highway user at a highway-rail grade 

crossing. The final rule, elsewhere in 

§ 225.5, defines the term ‘‘highway-rail 

grade crossing’’ to mean a location 

where a public highway, road, street, or 

a private roadway, including associated 

sidewalks, crosses one or more railroad 

tracks at grade, or a location where a 

pathway explicitly authorized by a 

public authority or a railroad carrier that 

is dedicated for the use of non-vehicular 

traffic, including pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and others, that is not associated with 

a public highway, road, street, or a 

private roadway, crosses one or more 

railroad tracks at grade. The definition 

of ‘‘highway-rail grade crossing’’ further 

provides that the term ‘‘sidewalk’’ means 

that portion of a street between the curb 

line, or the lateral line of a roadway, and 

the adjacent property line or, on 

easements of private property, that 

portion of a street that is paved or 

improved and intended for use by 

pedestrians. The FRA Guide provides a 

diagram illustrating the definition of the 

term sidewalk. See FRA Guide, Chapter 

2. In addition, the final rule provides 

that the term ‘‘highway user’’ may 

include an automobile, bus, truck, 

motorcycle, bicycle, farm vehicle, 

pedestrian, or any other mode of surface 

transportation motorized and unmotorized. 

FRA does not believe that this 

clarifying amendment increases the 

burden on railroads because it is 

consistent with common industry 

practice as well as FRA’s long-standing 

policy. Moreover, even if reporting 

accidents at such pathways was not 

standard industry practice, any 

increased burden would be nominal. 

Based on the U.S. DOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, FRA 

estimates that there are approximately 

2,000 grade crossings in the United 

States that are not associated with 

highways, roads, streets, or private 

roadways and that very few highwayrail grade crossing accidents/incidents 

occur at these locations each year. 

Accordingly, even if this did place a 

new burden on railroads to report 

accidents/incidents not previously 

reported, the burden would be 

insignificant in light of the small 

number of additional reports that would 

be required. 

The final rule also clarifies that 

sidewalks that may be used to cross 

railroad tracks at grade are considered to 

be part of (i.e., associated with) the 

highway-rail grade crossing. The 

definition of sidewalk included in the 

final rule clarifies which sidewalks are 

considered associated with the crossing. 

FRA does not believe this clarification 

will result in any change to current 

railroad reporting practices. In addition, 

the definition of the term ‘‘sidewalk’’ is 

based on the definition of the term as 

articulated in the 2009 edition of the 

Federal Highway Administration’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. The FRA Guide includes an 

illustrative diagram to help clarify the 

meaning of the term ‘‘sidewalk.’’ See 

FRA Guide, Chapter 2. 

A comment to the NPRM suggested 

that FRA use the term ‘‘road user’’ rather 

than the term ‘‘highway user.’’ The final 

rule does not adopt this suggestion in 

order to maintain consistency between 

the terms ‘‘highway user’’ and ‘‘highwayrail grade crossing.’’ A comment also 

sought clarification that there are no 

exceptions to reporting collisions 

between on-track equipment and 

highway users. FRA believes that the 

final rule is clear that any impact 

between a highway user and on-track 

equipment at a highway-rail grade 

crossing qualifies as a highway-rail 

grade crossing accident/incident and 

that further clarification is not required. 

A comment also recommended that 

impacts at highway-rail grade crossings 

be referred to as ‘‘train-vehicle 

collisions,’’ rather than ‘‘accidents/ 

incidents.’’ The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because such an 

amendment is not consistent with the 

historical use of such terms. 

The final rule also amends paragraph 

(3) of the definition of ‘‘Accident/ 

incident’’ to conform to the revised 

language in § 225.19(d) and to reference, 

rather than explicitly list, the general 

reporting criteria set forth in § 225.19(d). 

See Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.19(d). 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

amending the definition of 

‘‘Accountable injury or illness’’ to mean 

any abnormal condition or disorder of a 

railroad employee that manifests within 

the work environment and causes or 

requires a railroad employee to be 

examined or treated by a qualified 

health care professional, but does not 

meet the general reporting criteria listed 

in § 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6) 

regardless of whether the condition or 

disorder is discernably caused by an 

event or exposure in the work 

environment. 

The final rule amends the definition 

of ‘‘Accountable injury or illness’’ to 

conform to the amended definition of 

‘‘injury or illness;’’ to eliminate 

redundancy by removing the word 

‘‘activity’’ from the phrase ‘‘by an event, 

exposure, or activity in the work 

environment’’ as the amended definition 

of ‘‘event or exposure’’ in the final rule 

includes activities; to eliminate 

potential underreporting of work-related 

injuries and illnesses; to ensure that 

potentially reportable injuries and 

illnesses are documented, tracked, and 

evaluated for reporting and auditing 

purposes; and to delete the phrase ‘‘not 

otherwise reportable’’ due to its 

ambiguity. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.19(d), ‘‘Primary 

groups of accidents/incidents; Death, 

injury and occupational illness.’’ The 

final rule amends the definition of 

‘‘Accountable injury or illness’’ to mean 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘any abnormal condition or disorder of 

a railroad employee that causes or 

requires the railroad employee to be 

examined or treated by a qualified 

health care professional, regardless of 

whether or not it meets the general 

reporting criteria listed in § 225.19(d)(1) 

through (d)(6), and the railroad 

employee claims that, or the railroad 

otherwise has knowledge that, an event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of the railroad is a discernable cause of 

the abnormal condition or disorder.’’ 

The language proposed in the NPRM 

specified that an accountable injury or 

illness is one that ‘‘does not meet the 

general reporting criteria.’’ The final rule 

replaced this with ‘‘regardless of 

whether or not it meets the general 

reporting criteria’’ because an injury or 

illness may eventually become 

reportable or the railroad may not have 

enough information at the time to 

determine whether the injury or illness 

is reportable. These are clarifications 

and do not pose any change to FRA’s 

accident/incident recording or reporting 

requirements. 

The purpose of Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record,’’ is to create an initial 

record of, and audit trail for, each 

potentially reportable injury or illness. 

As such, under the previous recording 

requirements, railroads were required to 

complete the Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record,’’ for each accountable 

and reportable injury or illness within 

seven (7) working days after first 

becoming aware of the accountable or 

reportable injury or illness. As a result, 

under FRA’s 2003 Final Rule’s 

definition of accountable and reportable 

injury and illness, a railroad had to 

make an initial determination with 

regard to the work-relatedness of an 

injury or illness within seven working 

days. Once a railroad determined that 

an employee injury or illness was not 

work-related, the railroad was not 

obligated to create any record or report 

of the casualty. 

In many cases, injuries and illnesses, 

and/or the signs and symptoms thereof, 

manifest in the work environment 

without the cause(s) being readily 

apparent. Therefore, a railroad, during 

its initial seven day investigation, may 

have determined that an injury or 

illness was not work-related when 

additional investigation and time would 

have shown that the injury or illness 

was in fact work-related. Consequently, 

FRA is concerned that some railroads 

are prematurely attributing the cause of 

an injury or illness solely to a non-workrelated event or exposure occurring 

outside the work environment. FRA was 

similarly concerned that some railroads 

were not investigating pertinent 

information about employee injuries 

and illnesses to make an accurate workrelatedness determination. As a result, 

FRA believes that some railroads may 

have under-reported employee injuries 

and illnesses, and, because a Form FRA 

F 6180.98 was not completed to initially 

record the injury or illness, no audit 

trail was created. In such circumstances, 

FRA and the railroads were left unaware 

of the potentially reportable or 

accountable injury. Moreover, by only 

requiring a record for those casualties 

that were ultimately determined to be 

work-related within the initial seven 

days period, FRA was prevented from 

later evaluating the reportability of the 

injury or illness in order to determine 

whether the reporting officer made an 

appropriate reporting decision or 

whether the railroad complied with its 

duty to investigate the injury or illness. 

In consideration of the comments and 

FRA’s safety mission, the final rule 

contains a revised definition. The 

definition contained in the final rule 

triggers the railroads’ responsibility to 

create a Form FRA F 6180.98 for (i.e., an 

accountable injury or illness) any 

abnormal condition or disorder of a 

railroad employee that causes or 

requires the railroad employee to be 

examined or treated by a qualified 

health care professional regardless of 

whether or not it meets the general 

reporting criteria in § 225.19(d), and the 

employee claims that, or the railroad 

otherwise has knowledge that, the 

injury or illness is work-related. 

Therefore, the definition in the final 

rule eliminates the requirement that a 

railroad record all injuries or illnesses 

based on manifestation regardless of 

cause. While railroads are still required 

to complete the Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record,’’ for each accountable 

and reportable injury or illness within 

seven working days after first becoming 

aware of the accountable or reportable 

injury or illness, the revised definition 

of accountable injury/illness will 

alleviate the railroad’s need to make a 

final decision with regard to workrelatedness when an employee claims or 

suspects that the injury or illness is in 

fact work-related and will ensure that a 

record of each potentially reportable 

injury or illness is created. See Sectionby-Section Analysis of § 225.25 for 

additional information. This approach 

helps to ensure that railroads record and 

thoroughly investigate injuries and 

illnesses where the employee claims 

that an event or exposure in the work 

environment is a discernable cause of 

the employee’s injury or illness but 

additional investigation is necessary. 

This approach creates an audit trail of 

potentially work-related employee 

injuries and illnesses, and, because the 

railroad need not make a final 

determination regarding work 

relatedness within seven days, provides 

additional time for railroads to complete 

the work-related analysis. Moreover, 

this approach allows FRA to use the 

audit trail to better understand 

railroads’ reporting processes and their 

application of the applicable 

regulations. 

FRA received numerous comments 

addressing the proposed definition of 

‘‘Accountable injury or illness.’’ Because 

of the language adopted in the final rule, 

a majority of those comments are no 

longer applicable. At the hearing and in 

the written comments, several railroads 

and organizations representing labor 

and railroads asserted that FRA’s 

reporting requirements must be based 

upon work-relatedness and, therefore, 

the proposed amendment was outside of 

FRA’s authority. While FRA disagrees 

with this assertion, this issue is no 

longer relevant. FRA has been tasked 

with and given the authority to 

prescribe regulations that ‘‘promote 

safety in every area of railroad 

operations and reduce railroad–related 

accidents and incidents.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

20102. Moreover, FRA has the authority 

to investigate ‘‘an accident or incident 

resulting in serious injury to an 

individual or to railroad property.’’ Id. 

As such, the proposed changes were 

well within FRA’s authority as they 

were meant to improve FRA’s safety 

data and to allow FRA to audit railroad 

reporting decisions. Finally, although 

FRA makes every effort to maintain 

consistent reporting requirements with 

those of OSHA, FRA’s accident/incident 

recording requirements are based solely 

on FRA’s program needs and purposes, 

and as such may differ from OSHA’s 

requirements to any extent FRA believes 

is necessary. 

Comments by NJT, UP, and AAR, 

among others, asserted that the 

proposed amendments could increase 

the misclassification of data by 

capturing too much information. As an 

initial matter, these comments 

concerned the language proposed in the 

NPRM. Regardless, with respect to the 

language in the final rule, railroads 

should already be reviewing all 

employee claimed or suspected workrelated injuries and illnesses. FRA is 

simply requiring that the railroad 

document these suspected work-related 

injuries. 

Many comments also stated that the 

proposed changes are not connected to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68867 

identifying safety hazards and that the 

previous reporting scheme did not 

result in underreporting. As explained 

above, the prior definition created an 

inadequate audit trail. In addition, FRA 

believes that the prior reporting system 

did result in underreporting due to the 

difficulties related to making a final 

work-relatedness determination within 

seven days for certain injuries and 

illnesses. Also, prior to this final rule, 

when a railroad made an initial 

incorrect or premature recording 

decision that an injury or illness was 

not recordable, the reporting system did 

not ensure that the railroad would catch 

the problem at a later time. Now, with 

the clarification that when an employee 

claims that, or railroad otherwise has 

knowledge that, an injury or illness is 

work-related, a railroad will be required 

to record such injuries and illnesses. In 

addition, the final rule improves the 

audit trail created by the railroads and 

better enables FRA to review reporting 

decisions and to identify reporting 

problems. 

Other comments suggested that the 

current reporting scheme captures all of 

the necessary data. Specifically, AAR 

argued that there are sufficient tools 

currently in place, such as the ICP, to 

identify underreporting. UP argued that 

it is using a reliable review process that 

allows it to identify where additional 

information is required so that it is 

making accurate reporting decisions. 

The ICP requires the railroad to audit its 

own reporting and make appropriate 

changes in its reporting system to 

improve the quality of reporting. In the 

preamble of the June 18, 1996 

regulation, FRA challenged the railroads 

to develop a Total Quality Management 

(TQM) system to have zero defects in 

reporting. The final rule is consistent 

with the purpose of the ICP, which is to 

have complete and accurate reporting. 

(49 CFR 225.33(a)(1)). FRA has found 

that the current tools do not always 

capture injuries or illnesses where the 

cause of the injury or illness is not 

readily apparent. The previous ICP did 

not create an audit trail for a situation 

in which a railroad determined that the 

injury or illness is not work-related, 

therefore, FRA and the railroads were 

hindered in reviewing and auditing the 

initial reporting decisions. AAR stated 

in post-hearing comments that 

disparities in reporting between 

railroads is not a sign of underreporting. 

However, without making an initial 

record and monitoring injuries and 

illnesses, it is difficult for the railroads 

or FRA to completely understand or 

explain the disparities in reporting. The 

changes in the final rule will allow FRA 

to review the railroad’s decision making 

process to better understand those 

disparities and to better understand 

which safety measures are effective in 

preventing certain types of injuries and 

illnesses. 

Commenters also argued that the 

proposed amendments were overly 

burdensome, suggesting that railroads 

would have to record every minor injury 

or illness, and that they may somehow 

violate the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), as railroads would be forced 

to follow up on and collect non-workrelated medical information. Again, 

these comments relate to the proposed 

language in the NPRM, thus, they are 

not entirely applicable to the language 

adopted in the final rule. The final rule 

simply requires railroads to make a 

record of each injury or illness that the 

employee suspects or claims, or the 

railroad otherwise has knowledge that, 

is work-related. And, as noted, railroads 

should already be investigating these 

potentially work-related injuries and 

illnesses. FRA is simply asking the 

railroads to document their 

investigation of all potentially workrelated injuries and illnesses where the 

employee claims or suspects the 

casualty is work-related, rather than just 

those that are ultimately determined to 

be work-related. During the hearing, in 

response to allegations that the 

amendment would result in violations 

of privacy laws, FRA asked that the 

railroads submit additional comments 

explaining how the amendment would 

force railroads to violate privacy laws. 

AAR stated that the proposed language 

would force employers to request 

personal information without providing 

any safety benefit. As explained above, 

the changes in the final rule are aimed 

at improving safety in the rail industry 

and justify requesting sensitive 

information, particularly where the 

employee suspects or claims, or the 

railroad knows, that the injury or illness 

is work-related. Moreover, the definition 

in this final rule does not expand the 

scope of the injuries or illnesses to be 

investigated under FRA’s 2003 Final 

Rule but simply creates a recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Several commenters stated that the 

meaning of the terms ‘‘manifests’’ and 

‘‘abnormal’’ were vague. As an initial 

matter, the final rule does not include 

the term ‘‘manifests.’’ In addition, FRA’s 

use of the term ‘‘abnormal’’ is clear, and 

is consistent with OSHA’s language. 

Finally, several commenters suggested 

that FRA should review railroads’ 

reporting and recording decisions based 

on whether or not a decision is 

reasonable. AAR stated that employers 

are in the best position to determine 

whether an injury or illness is workrelated. Pursuant to § 225.17, ‘‘Doubtful 

cases,’’ FRA cannot delegate its 

authority to decide matters of judgment 

when facts are in dispute. FRA must be 

able to ensure that its accident/incident 

data is complete and accurate. 

Consequently, the final reporting 

decision is FRA’s. AAR also stated that 

if OSHA disagrees with an employer’s 

decision, OSHA has the burden of 

proving that the injury or illness was 

work-related. Consistent with OSHA, 

the FRA Guide explains that, once an 

employer determines that an injury or 

illness is not reportable ‘‘and FRA 

subsequently issues a citation for failure 

to report, the Federal Government 

would have the burden of proving that 

the injury or illness was work-related.’’ 

See FRA Guide. To meet its burden, 

FRA must show that it is more likely 

than not that an event or exposure 

arising from the operation of the 

railroad was a discernable cause of the 

injury or illness or an event or exposure 

was a discernable cause of the 

significant aggravation of a pre-existing 

injury or illness. Except with respect to 

occupational illnesses, FRA’s 2003 Final 

Rule states that ‘‘it is the railroad’s 

responsibility to determine whether an 

illness is work-related,’’ meaning that 

‘‘FRA’s role will be to determine 

whether the reporting officer’s 

determination was reasonable.’’ FRA 

emphasizes, this language refers to only 

occupational illnesses and FRA retained 

the ability to present evidence that the 

railroad’s decision was in fact not 

reasonable. 68 FR 10119, March 3, 2003. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

amending the definition of 

‘‘Accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident’’ to mean ‘‘a collision, 

derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, 

or other event involving the operation of 

railroad on-track equipment (standing or 

moving) that does not result in 

reportable damages greater than the 

current reporting threshold to railroad 

on-track equipment, signals, track, track 

structures, and roadbed.’’ The final rule 

defines ‘‘Accountable rail equipment 

accident/incident’’ to mean ‘‘(1) any 

derailment regardless of whether or not 

it causes any damage or (2) any 

collision, highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident, obstruction accident, 

other impact, fire or violent rupture, 

explosion-detonation, act of God, or 

other accident/incident involving the 

operation of railroad on-track 

equipment (standing or moving) that 

results in damage to the railroad ontrack equipment (standing or moving), 

signals, track, track structures or 

roadbed and that damage impairs the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5 It should be noted that under OSHA’s 

regulations, the term ‘‘recording’’ is used. Under 

FRA’s regulations and the FRA Guide, the term 

‘‘reporting’’ is used. The OSHA system requires 

recording into the OSHA 300 Log whereas FRA has 

always used the term ‘‘reporting’’ in its regulations 

and in the FRA Guide because the Accident Reports 

Act of 1910, as amended, requires ‘‘a railroad carrier 

[to] file a report * * * on all accidents and 

incidents * * *’’ 49 U.S.C. 20901. 

functioning or safety of the railroad ontrack equipment (standing or moving), 

signals, track, track structures or 

roadbed.’’ 

Under the definition contained in 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, generally, an 

accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident meant an incident that resulted 

in damage below the reporting threshold 

and that, if not attended to, would 

disrupt railroad service. FRA has found 

through its audits and enforcement tools 

that the term ‘‘disruption of service’’ has 

not been consistently understood or 

uniformly applied throughout the 

railroad industry. Moreover, FRA found 

that the previous definition of 

accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident failed to adequately capture the 

accidents and incidents FRA originally 

intended and currently requires to be 

recorded and/or reported for data 

analysis and safety purposes. 

Specifically, FRA originally created the 

Form FRA F 6180.97 to establish a 

means by which railroads could record 

and FRA could audit railroad reporting 

decisions with regard to the reporting of 

railroad accidents/incidents on Form 

FRA F 6180.54. FRA has expanded its 

use of the Form FRA F 6180.97 to 

identify safety hazards in yards and 

terminals, which has benefited FRA’s 

safety efforts, as those incidents are 

precursors for reportable accidents and 

incidents. 

Based upon FRA’s thorough review 

and consideration of the comments and 

FRA’s goals of creating an audit trail, 

applying a uniform and simpler 

standard and capturing data that will 

allow it to identify and eliminate safety 

hazards, FRA believes that the language 

adopted in the final rule is more 

appropriate than the language proposed 

in the NPRM. FRA received numerous 

comments addressing the proposed 

amendments to the definition of 

‘‘Accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident’’ and, based upon the language 

adopted in the final rule, a majority of 

those comments are no longer 

applicable. 

FRA received comments that the 

proposed definition would create a 

substantial burden on the railroads as it 

would require them to record every 

minor incident regardless of the amount 

of damage and the connection to safety. 

The final rule does not require railroads 

to report or record damage that is the 

result of normal wear and tear. Rather, 

as in FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, this final 

rule only classifies an accident/incident 

as an ‘‘accountable rail equipment 

accident/incident’’ when it results from 

a derailment, collision, highway-rail 

grade crossing accident/incident, 

obstruction accident, other impact, fire 

or violent rupture, explosiondetonation, act of God, or other 

accident/incident involving the 

operation of railroad on-track 

equipment (standing or moving). FRA 

intends to use the information captured 

to learn about precursors to reportable 

accidents/incidents and to improve 

safety. The final rule clarifies that, with 

the exception of derailments, an 

incident must result in damage and that 

damage must impair the functioning or 

safety of the railroad on-track 

equipment (standing or moving), 

signals, track, track structures or 

roadbed. Consequently, FRA is not 

requiring the railroads to record minor 

incidents that result from normal wear 

and tear. Consistent with FRA’s 2003 

Final Rule, FRA believes it is necessary 

to record every derailment as such 

information will provide greater insight 

into their causes and will prevent future 

reoccurrences, including those that may 

result in hazardous material spills, 

significant damage, and/or casualties. 

Finally, the definition adopted in the 

final rule, which eliminates the 

disruption of service criteria, creates a 

clear reporting standard that will allow 

for easier and more consistent 

enforcement and compliance. 

SEPTA suggested, in one comment, 

that FRA retain the disruption of service 

criteria. FRA did not implement this 

suggestion. As discussed above, the 

disruption of service criteria does not 

capture all of the data FRA needs to 

ensure safety. Moreover, FRA has found 

that the disruption of service criteria has 

not been uniformly applied. FRA 

believes that the language adopted in 

the final rule is more appropriate and 

not overly burdensome. 

In addition, several commenters 

suggested that the proposed definition 

was unclear and that it was unclear 

what information FRA was attempting 

to capture. FRA believes that the 

language adopted in this final rule, 

however, is clear and will allow for the 

uniform application of the standard. 

The final rule includes a definition for 

‘‘Discernable cause.’’ In order to clarify 

the meaning of this term and to ensure 

consistency with OSHA’s reporting 

requirements, the final rule defines 

‘‘Discernable cause’’ in § 225.5 to mean, 

‘‘a causal factor capable of being 

recognized by the senses or the 

understanding.’’ See also, Webster’s 

Third New International Dictionary 

(1961); Webster’s Third New 

International Dictionary, Unabridged 

(1971). The definition further provides 

that ‘‘[a]n event or exposure arising from 

the operation of a railroad is a 

discernable cause of (i.e., discernably 

caused) an injury or illness if, 

considering the circumstances, it is 

more likely than not that the event or 

exposure is a cause of the injury or 

illness. The event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad need not 

be a sole, predominant or significant 

cause of the injury or illness, so long as 

it is a cause (i.e., a contributing factor).’’ 

FRA’s accident/incident reporting 

regulations concerning railroad 

occupational casualties are maintained, 

to the extent practicable, in general 

conformity with OSHA’s recordkeeping 

and reporting regulations, in order to 

permit comparability of data on 

occupational casualties between various 

industries, to allow integration of 

railroad industry data into national 

statistical databases, and to improve the 

quality of data available for analysis of 

casualties in railroad accidents/ 

incidents.5 Moreover, maintaining such 

compatibility allows railroads to report 

occupational casualties only to FRA, 

rather than to OSHA and to FRA. See 29 

CFR 1904.3. 

With respect to employee injury and 

illness recording, OSHA’s 2001 Final 

Rule, states that ‘‘each employer * * * 

must record each fatality, injury and 

illness that is work-related; and is a new 

case; and meets one or more of the 

general recording criteria * * * or the 

application to specific cases.’’ 66 FR 

5916, 5945, January 19, 2001, codified at 

29 CFR 1904.4(a). OSHA’s 2001 Final 

Rule goes on to state that ‘‘[employers] 

must consider an injury or illness to be 

work-related if an event or exposure in 

the work environment either caused or 

contributed to the resulting condition or 

significantly aggravated a pre-existing 

injury or illness,’’ and that ‘‘[w]orkrelatedness is presumed for injuries and 

illnesses resulting from events or 

exposures occurring in the work 

environment, unless an exception in [29 

CFR] 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.’’ 

66 FR 5916, 5946, January 19, 2001, 

codified at 29 CFR 1904.5(a). 

After OSHA’s 2001 Final Rule was 

published, the National Association of 

Manufacturers (NAM) filed a legal 

challenge to the final rule, with respect 

to (among other things) the final rule’s 

presumption of work-relatedness. On 

November 16, 2001, OSHA and NAM 

entered into a settlement agreement to 

resolve NAM’s legal challenge. The 

parties then entered into a revised 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68869 

settlement agreement on November 29, 

2001. The revised settlement agreement 

was published in the Federal Register at 

66 FR 66943, December 27, 2001. As 

part of the NAM–OSHA settlement, the 

parties agreed to the following: 

Section 1904.5(a) states that ‘‘[the 

employer] must consider an injury or illness 

to be work-related if an event or exposure in 

the work environment either caused or 

contributed to the resulting condition or 

significantly aggravated a pre-existing 

condition. Work relatedness is presumed for 

injuries and illnesses resulting from events or 

exposures occurring in the work environment 

***’’ Under this language, a case is 

presumed work-related if, and only if, an 

event or exposure in the work environment 

is a discernable cause of the injury or illness 

or of a significant aggravation to [sic] preexisting condition. The work event or 

exposure need only be one of the discernable 

causes; it need not be the sole or 

predominant cause. 

Section 1904.5(b)(2) states that a case is not 

recordable if it ‘‘involves signs or symptoms 

that surface at work but result solely from a 

non-work-related event or exposure that 

occurs outside the work environment.’’ This 

language is intended as a restatement of the 

principle expressed in 1904.5(a), described 

above. Regardless of where signs or 

symptoms surface, a case is recordable only 

if a work event or exposure is a discernable 

cause of the injury or illness or of a 

significant aggravation to a pre-existing 

condition. 

Section 1904.5(b)(3) states that if it is not 

obvious whether the precipitating event or 

exposure occurred in the work environment 

or elsewhere, the employer ‘‘must evaluate 

the employee’s work duties and environment 

to decide whether or not one or more events 

or exposures in the work environment caused 

or contributed to the resulting condition or 

significantly aggravated a pre-existing 

condition.’’ This means that the employer 

must make a determination whether it is 

more likely than not that work events or 

exposures were a cause of the injury or 

illness, or a significant aggravation to a preexisting condition. If the employer decides 

the case is not work-related, and OSHA 

subsequently issues a citation for failure to 

record, the Government would have the 

burden of proving that the injury or illness 

was work-related.’’ 

In 2003, FRA revised its accident/ 

incident reporting regulations to 

conform, to the extent practicable, to 

OSHA’s revised requirements. See 68 

FR 10108–10140, March 3, 2003. In 

doing so, FRA took into account the 

NAM–OSHA settlement agreement, in 

particular the agreement’s reference to 

the term ‘‘discernable,’’ to qualify or 

describe cause. FRA included the 

phrase ‘‘discernable cause’’ in its 

definitions of ‘‘Accident/incident,’’ 

‘‘Accountable injury or illness,’’ and 

‘‘Occupational illness’’ in § 225.5, and 

added the phrase to its reporting 

requirement for ‘‘Deaths, injuries and 

occupational illnesses’’ at § 225.19(d). 

While FRA did discuss the meaning of 

‘‘discernable cause’’ in the preamble of 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, see 68 FR 10108, 

10127, March 3, 2003, the agency did 

not explicitly define the term 

‘‘Discernable cause’’ in the rule text. 

On January 15, 2008, FRA received a 

letter from the DOL’s Office of the 

Solicitor (OSHA Letter) confirming 

FRA’s understanding and application of 

the NAM–OSHA settlement agreement 

and OSHA’s recordkeeping 

requirements with regard to ‘‘workrelatedness,’’ in addition to providing 

further clarification on particular points 

of law. In the OSHA Letter, OSHA 

stated that ‘‘‘[d]iscernable’ is used in the 

ordinary sense; that is, capable of being 

recognized by the senses or the 

understanding.’’ OSHA Letter at 3. 

OSHA’s definition came from Webster’s 

Third International Dictionary. The 

OSHA Letter goes on to state that an 

event or exposure is a discernable cause 

if, ‘‘considering the circumstances, it is 

more likely than not that the event or 

exposure is a cause of the injury or 

illness.’’ Id. FRA submitted the OSHA 

Letter to Docket Number FRA 2006– 

26173 on December 10, 2008. 

FRA received several comments from 

the railroads and other organizations 

regarding the proposed definition of 

discernable cause. Many comments 

stated that the proposed definition was 

inconsistent with OSHA’s reporting 

requirements. As explained above, FRA 

adopted a definition that is virtually 

identical to and consistent with OSHA’s 

definition to ensure that railroads need 

to report only to one agency and that 

there is consistent reporting across 

industries. One comment suggested that 

OSHA requires that the cause be 

distinguishable from other causes, and 

that FRA’s definition is inconsistent. 

Although OSHA requires that an event 

or exposure be a tangible cause, it does 

not require that the event or exposure be 

the main or predominate cause of the 

injury or illness. In addition, neither 

OSHA nor FRA require that the railroad 

calculate the exact amount of cause a 

particular event or exposure played in 

the subsequent injury or illness, only 

that it be a cause. Moreover, like OSHA, 

where it is difficult to determine 

whether the event or exposure is a 

cause, FRA requires that the employer 

consider the circumstances surrounding 

the event or exposure to determine 

whether it is more likely than not a 

cause. 

Other comments suggested requiring 

that the event or exposure in the work 

environment be the predominant or 

main cause to ease the reporting burden 

and to simplify the reporting scheme. 

However, this suggestion would make 

the definition inconsistent with OSHA. 

In the OSHA Letter, OSHA stated, with 

regards to ‘‘causation,’’ that ‘‘the 

employer need not weigh the relative 

contributions of occupational and nonoccupational factors to the injury or 

quantify the extent of the occupational 

contributions.’’ Id. As such, 

‘‘discernable’’ in this context does not 

mean obvious. In addition, requiring 

that the event or exposure be the 

predominant or main cause would 

exclude certain injuries and illnesses, 

and would be difficult to measure and 

enforce. 

Some comments requested that 

medical evidence factor into the 

causation decision. Consistent with 

OSHA, FRA recognizes that when 

causation is not obvious, that 

‘‘consultation with a health care 

professional’’ may play a part in the 

reportability determination. Id. 

However, the final reporting decision is 

made by a railroad’s reporting officer 

and the responsibility cannot be 

delegated to another individual. 

Railroads also asked what weight FRA 

gives to medical evidence compared to 

other types of evidence. Again, FRA, 

like OSHA, acknowledges that medical 

consultation may be a factor the railroad 

reporting officer considers, but the 

reporting officer may not delegate the 

reporting decision to a health care 

professional. As stated in the definition, 

‘‘[i]f it is unclear whether the work event 

was a cause of the injury, the employer 

must evaluate the employee’s work 

duties and environment and decide 

whether it is more likely than not that 

work was a cause.’’ Id. Thus, an 

employer is responsible for considering 

all of the relevant evidence obtained 

through its inquiry when making a 

reporting decision. When reviewing the 

railroad’s reporting decision, FRA 

considers various factors when giving 

weight to a health care professional’s 

opinion, including, but not limited to, 

whether the health care professional 

clearly documented his or her findings, 

whether the conclusion is supported by 

evidence, and whether the health care 

professional provided a medical 

assessment or, instead, a conclusory 

statement. 

Finally, commenters asserted that 

FRA ‘‘always’’ takes employees at their 

word and, therefore, railroads are not 

truly free to consider contradictory 

medical evidence. However, that is not 

the case. As stated in § 225.17, 

‘‘Doubtful cases,’’ FRA has the authority 

to resolve factual disputes. During its 

audit, FRA reviews the basis for a 

railroad’s reporting decision, in addition 

to the ‘‘investigatory materials, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

including, but not limited to, the 

following: The initial report filed by the 

affected person, witness statements, 

transcripts of hearings, medical records, 

time and attendance records, and the 

purpose of payouts made in connection 

with the accident/incident.’’ See FRA 

Guide, Chapter 1. Moreover, FRA 

conducts additional investigation and 

consults with its own health care 

professional when appropriate. At the 

conclusion of its investigation, FRA will 

review the railroad’s reporting decision 

and all of the associated evidence to 

determine whether it is more likely than 

not that an event or exposure arising 

from the operation of the railroad is a 

discernable cause of the injury. 

Commenters suggested using an 

evidence-based approach to determine 

causation. During his testimony, Dr. M. 

Hadler commented that individuals 

often have difficultly recognizing what 

caused their injuries and tend to 

attribute cause to the environment they 

are in at the time their pain becomes 

unbearable. Consequently, Dr. Hadler 

suggested using a more scientific 

approach (such as a pain diary) to 

determine causation. Additionally, KCS 

and UP suggested that FRA use the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) approach 

to determine causation. FRA, however, 

has chosen to adopt OSHA’s language 

and method of determining causation so 

that railroads may report injuries and 

illnesses to only one agency, FRA. If 

FRA adopted the NIOSH approach then 

railroads would be responsible for 

reporting employee injuries and 

illnesses separately to both OSHA and 

FRA. FRA collection of employee 

injuries and illnesses must be consistent 

with OSHA’s system to make a reliable 

national database. Failure to be 

consistent with OSHA would trigger 

dual reporting requirements for 

railroads (to OSHA and to FRA). UP 

supported adopting the NIOSH 

approach because it believes that each 

person shows injuries and illnesses 

differently. Thus, UP and KCS would 

like an approach that considers the 

unique factors for each person. Under 

FRA’s approach, a railroad should 

conduct an inquiry into any potentially 

reportable or accountable injury or 

illness. At the conclusion of its 

investigation, the railroad must decide 

whether, considering the circumstances, 

it is more likely than not that an event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of the railroad is a discernable cause of 

an injury or illness. Consequently, 

under this approach, a railroad may 

consider the various unique factors 

associated with each employee’s 

potentially reportable or accountable 

injury or illness, including but not 

limited to an employee’s medical and 

work history, in addition to an 

employee’s statements regarding his or 

her injury or illness. 

Commenters also suggested that the 

definition of discernable cause is too 

broad. Specifically, commenters 

suggested that the definition requires 

railroads to collect information that is 

not relevant to occupational safety and 

will result in over-reporting. Again, the 

definition of discernable cause is 

consistent with FRA’s longstanding 

policy and with OSHA’s interpretation. 

As a result, the definition will not 

change railroad reporting 

responsibilities and, in fact, will ease 

the reporting burden (as railroads have 

to report to only one agency). Like 

OSHA, FRA does not require that the 

cause be occupational in nature. See 

also Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.5, ‘‘Definitions—Work-related.’’ 

Also, the definition is appropriate as it 

allows FRA to identify injuries and 

illnesses for which events or exposures 

arising from the operation of the 

railroad play a role, and it is not overly 

broad as the injuries and illnesses must 

also meet one of the reporting criteria. 

In addition to the benefits of collecting 

uniform data across industries, FRA is 

not collecting information regarding 

minor injuries with no safety impact as 

an event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad must be a 

discernable cause and the injury or 

illness must be severe enough to meet 

one of the reporting criteria. 

Commenters also stated that the 

definition of discernable cause is vague 

and fails to provide clear guidance to 

railroads. Specifically, one comment 

stated that the dictionary definition was 

uninformative. As explained above, the 

cause need not be the sole or 

predominant cause, rather it must be a 

contributing factor. If it is not clear 

whether the event or exposure was a 

discernable cause, the employer must 

consider the surrounding circumstances 

to determine reportability. FRA believes 

that the definition and standard are 

clear. Moreover, when a railroad is 

unsure about the reportability of an 

injury or illness, FRA recommends that 

a railroad make a report or utilize FRA’s 

‘‘claimed but not admitted’’ process as 

described in 49 CFR 225.17(c). 

Commenters suggested that FRA is 

creating a geographic presumption and, 

therefore, the definition is inconsistent 

with OSHA. Moreover, commenters 

want to limit the cause to just those 

injuries that are occupational in nature 

(i.e., related to performing job-related 

activities). See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.5, ‘‘Definitions— 

Event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad’’ and 

‘‘Definition Work related.’’ For 

employees, consistent with OSHA, the 

final rule requires that an event or 

exposure in the work environment be a 

discernable cause of the injury or 

illness. Therefore, FRA is still requiring 

causation and, as such, an injury or 

illness is not work-related simply 

because signs or symptoms arise in the 

work environment. For non-employees, 

FRA requires that an event or exposure 

arising from the operations of the 

railroad be a discernable cause of the 

casualty, and, as such, FRA did not 

create a geographic presumption. 

Although the railroads would like to 

limit reportable injuries and illnesses to 

those caused by events and exposure 

that are uniquely occupational, 

consistent with OSHA, FRA simply 

requires for employees that an event or 

exposure arising from the operation of 

the railroad be a discernable cause of 

the injury or illness. See Section-bySection Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definition—Work related.’’ 

Finally, commenters suggest that 

employers, and not FRA, are in the best 

position to determine causation. 

Consistent with OSHA, for purposes of 

§ 225.11, FRA is not reviewing a 

railroad’s reporting decision to 

determine whether it was reasonable 

(except in the case of occupational 

illness (See FRA’s 2003 Final Rule)); 

rather, FRA is determining whether an 

injury or illness is reportable. 

The final rule defines an ‘‘Event or 

exposure’’ as an ‘‘incident, activity, or 

occurrence.’’ FRA included the 

definition to clarify that event or 

exposure is a term that is to be broadly 

interpreted and to eliminate redundant 

language in the rule text. 

Many of the comments that FRA 

received suggested that normal body 

movements such as walking or sneezing 

do not constitute an event or exposure. 

However, consistent with OSHA, FRA 

considers ‘‘normal body movements’’ to 

be events within the definition. See 

OSHA Letter at 3. Such normal body 

movement cases are only reportable if 

they arise from the operation of the 

railroad and cause or contribute to the 

injury or illness. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.5, ‘‘Definition—Work 

related’’ and ‘‘Definition—Discernable 

cause.’’ Consistent with OSHA’s 

requirements, FRA does not require that 

the event or exposure be an ‘‘obvious 

cause’’ of the injury or illness, or be 

occupational in nature and, therefore, 

normal body movements may result in 

reportable injuries or illnesses. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68871 

The final rule amends and 

restructures the definition of ‘‘Event or 

exposure arising from the operation of a 

railroad’’ to clarify its meaning. The 

term ‘‘event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad’’ and its 

definition were added in FRA’s 2003 

Final Rule to more narrowly tailor what 

types of accidents/incidents were 

considered to ‘‘arise from the operation 

of a railroad’’ and were, therefore, 

potentially reportable. 68 FR 10108, 

10115–16, March 3, 2003. 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule’s definition 

consisted of three-tiers that addressed 

the different classifications of persons 

on and off railroad property. The first 

tier defined ‘‘event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad’’ broadly 

‘‘with respect to any person on property 

owned, leased, or maintained by the 

railroad, an activity of the railroad that 

is related to its rail transportation 

business or an exposure related to the 

activity.’’ The final rule revises this first 

tier of the definition by changing ‘‘any 

person’’ to ‘‘a person who is not an 

employee of the railroad.’’ This 

amendment is consistent with the intent 

of FRA’s 2003 Final Rule: 

FRA developed a compromise position, 

proposing that railroads not be required to 

report deaths or injuries to persons who are 

not railroad employees that occur while off 

railroad property unless they result from a 

train accident, a train incident, a highwayrail grade crossing accident/incident, or a 

release of a hazardous material or other 

dangerous commodity related to the 

railroad’s rail transportation business. 

68 FR 10108, 10109, March 3, 2003. The 

revision clarifies that the definition was 

intended to apply only to persons who 

are not railroad employees. The final 

rule also removes the phrase ‘‘an activity 

of the railroad’’ such that tier one of the 

definition concerns an event or 

exposure that is related to the 

performance of the railroad’s rail 

transportation business. The final rule 

also removes the reference to ‘‘activity’’ 

since the definition of ‘‘event or 

exposure’’ in the final rule includes 

‘‘activity.’’ The final rule also revises the 

language proposed in the NPRM to 

clarify that the newly consolidated tier 

one subpart (i) deals with a person who 

is not an employee and is on railroad 

property, rather than an event or 

exposure occurring on property. FRA 

believes this clarifying language is 

consistent with the intent of FRA’s 2003 

Final Rule. As this change is consistent 

with current industry reporting 

practices and the language in the FRA’s 

2003 Final Rule, the amendment to the 

final rule should have no impact on 

reporting practices and, in fact, is more 

consistent with current practices than 

the language proposed in the NPRM. 

The second tier also defined ‘‘event or 

exposure arising from the operation of a 

railroad’’ broadly, but ‘‘with respect to 

an employee of the railroad (whether on 

or off property owned, leased or 

maintained by the railroad), an activity 

of the railroad that is related to the 

performance of its rail transportation 

business or an exposure related to that 

activity.’’ The final rule clarifies this 

paragraph by revising the definition to 

state ‘‘with respect to a person who is an 

employee of a railroad, an event or 

exposure that is work-related.’’ This 

amendment removes the phrase ‘‘an 

activity of the railroad,’’ since the 

definition of ‘‘event or exposure’’ in the 

final rule includes ‘‘activity.’’ The final 

rule also removes the phrase ‘‘(whether 

on or off property owned, leased, or 

maintained by the railroad)’’ and the 

phrase ‘‘that is related to the 

performance of the railroad’s rail 

transportation business * * *’’ because 

the term ‘‘work-related’’ encompasses 

both of those requirements. 

The third tier defined ‘‘Event or 

exposure arising from the operation of a 

railroad’’ narrowly with respect to a 

person who is neither on the railroad’s 

property nor an employee of the 

railroad, to include only certain 

enumerated events or exposures, i.e., a 

train accident, a train incident, or a 

highway-rail crossing accident/incident 

involving the railroad; or a release of 

hazardous material from a railcar in the 

railroad’s possession or a release of 

another dangerous commodity if the 

release is related to the railroad’s rail 

transportation business. 68 FR 10108, 

10116, March 3, 2003. The final rule 

revises the language proposed in the 

NPRM to clarify that the new 

consolidated tier one subpart (ii) deals 

with a person who is not an employee 

and is not on railroad property, rather 

than an event or exposure not occurring 

on property. FRA believes this clarifying 

language is consistent with the intent of 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule. As this change 

is consistent with current industry 

reporting practices and the language in 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, the amendment 

to this final rule should have no impact 

on reporting practices and, in fact, is 

more consistent with current industry 

practices than the language proposed in 

the NPRM. 

The final rule consolidates tier one, 

tier two, and tier three of the definition 

into two tiers so that tier one is 

applicable to non-employees and tier 

two is applicable to employees. The 

amendments and restructuring are 

clarifying measures and do not change 

the meaning of the definition. The 

definition continues to mean, consistent 

with FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, ‘‘that a 

railroad would not have to report to 

FRA the death of or injury to an 

employee of a contractor to the railroad 

who is off railroad property (or deaths 

or injuries to any person who is not a 

railroad employee) unless the death or 

injury results from a train accident, train 

incident, or highway-rail grade crossing 

accident involving the railroad; or from 

a release of a hazardous material or 

some other dangerous commodity in the 

course of the railroad’s rail 

transportation business. In addition, 

FRA would require railroads to report 

work related illnesses only of railroad 

employees and under no circumstances 

the illness of employees of a railroad 

contractor.’’ 68 FR 10108, 10116, March 

3, 2003. 

The final rule amends the language 

proposed in the NPRM in the first tier 

by clarifying that a person who is not an 

employee is considered to be on railroad 

property when they are on property that 

the railroad operates over (e.g., 

operating rights), in addition to property 

owned, leased, or maintained by the 

railroad. FRA does not believe that this 

clarifying amendment increases the 

burden on railroads because it is 

consistent with common industry 

practice as well as FRA’s long-standing 

policy. Any burden created by this 

amendment would be nominal, as a 

majority of these incidents would have 

been captured elsewhere under the prior 

definition. 

The final rule also amends the 

language proposed in the NPRM in the 

first tier (ii)(A) by removing ‘‘highwayrail grade crossing accident or incident’’ 

from the list of accidents/incidents 

considered to be ‘‘events or exposures 

arising from the operation of the 

railroad’’ when a non-employee is off 

railroad property. FRA is removing 

highway-rail grade crossing accident or 

incident from the list of off property 

accidents/incidents because it is 

repetitive, as those types of accidents 

and incidents are already captured 

under train accident and train incident. 

FRA also added the term ‘‘non-train 

incident.’’ Non-train incident is defined 

as an ‘‘event that results in a reportable 

casualty, but does not involve the 

movement of on-track equipment nor 

cause reportable damage above the 

threshold established for train 

accidents.’’ See § 225.5, ‘‘Definitions— 

Non train incident.’’ FRA included 

‘‘non-train incident’’ to make the 

definition consistent with FRA’s 2003 

Final Rule and the 2003 FRA Guide. In 

the 2003 FRA Guide, non-train 

incidents were included in the list of 

accidents/incidents. This amendment 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

simply clarifies that FRA wants to retain 

the non-train incidents events captured 

under the prior rule and it was 

inadvertently removed in the NPRM. 

FRA does not believe that this clarifying 

amendment increases the burden on 

railroads because it is consistent with 

the FRA’s 2003 Final Rule, the 2003 

FRA Guide, common industry practice, 

as well as FRA’s long-standing policy. 

Amtrak’s comments suggested that 

FRA’s definition creates a geographic 

presumption of work-relatedness. 

However, for an injury or illness to be 

reportable, an event or exposure arising 

from the operation of the railroad must 

be a discernable cause. As such, it is not 

enough that the signs or symptoms of an 

injury or illness arose in the work 

environment. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.5, ‘‘Definition—Work 

related.’’ 

The final rule makes a technical 

amendment to the definition of ‘‘General 

reporting criteria’’ to include criteria 

number [225.19(d)] (6), ‘‘Illness or injury 

that meets the application of any of the 

[enumerated] specific case criteria,’’ 

which was inadvertently omitted in 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule. 

The final rule also revises the 

definition of ‘‘Highway-rail grade 

crossing’’ to mean a location where a 

public highway, road, street, or a private 

roadway, including associated 

sidewalks, crosses one or more railroad 

tracks at grade, or a location where a 

pathway explicitly authorized by a 

public authority or railroad carrier that 

is dedicated for the use of non-vehicular 

traffic, including pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and others, that is not associated with 

a public highway, road, or street, or a 

private roadway, crosses one or more 

railroad tracks at grade. The definition 

further provides that the term 

‘‘sidewalk’’ means that portion of a street 

between the curb line, or the lateral line 

of a roadway, and the adjacent property 

line or, on easements of private 

property, that portion of a street that is 

paved or improved and intended for use 

by pedestrians. 

Although this revision was not 

expressly addressed in the NPRM, it is 

consistent with FRA’s long-standing 

practice as well as the Railroad Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (the ‘‘RSIA’’). 

Specifically, sections 2 and 204 of the 

RSIA define ‘‘crossing’’ to include such 

pathway crossings. Furthermore, section 

209 of the RSIA requires that FRA audit 

railroads to ensure that all grade 

crossing collisions and fatalities are 

properly reported. Thus, FRA’s audits 

must review railroad records to ensure 

that crossings, including such pathway 

crossing accidents/incidents, are 

reported. The final rule’s definition 

makes FRA’s regulations consistent with 

the RSIA’s requirements and enables 

accurate auditing and reporting. 

Moreover, FRA proposed revisions to 

the definition of ‘‘Accident/Incident’’ 

with respect to impacts at highway-rail 

grade crossings, and received comments 

on the proposal. FRA’s responses to 

those comments are discussed above. 

The final rule defines ‘‘Injury or 

illness’’ to mean an ‘‘abnormal condition 

or disorder,’’ (this is consistent with 

OSHA’s definition at 29 CFR 1904.46). 

FRA is adding the definition to provide 

examples of injuries and illnesses and to 

clarify that pain is an injury or illness 

when it is sufficiently severe to meet the 

general reporting criteria listed in 

§ 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6). See 

OSHA’s Final Rule, 66 FR 5916, 6080, 

January 19, 2001. The final rule also 

amends the definition to clarify that a 

musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is an 

injury or illness. See OSHA’s Final 

Rule, 66 FR 5916, 6017, January 19, 

2001 and 68 FR 38601, 38602, June 30, 

2003. The addition of the definition is 

not a substantive change to FRA’s 

current accident/incident recording and 

reporting requirements. Rather, the final 

rule added the definition in an effort to 

eliminate confusion as to what 

constitutes an injury or illness. FRA also 

wishes to emphasize that injuries and 

illnesses are reportable only if they are 

new cases discernably caused or 

significantly aggravated by an event or 

exposure arising from the operation of a 

railroad, that meet one or more of the 

general reporting criteria. 

In response to the NPRM, FRA 

received comments that asserted that 

the proposed definition was not 

consistent with OSHA because pain and 

MSDs are not injuries or illnesses. 

However, in the OSHA Letter, OSHA 

confirmed FRA’s understanding that 

‘‘pain is an injury or illness * * * when 

it is sufficiently severe to meet the 

general reporting criteria’’ and that the 

MSDs are injuries and illnesses as they 

constitute ‘‘abnormal conditions.’’ OSHA 

Letter at 4. 

Commenters also stated that the 

proposed definition is overly broad and 

would require the railroads to report 

minor injuries and illnesses. Because 

the injury or illness must still meet the 

general reporting criteria, FRA will not 

be capturing minor injuries and 

illnesses. Moreover, these amendments 

are clarifications and do not alter the 

railroads’ current responsibilities. FRA 

uses all of this information, including 

information about MSDs and lower back 

pain, to identify health and safety risks 

arising from railroad operations. 

Other commenters suggested that the 

experience of pain in the work 

environment should not be considered 

an injury as the person might simply be 

experiencing pain as the result of an 

injury or illness that was caused by an 

event or exposure not arising from the 

operation of the railroad. UP argued, for 

example, that a person may experience 

pain simply as a result of age or 

psychological reasons. The final rule 

does not require railroads to report 

injuries or illnesses that are not caused 

by an event or exposure in the work 

environment. Thus, signs or symptoms 

of a prior injury or illness that simply 

manifest within the work environment 

or on property owned, leased, operated 

over or maintained by railroad, are not 

reportable. Pain is only reportable when 

an event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad is a discernable 

cause of that pain or significantly 

aggravated that pain and it meets the 

general reporting criteria. 

Several commenters stated that the 

term ‘‘abnormal condition’’ is not clear. 

This terminology is consistent with 

OSHA’s requirements. Moreover, FRA 

believes that the term is, in fact, clear 

and requires railroads to report adverse 

medical conditions caused by events or 

exposures arising from the operation of 

the railroad. This definition, in addition 

to the examples, provides sufficient 

guidance for railroads to properly 

identify reportable injuries and 

illnesses. UP stated that the definition 

was vague and unclear, and, as a result, 

UP suggested a definition based upon 

diagnostic criteria. An injury or illness 

that is simply the result of events or 

exposures outside of the work 

environment is not reportable. Thus, an 

injury that is simply the result of the 

aging process is not reportable. 

Moreover, an injury or illness must be 

caused by an event or exposure arising 

from the operation of the railroad. Thus, 

if an event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad significantly 

aggravated a preexisting condition or if 

the person is more susceptible to an 

injury or illness discernably caused by 

an event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad due to age, 

then the injury or illness is reportable. 

As the workforce ages, FRA is interested 

in learning more about the impact on 

these demographics and work place 

safety. As such, FRA believes that the 

definition contained in the final rule is 

appropriate. 

The final rule amends the definition 

of ‘‘New case’’ to apply to all persons 

rather than only to employees. 

Correspondingly, the final rule replaces 

the phrase ‘‘in the work environment’’ 

with ‘‘arising from the operation of a 

railroad,’’ because the term ‘‘work 

environment’’ applies only to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68873 

employees. This revision is consistent 

with the statutory requirement that 

railroads report to FRA ‘‘all accidents 

and incidents resulting in injury or 

death to an individual * * * arising 

from the carrier’s operations during the 

month,’’ not just accidents and incidents 

resulting in injury or death to railroad 

employees. See 49 U.S.C. 20901. FRA 

believes that this amendment does not 

affect the reporting requirements. The 

final rule also includes the descriptor 

‘‘discernably’’ before the word ‘‘caused’’ 

in order to maintain consistency within 

part 225. 

Commenters to the NPRM stated that 

the amendments to the definition of 

‘‘New case’’ inappropriately expanded 

the definition to apply to all persons 

and, in so doing, would create 

significant costs and reporting burdens. 

While the amendments do expand ‘‘New 

case’’ to address persons beyond 

employees, the changes are meant to 

make the definition consistent with the 

statutory requirement that railroads 

report casualties to all persons. 49 

U.S.C. 20901. Moreover, expanding the 

term ‘‘New case’’ to address casualties to 

non-employees should not create 

significant additional burdens as the 

revision is meant to provide guidance to 

the railroads about when a new record 

or report must be created and when the 

railroads should only update a 

previously created record or report for 

an ‘‘existing case.’’ As such, railroads 

need only make a new record or report 

when it is a ‘‘new case’’ and may simply 

update a record or report for an ‘‘existing 

case.’’ 

The final rule also amends the 

definition of ‘‘Qualified health care 

professional’’ by removing the 

otolaryngologist example (which had 

stated: ‘‘[f]or example, an 

otolaryngologist is qualified to diagnose 

a case of noise induced hearing loss and 

identify potential causal factors, but 

may not be qualified to diagnose a case 

of repetitive motion injuries.’’). The final 

rule removes this example in order to 

clarify that physicians are not limited by 

their specialty and may diagnosis 

conditions while operating within the 

scope of their license, registration, or 

certification. As such, as a licensed 

physician, an otolaryngologist may 

diagnose conditions other than those 

related to the ear, nose, and throat. A 

comment to the NPRM stated that the 

example should not be removed, that 

doctors should not be able to diagnosis 

conditions outside of their specialty, 

and that the example should be 

amended from referencing ‘‘repetitive 

motion injuries’’ to ‘‘work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders.’’ As noted, 

the final rule clarifies that physicians 

may diagnose conditions outside of 

their specialty while operating within 

the scope of their license, registration, 

or certification. This position is 

consistent with the current rule; 

however, the otolaryngologist example 

created confusion (which is why it was 

removed). 

The final rule revises the definition of 

‘‘Railroad.’’ Currently, part 225 defines 

‘‘railroad’’ as ‘‘a person providing 

railroad transportation.’’ In order to 

attain better consistency with Congress’ 

1994 revisions to 49 U.S.C. 20102, the 

final rule defines ‘‘railroad’’ to mean ‘‘a 

railroad carrier,’’ and adds a definition 

to § 225.5 for ‘‘railroad carrier’’ to mean 

a ‘‘person providing railroad 

transportation.’’ Congress added the 

term ‘‘Railroad carrier’’ to 49 U.S.C. 

20102 in 1994 (Pub. L. 103–272, 108 

Stat 745), as part of a larger effort ‘‘[t]o 

restate the laws related to transportation 

in one comprehensive title’’ and ‘‘attain 

uniformity [of language] within the 

title.’’ See House Report No. 103–180 at 

3, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 818, 

820. Specifically, Congress defined 

‘‘railroad carrier’’ at 49 U.S.C. 20102 (2) 

as a ‘‘person providing railroad 

transportation,’’ in order to ‘‘distinguish 

between railroad transportation and the 

entity providing railroad 

transportation.’’ See House Report No. 

103–180 at 79, reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 818, 898. FRA’s definition 

of ‘‘railroad transportation’’ remains 

unchanged. 

The final rule adds a definition for 

‘‘Significant aggravation of a pre-existing 

injury or illness.’’ This definition is 

consistent with both OSHA’s definition 

as set forth at 29 CFR 1904.5(b)(4) and 

the current version (effective May 1, 

2003) of the FRA Guide. FRA has added 

this definition to § 225.5 for clarification 

and ease of reference. 

The final rule further clarifies that the 

provisions concerning days away from 

work and restricted duty only relate to 

railroad employees. This clarifying 

amendment was made in response to a 

comment requesting additional 

clarification about whether these 

provisions apply to ‘‘any person.’’ This 

amendment is consistent with the 

reporting criteria found in § 225.19 and 

will not create any additional burden on 

the railroads. 

Commenters stated that the definition 

for ‘‘Significant aggravation of a preexisting injury or illness’’ is not 

consistent with the OSHA definition. 

Specifically, Amtrak argued that FRA’s 

definition is different than OSHA’s 

because it contains the term 

‘‘discernable cause.’’ However, FRA 

included this language for clarity and 

the definition is, in fact, consistent with 

OSHA’s language. Pursuant to the 

OSHA–NAM Agreement, a case ‘‘is 

presumed work-related if, and only if, 

an event or exposure in the work 

environment is a discernable cause of 

the injury or illness or of a significant 

aggravation to [sic] preexisting 

condition.’’ 

Amtrak further argued that FRA’s 

removal of ‘‘occupational’’ preceding the 

phrase ‘‘event or exposure’’ is also 

inconsistent with OSHA. This revision 

is consistent with the statutory 

requirement that railroads report to FRA 

‘‘all accidents and incidents resulting in 

injury or death to an individual arising 

from the carrier’s operations during the 

month,’’ not just accidents and incidents 

resulting in injury or death to railroad 

employees. See 49 U.S.C. 20901. While 

OSHA only captures information 

relating to employees, FRA collects and 

uses information for various 

classifications of persons. As such, FRA 

requires railroads to submit information 

relating to non-employee injuries and 

illnesses that arise from the operation of 

the railroad. 

The final rule also adds a definition 

for ‘‘Suicide data.’’ Consistent with 

FRA’s decision to remove suicide and 

attempted suicide from its current 

§ 225.15 reporting exceptions (see 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 225.15, 

‘‘Accidents/Incident not to be 

reported’’), and to begin collecting 

suicide related data, FRA is adding to 

§ 225.5 a definition for ‘‘Suicide data.’’ 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed that 

‘‘Suicide data’’ mean data regarding the 

death of an individual due to that 

individual’s commission of suicide as 

determined by a coroner or other public 

authority; or injury to an individual due 

to that individual’s attempted 

commission of suicide as determined by 

a public authority. 

The final rule revises the definition of 

‘‘Suicide data’’ to mean ‘‘data regarding 

the death of an individual due to the 

individual’s commission of suicide as 

determined by a coroner, public police 

officer or other public authority; or 

injury to an individual due to that 

individual’s attempted commission of 

suicide as determined by a public police 

officer or other public authority.’’ The 

FRA Guide explains that a ‘‘public 

authority’’ is a Federal, State or local 

government entity, such as a public 

health department, that has the legal 

authority to declare a fatality a suicide 

or a casualty to a person as an attempted 

suicide. Moreover, the FRA Guide 

provides for what documentation a 

railroad is required to have to show that 

a person committed suicide or 

attempted to commit suicide. See 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data.’’ 

FRA emphasizes that only the 

information about the death of, or injury 

to, the individual who committed the 

suicidal act is considered to be suicide 

data. Thus, information about the death 

of, or injury to, any other person caused 

by another person’s commission of a 

suicidal act is not suicide data. FRA will 

not report suicide data to OSHA. FRA 

will not include suicide data (as defined 

in § 225.5) in its periodic summaries of 

data on the number of injuries and 

illnesses associated with railroad 

operations. FRA will maintain suicide 

data in a database that is not publicly 

accessible. Accordingly, suicide data 

will not be available on FRA’s Web site 

for individual reports or downloads, 

however, suicide data will be available 

to the public in aggregate format on 

FRA’s Web site and via requests under 

the Freedom of Information Act. See 

§ 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data.’’ FRA inspectors 

and State agencies participating in 

investigative activities under part 212 

will have access to the individual 

records and reports. See § 225.31. States 

also can obtain individual reports 

directly from the railroads pursuant to 

§ 225.1. 

Commenters requested that FRA 

clarify what is considered a public 

authority. As explained above, a ‘‘public 

authority’’ is a Federal, State or local 

government entity, such as a public 

health department, that has the legal 

authority to declare a fatality a suicide 

or a casualty to a person an attempted 

suicide. MTA asked whether public 

authority would include ‘‘a railroad 

police department or other State or local 

police department.’’ FRA does not 

consider a railroad police officer a 

public authority within the meaning of 

those terms. Another commenter 

suggested using the phrase 

‘‘appropriately qualified public 

authority’’ to define public authority. 

FRA believes that the revised definition 

provides sufficient clarity as to what is 

considered a public authority. 

Commenters also suggested that 

collecting this information (e.g., a 

coroner’s report) is time consuming and 

that FRA should consider this fact when 

requiring that a railroad complete the 

relevant forms within a specific period 

of time. FRA acknowledges that it may 

take additional time to confirm cause of 

death. As explained, FRA needs this 

information to prevent future casualties 

and to improve rail safety. However, 

after acquiring knowledge that a 

reportable injury or illness occurred, a 

railroad must create a Form FRA F 

6180.55a for reportable injury and 

illness within thirty days after the 

expiration of the month during which 

the accidents/incidents occurred. As 

such, a railroad may submit the report 

as a fatality if a final determination with 

regard to cause of death has not yet been 

reached and, at a later time, update and 

amend the record or report once the 

railroad is able to confirm cause of 

death. If a railroad is unable to confirm 

whether an individual committed 

suicide at the end of the investigative 

period, the deceased should be listed as 

the applicable type person (e.g., 

trespasser, non-trespasser). FRA allows 

railroads to accept verbal confirmation 

of an attempted suicide or suicide from 

a public authority, so long as the 

railroad documents in writing the 

specifics of the conversation and creates 

the required audit trail, as explained in 

the FRA Guide, rather than requiring 

written confirmation from the public 

police officer, coroner or other public 

authority. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data.’’ 

The final rule revises the definition of 

‘‘Work environment’’ to explain that the 

work environment means the 

establishment and other locations where 

one or more railroad employees are 

working or are present as a condition of 

employment. This revision provides 

additional clarity and better conforms 

FRA’s definition with OSHA’s 

definition at 29 CFR 1904.5(b)(1). 

The final rule revises the definition of 

‘‘Work-related’’ by removing the words 

‘‘incident, activity, or the like’’ and 

replacing them with ‘‘event or exposure’’ 

because the definition of ‘‘event or 

exposure’’ in this section encompasses 

those terms. The definition explains that 

an injury or illness is presumed workrelated if an event or exposure in the 

work environment is a discernable 

cause of the resulting condition or a 

discernable cause of a significant 

aggravation to a pre-existing injury or 

illness. The causal event need not be 

peculiarly occupational in nature so 

long as it occurs in the work 

environment, and is a discernable cause 

(i.e., contributory factor). Further, the 

final rule states that if an injury or 

illness is within the presumption, the 

employer can rebut the workrelatedness only by showing that the 

case falls within an exception listed in 

49 CFR 225.15. This presumption is 

consistent with the NAM–OSHA 

settlement agreement, 66 FR 66943, 

December 27, 2001, and with OSHA’s 

regulations which require that 

‘‘[employers] must consider an injury or 

illness to be work-related if an event or 

exposure in the work environment 

either caused or contributed to the 

resulting condition or significantly 

aggravated a pre-existing condition.’’ 29 

CFR 1904.5(a). That regulation goes on 

to explain that ‘‘[w]ork-relatedness is 

presumed for injuries and illnesses 

resulting from events or exposures 

occurring in the work environment, 

unless an exception in [29 CFR] 

1904.5(b) specifically applies.’’ Id. at 29 

CFR 1904.5(b)(2), OSHA also sets forth 

nine exceptions to its injury and illness 

reporting requirements. The final rule 

sets forth all FRA accident/incident 

reporting exceptions in § 225.15. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/Incident not to be 

reported.’’ 

In addition, in cases where it is not 

obvious whether a precipitating event or 

exposure occurred in the work 

environment, the employer must 

evaluate the employee’s work duties 

and environment to decide whether it is 

more likely than not that an event or 

exposure in the work environment 

contributed to the employee’s injury or 

illness. FRA’s requirement is consistent 

with the NAM–OSHA settlement 

agreement and OSHA’s regulations at 29 

CFR 1904.5(b)(3), in which OSHA 

addresses how an employer should 

handle a case if it is not obvious 

whether the precipitating event or 

exposure occurred in the work 

environment, stating ‘‘in these 

situations, [the employer] must evaluate 

the employee’s work duties and 

environment to decide whether or not 

one or more events or exposures in the 

work environment either caused or 

contributed to the resulting condition or 

significantly aggravated a pre-existing 

condition.’’ 

FRA also wishes to clarify that an 

event or exposure that occurs in the 

work environment need not have a clear 

connection to a specific work activity, 

condition, or substance that is peculiar 

to the railroad transportation business 

in order be an ‘‘event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad.’’ 

Examples of events or exposures arising 

from the operation of a railroad include 

an employee tripping for no apparent 

reason while walking across a level 

floor; an employee being sexually 

assaulted by a co-worker; or an 

employee being injured by an act of 

violence perpetrated by one co-worker 

against a third party. See OSHA’s 2001 

Rule, 66 FR 5916, 5946, January 19, 

2001. In such cases, the employee’s jobrelated tasks and exposures did not 

create or contribute to the risk that an 

injury or illness would occur. Id. Rather, 

these activities are events or exposures 

arising from the operation of a railroad 

because they occurred in the work 

environment. Likewise, normal body 

movements (e.g., walking, climbing a 

staircase, bending, sneezing) engaged in 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68875 

by an employee at the time of injury are 

also events arising from the operation of 

a railroad, even if the body movement 

is not related to the employee’s jobrelated tasks. See 66 FR 5916, 5957– 

5958, January 19, 2001. 

Correspondingly, events or exposures 

involving contractors or volunteers, that 

occur on property owned, leased, 

operated over or maintained by the 

railroad, also arise from the operation of 

a railroad, even if they do not have a 

clear connection to a specific work 

activity, condition, or substance that is 

peculiar to the railroad transportation 

business. 

UP contests the work-relatedness 

presumption. However, the final rule 

specifically adopts a presumption of 

work-relatedness that is identical to 

OSHA’s presumption to provide 

uniformity in reporting requirements 

between OSHA and FRA and amongst 

railroads. Moreover, this allows 

railroads to report to one agency, FRA. 

In addition, uniform reporting 

requirements allow for comparing safety 

trends across industries and among 

railroads. 

UP also suggests that a method/ 

evidence-based approach should be 

employed. UP proposes that an injury or 

illness is considered work-related if ‘‘1. 

The medical findings of disease or 

injury are compatible with the effects of 

a disease-producing agent or an injury 

producing event to which the worker 

has been exposed; 2. Sufficient exposure 

is present in the worker’s occupational 

environment to have caused the disease; 

and 3. The weight of the evidence 

supports the disease as having 

occupational rather than nonoccupational origin.’’ Alternatively, 

BNSF suggested using the NIOSH 

approach when causation is not 

obvious. As explained above, under part 

225, the railroad must decide whether, 

considering the circumstances, it is 

more likely than not that an event or 

exposure arising from the operation of 

the railroad is a discernable cause of an 

injury or illness. If an event or exposure 

is a discernable cause, then the injury or 

illness is presumed to be work-related. 

Under this approach, a railroad may 

consider the various unique factors 

associated with each employee’s 

potentially work-related injury or 

illness, including, but not limited to, an 

employee’s medical and work history, 

in addition to an employee’s statements 

regarding his or her injury or illness. 

Other commenters stated that the 

definition creates a geographic 

presumption because experiencing pain 

in the work environment is sufficient to 

make an injury or illness work-related 

and reportable. Contrary to this 

assertion, the final rule does not create 

a ‘‘geographic presumption,’’ as the 

event or exposure arising from the 

operation of the railroad must be a cause 

of the injury or illness; and, therefore, 

the manifestation of a sign or symptom 

in the work environment, by itself, does 

not make an injury work-related. 

Similarly, comments stated that the 

definition is so broad that everything is 

work-related. Again, an injury or illness 

is not work-related unless an event or 

exposure arising from the work 

environment is a discernable cause, and 

it meets one of the general reporting 

criteria. Moreover, FRA’s definition of 

work-relatedness is consistent with 

OSHA’s definition and enables OSHA 

and FRA to compare safety trends across 

industries. 

Commenters stated that FRA should 

collect information about only injuries 

and illnesses caused by ‘‘occupational’’ 

events or exposures. UP claimed that, 

when railroads are required to report 

injuries or illnesses that result from 

non-occupational events, that data will 

not improve railroad safety. 

Commenters also stated that FRA is not 

collecting data about the hazards and 

risks actually associated with the 

railroad industry. For employee injuries 

and illnesses, OSHA does not require 

that the event or exposure be 

occupational in nature. Again, adopting 

OSHA’s approach allows the railroads 

to report to one agency, FRA, and, so 

long as FRA maintains reporting 

requirements consistent with those of 

OSHA, FRA’s regulations also allow for 

comparing safety trends between 

industries. Finally, FRA uses the 

information regarding injuries and 

illnesses that are not solely occupational 

in nature to improve safety and to more 

fully understand injuries and illnesses 

in the work environment. 

§ 225.6 Consolidated Reporting 

The final rule adds § 225.6, which 

provides an option for consolidated 

railroad accident/incident reporting for 

certain integrated railroad systems. 

Section 20901 of title 49 of the United 

States Code requires that each ‘‘railroad 

carrier’’ submit to FRA a monthly report 

of its accidents/incidents. A ‘‘railroad 

carrier’’ is defined by 49 U.S.C. 20102 as 

a ‘‘person providing railroad 

transportation, except that, upon 

petition by a group of commonly 

controlled railroad carriers that the 

Secretary determines is operating within 

the United States as a single, integrated 

rail system, the Secretary may by order 

treat the group of railroad carriers as a 

single railroad carrier for purposes of 

one or more provisions of part A, 

subtitle V of this title and implementing 

regulations and order, subject to any 

appropriate conditions that the 

Secretary may impose.’’ ‘‘Person,’’ as 

defined by 1 U.S.C. 1, ‘‘include[s] 

corporations, companies, associations, 

firms, partnerships, societies, and joint 

stock companies, as well as 

individuals.’’ 

The final rule provides that a parent 

corporation may request in writing that 

FRA treat its commonly controlled 

railroad carriers, which operate as a 

single, seamless, integrated United 

States rail system, as a single railroad 

carrier for purposes of part 225 

compliance. The written request must 

provide a list of the subsidiary railroads 

controlled by the parent corporation and 

an explanation as to how the subsidiary 

railroads operate as a single, seamless, 

integrated United States railroad system. 

If FRA grants such a request, the parent 

corporation must enter into a written 

agreement with FRA specifying which 

subsidiaries are included in its railroad 

system, consenting to assume 

responsibility for compliance with part 

225 for all named subsidiaries making 

up the system, and consenting to 

guarantee any liabilities owed to the 

United States government that are 

incurred by its named subsidiaries for 

violating part 225. Any change in the 

subsidiaries making up such a railroad 

system will require immediate 

notification to FRA and the execution of 

an amended agreement. In addition, 

executed agreements will be published 

in the docket. 

FRA’s final rule is consistent with the 

Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) 

decision in Ex Parte No. 634 (Proposal 

to Require Consolidated Reporting by 

Commonly Controlled Railroads) 

(November 7, 2001). In this decision, 

STB required that each group of 

railroads that operate as a single, 

integrated United States rail system 

whose cumulative operating revenues 

meet the Class I threshold, submit 

consolidated annual financial reports 

that combine the operations of all their 

commonly controlled railroads that 

operate as an integrated rail system 

within the United States. 

Commenters to the NPRM suggested 

that this revision will dilute reporting, 

and make it more difficult to compare 

trends and to identify problems. 

However, FRA believes that this 

revision will, in fact, enable the agency 

to gather more meaningful and accurate 

data. One comment also sought 

additional clarification on who can use 

consolidated reporting. Again, as 

discussed, a parent corporation may 

request consolidated reporting where its 

commonly controlled railroad carriers 

operate as a single, seamless, integrated 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

United States rail system. In addition, 

the STB decision, referenced above, 

provides further clarification. 

§ 225.9 Telephonic Reports of Certain 

Accidents/Incidents and Other Events 

The final rule amends the accident/ 

incident telephonic reporting 

requirements related to fatalities that 

occur at highway-rail grade crossings as 

a result of train accidents or train 

incidents. FRA had required railroads to 

report immediately to the National 

Response Center (NRC), via telephone, 

‘‘a fatality at a highway-rail grade 

crossing as a result of a train accident 

or train incident.’’ 49 CFR 

225.9(a)(2)(iii). FRA has found that 

confusion exists as to the applicability 

of this requirement when death does not 

occur at the scene of the accident/ 

incident, but occurs several hours or 

days later, after the fatally injured 

person is taken to the hospital for 

treatment. 

As a result, the final rule revises the 

telephonic reporting requirement for 

highway-rail grade crossing fatalities to 

require telephonic reporting only if 

death occurs within 24 hours of the 

accident/incident. This revision is 

consistent with the Department of 

Transportation, Office of Inspector 

General’s November 28, 2005 

recommendation (Report No. MH–2006– 

016), which recommended that FRA 

amend § 225.9 to clarify the reporting 

requirements and to include criteria 

requiring railroads to report to NRC any 

death at a highway-rail grade crossing, 

only if death occurs within 24 hours of 

the accident/incident. 

The final rule also makes a technical 

amendment to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) by 

adding the words ‘‘or more’’ after 

$150,000, to clarify that the telephonic 

reporting requirement is triggered when 

a train accident results in damage of 

$150,000 or more to railroad and nonrailroad property. 

In the NPRM, FRA requested 

comments and suggestions on four 

issues of concern. One of these issues 

was § 225.9 telephonic reporting. 

Specifically, the NPRM noted that FRA 

was considering changing the method 

by which telephonic reports of 

accidents/incidents, as required by 

§ 225.9, are made. Under FRA’s current 

regulations, railroads are required to 

telephonically report certain accidents/ 

incidents to the NRC, who in turn 

provides notification of the accidents/ 

incidents to FRA. The NPRM indicated 

that FRA was reviewing whether it 

would be preferable for railroads to 

report these accidents/incidents directly 

to FRA via electronic transmission, and 

invited comments and suggestions on 

the issue. 

FRA received comments that were 

generally in favor of reporting such 

accidents/incidents directly to FRA via 

electronic transmission. One comment 

suggested that certain data should be 

collected, including railroad contact 

information closely associated with the 

accident/incident, train equipment 

identification, and hazardous materials 

identification. Another comment 

suggested that railroads should 

immediately report any type of railroad 

related fatality, including trespasser 

fatalities and suicides. After reviewing 

the issue and the comments, no changes 

are being made relating to direct 

reporting because FRA does not 

currently have the infrastructure to 

adequately address such reporting. 

However, FRA will take these comments 

into consideration in any further 

evaluation concerning direct reporting. 

A commenter suggested that the 

immediate notification of such fatalities 

is not necessary because such data is 

captured in the monthly report 

submitted to FRA. FRA believes, 

however, that immediate reporting is 

necessary so that FRA has the 

opportunity to physically investigate the 

accident/incident before the scene is 

cleared. Such reporting ultimately 

results in the creation of more accurate 

data. A comment to the NPRM also 

suggested that a railroad cannot easily 

determine whether there has been a 

fatality if the individual does not die at 

the scene of the accident/incident. FRA 

believes that railroads must take 

reasonable steps to learn whether a 

fatality occurred within 24 hours of the 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident. Under the current regulation at 

§ 225.9, there is no such time limit. As 

such, the final rule lessens the burden 

on the railroads to follow-up on such 

accidents/incidents under § 225.9 by 

only requiring railroads to report if a 

fatality occurs within 24 hours. As 

discussed, this final rule is consistent 

with the Department of Transportation, 

Office of Inspector General’s November 

28, 2005 recommendation (Report No. 

MH–2006–016). A comment to the 

NPRM also suggested that such reports 

be made electronically, rather than 

telephonically, to allow for greater 

efficiency and accuracy. FRA does not 

currently have the infrastructure to 

accommodate this suggestion. FRA 

does, however, currently receive 

electronic updates after the initial report 

to the NRC, which ensures that FRA has 

all of the relevant information. Lastly, a 

comment to the NPRM suggested that 

‘‘horrible injuries’’ should also be 

reported under § 225.9. The final rule 

does not adopt this suggestion because 

the phrase ‘‘horrible injuries’’ is vague, 

would be difficult to enforce, and FRA 

Form F 6180.55a captures information 

relating to the nature of the injury. 

The final rule also revises the 

Telephonic Reporting Chart contained 

in the FRA Guide, Appendix M in order 

to make it consistent with the final rule 

text as the chart contained in the 2003 

Final Rule was not consistent with the 

regulatory text. These amendments are 

clarifying in nature, and will impose no 

additional burden on railroads. See FRA 

Guide for additional information. 

§ 225.11 Reporting of Accidents/ 

Incidents 

In this section, the final rule lists each 

primary accident/incident group 

described in § 225.19 (i.e., Highway-rail 

grade crossing; Rail equipment; and 

Death, injury and occupational illness) 

by subsection. By identifying each 

group of accidents/incidents with a 

different subsection, FRA will be better 

able to access data and differentiate 

among data elements. For example, 

currently, if FRA issues a violation 

against a railroad for alleged noncompliance with § 225.11, FRA’s case 

tracking database captures this as a 

violation of § 225.11. With such limited 

information, FRA is unable to easily 

identify what type of reporting noncompliance is alleged (e.g., failure to 

report a highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident; failure to report a rail 

equipment accident/incident or failure 

to report an accident/incident involving 

a death, injury or occupational illness). 

This final rule provides FRA with better 

and more useful data, while also 

providing quicker access to such data. 

The final rule also updates this 

section to reflect the revised provisions 

in § 225.37 regarding filing accident/ 

incident reports with FRA via optical 

media (CD–ROM) and electronically via 

the Internet. 

§ 225.15 Accidents/Incidents Not To 

Be Reported 

In this section, § 225.15 is revised to 

include a comprehensive list of injury/ 

illness and rail equipment accident/ 

incident reporting exceptions (formerly 

listed partially in § 225.15 and in the 

2003 FRA Guide). As discussed in the 

Section-by-Section Analysis of § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions’’ with respect to the 

definition of ‘‘Work-relatedness,’’ 

OSHA’s regulations require that 

‘‘[employers] must consider an injury or 

illness to be work-related if an event or 

exposure in the work environment 

either caused or contributed to the 

resulting condition or significantly 

aggravated a pre-existing condition.’’ 29 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68877 

CFR 1904.5(a). OSHA’s regulation goes 

on to explain that ‘‘[w]ork-relatedness is 

presumed for injuries and illnesses 

resulting from events or exposures 

occurring in the work environment, 

unless an exception in [29 CFR] 

1904.5(b) specifically applies.’’ 29 CFR 

1904.5(a). FRA established certain 

reporting exceptions in § 225.15 in 

FRA’s 2003 Final Rule and also adopted 

OSHA’s reporting exceptions in the 

2003 FRA Guide. 

FRA’s list of exceptions in this final 

rule includes both the FRA created 

exceptions and the exceptions set forth 

by OSHA at 29 CFR 1904.5(b) as 

adopted by FRA. FRA reviewed the 

applicability of each injury and illness 

reporting exception as related to the 

class of injured person, and incorporates 

this information into the final rule text. 

In making this revision, FRA leaves 

paragraph (a) substantively unchanged. 

In paragraph (b), FRA addresses 

reporting exceptions for Worker on 

Duty—Employee (Class A) injuries and 

illnesses. Paragraph (b) retains the 

current paragraph (b)(1) reporting 

exception relating to injuries and 

illnesses occurring in living quarters. 

The final rule also adds additional 

reporting exceptions applicable to 

Worker on Duty—Employee (Class A) 

(paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(3)). The 

final rule also revises the NPRM 

language to clarify that these exceptions 

do not affect a railroad’s obligation to 

evaluate and report those injuries and 

illnesses as another class of persons (i.e., 

Employee not on duty (Class B); 

Passenger on Trains (Class C); 

Nontrespassers-On Railroad Property 

(Class D); Trespassers (Class E)), rather 

than as only Employee Not On Duty 

(Class B). For example, an employer 

who is present in the work environment 

as a member of the general public and 

is injured may qualify as a Class C or 

Class D person, rather than as a Class B 

person. This is a clarifying amendment; 

therefore, it should not alter railroads’ 

reporting responsibilities and is 

consistent with the exceptions 

contained in FRA’s 2003 Final Rule and 

2003 FRA Guide. 

Paragraph (c) contains reporting 

exceptions applicable to all employees 

(whether on or off duty). With respect 

to the reporting exception listed in 

paragraph (c)(3), FRA wishes to clarify 

that an injury or illness that is solely the 

result of an employee eating, drinking, 

or preparing food or drink for personal 

consumption is not reportable. It does 

not matter if the employee bought the 

food on the employer’s premises or 

brought the food into work. For 

example, if the employee is injured by 

choking on a sandwich while in the 

employer’s establishment, the case 

would not be considered work-related. 

If, however, the employee is made ill by 

ingesting food contaminated by 

workplace contaminants (such as lead), 

or gets food poisoning from food 

supplied by the employer, the case 

would be considered reportable if the 

case meets the general reporting criteria 

set forth at § 225.19(d)(1)–(d)(6). With 

respect to the reporting exception listed 

in paragraph (c)(5), self-inflicted 

casualties do not need to be reported 

except that, for FRA reporting purposes, 

a railroad will still be responsible for 

reporting or recording self-inflicted 

casualties that are determined to be 

suicides and attempted suicides that 

qualify as accountable or reportable. 

FRA will not be providing suicide data 

to DOL. 

In paragraph (d), FRA addresses the 

applicability of the reporting exceptions 

listed in paragraph (b) and (c) to 

contractors and volunteers. The 

reporting exceptions for employee 

injuries and illnesses apply equally to 

volunteer injuries and illnesses and to 

contractor injuries (contractor illnesses 

are not reportable to FRA). Because an 

injury to a contractor, or injury to or 

illness of a volunteer, must occur on 

property owned, leased, operated over 

or maintained by the railroad (rather 

than in the work environment), any 

reference to the term ‘‘work 

environment’’ in paragraph (b) is 

construed to mean, for the purposes of 

paragraph (d) only, on property owned, 

leased, operated over, or maintained by 

the railroad. The application of the 

exceptions as stated in paragraph (d) do 

not reflect any change to FRA’s 

provisions, but is included to clarify the 

applicability of the reporting exceptions 

to contractors and volunteers. 

Consistent with the changes made to the 

definition of ‘‘event or exposure arising 

from the operation of the railroad,’’ 

paragraph (d) was amended to include 

the term ‘‘operated over.’’ FRA does not 

believe that this clarifying amendment 

increases the burden on railroads 

because it is consistent with common 

industry practice as well as FRA’s longstanding policy. 

Lastly, paragraph (e) addresses 

reporting exceptions for rail equipment 

accidents/incidents which were 

included in the 2003 FRA Guide. 

The agency believes that the 

incorporation of these exceptions into 

the rule will provide a better 

understanding of FRA’s employee injury 

and illness reporting requirements. 

Again, the reporting exceptions do not 

affect a railroad’s obligation to maintain 

records of accidents/incidents as 

required by § 225.25 (Form FRA F 

6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury 

and/or Illness Record,’’ and Form FRA F 

6180.97, ‘‘Initial Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Record’’), as 

applicable. 

The final rule also eliminates from the 

reporting exceptions suicides and 

attempted suicides. In doing so, FRA is 

requiring that casualties due to suicides 

and attempted suicides, that arise from 

the operation of the railroad and meet 

the general reporting criteria listed in 

§ 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6), be 

reported to the agency on Form FRA F 

6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet),’’ as a 

new category of data called ‘‘suicide 

data.’’ In addition, casualties due to 

suicides and attempted suicides that 

arise from the operation of the railroad 

and meet the general reporting criteria 

listed in § 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6) 

should be included on Form FRA F 

6180.55, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary,’’ in Field 18, Reported 

Casualties. Under this system, a 

reportable injury caused as a result of a 

suicidal act is reported to FRA 

regardless of the need for other 

reporting of the event (i.e., the suicide 

resulted in a reportable train accident or 

highway-rail grade crossing collision). 

FRA will not report such suicide data 

cases to DOL. FRA will also not include 

suicide data (as defined in § 225.5) in its 

periodic summaries of data on the 

number of injuries and illnesses 

associated with railroad operations. 

Instead, FRA will maintain such suicide 

data in a database that is not publicly 

accessible. Accordingly, suicide data 

will not be available on FRA’s Web site 

for individual reports or downloads. 

Suicide data will, however, be available 

to the public in aggregate format on 

FRA’s Web site and via requests under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

For additional information about FOIA 

requests, see FRA’s Web site at http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/us/foia. Suicide data 

will be available to FRA’s inspectors 

and other authorized representatives, 

including State agencies participating in 

investigative surveillance activities 

under part 212. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data.’’ 

States will also be able to obtain 

individual reports directly from the 

railroads pursuant to § 225.1. See 

§ 225.1, ‘‘Suicide data;’’ see also Sectionby-Section Analysis for § 225.1, ‘‘Suicide 

data.’’ 

In addition, casualties due to suicides 

and attempted suicides that arise from 

the operation of the railroad and meet 

the general reporting criteria listed in 

§ 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6) shall also 

be included in Field 18, Reported 

Casualties, on Forms FRA F 6180.55, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary.’’ 

This will allow FRA to verify the 

number of forms submitted with the 

count listed on the form. The railroad 

should report the person by the ‘‘type of 

person’’ regardless of the fact that it is 

suicide data. As such, if a trespasser 

commits suicide on the railroad, the 

railroad should report it as a trespasser 

fatality. See FRA Guide, Chapter 3. 

Suicide data counts will also be 

included in casualty counts on Forms 

FRA F 6180.57, ‘‘Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Accident/Incident Report,’’ and 

FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Report,’’ so that the 

number of casualties reported to FRA on 

Form FRA F 6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury 

and Illness Summary (Continuation 

Sheet),’’ for the month is consistent with 

the number of casualties reported to 

FRA on each of these accident/incident 

reporting forms. In addition, suicide 

data counts will also be included in 

casualty counts on Form FRA F 6180.97, 

‘‘Initial Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Record.’’ See § 225.41, ‘‘Suicide 

data;’’ see also Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.5, ‘‘Definitions,’’ and 

the FRA Guide, for additional 

information. 

UP requested that highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incidents that result 

from suicides or attempted suicides not 

be included on the Form FRA F 

6180.57. As explained above, the final 

rule requires the inclusion of this 

information on the Form FRA F 6180.57 

so that the number of casualties is 

consistent with the number of casualties 

on Form FRA F 6180.55a and on the 

Form FRA F 6180.54 that might also be 

required for the same incident. In 

addition, FRA only excludes the 

individuals who committed or 

attempted suicide and, therefore, 

casualties to others involved in the same 

incident as a result of the suicidal act 

may be reportable. Moreover, a Form 

FRA F 6180.57 must be created for any 

impact regardless of cause or intent. The 

Form FRA F 6180.57 does not require 

any Personal Identifying Information 

(PII) and, as such, FRA is not as 

concerned about making the individual 

forms available to the public. See FRA 

Guide. 

FRA believes that it is important to 

collect data on suicides. Death by 

suicide is a national problem as 

indicated by the fact that more than 

30,000 Americans die by suicide each 

year. Currently, there are no reliable 

reports about how many of these deaths 

occur on railroad property. The CPUC 

indicates that more than 55 percent of 

pedestrian railroad fatalities in 

California are attributed to suicide, and 

according to the American Association 

of Suicidology, railroads that have 

tracked probable suicides on the rail 

system report that suicides are 

responsible for 39 percent of pedestrian 

fatalities. Additionally, a March 3, 2005, 

Chicago Tribune article, ‘‘Suicide is Top 

Cause of Train Track Deaths; State 

Looks for Ways to Prevent Fatalities,’’ 

indicates that, in 2004, there were 30 

probable suicide deaths and an 

additional three attempts involving 

trains in Chicago alone, and that suicide 

was the leading cause of rail-related 

fatalities in Illinois for 2004, which led 

Illinois to implement a systematic 

tracking program of such incidents on 

rail property. This information 

illustrates that there are a large number 

of fatalities occurring on railroad 

property without any national initiative 

to collect data that might be used to 

address these events. 

Since it appears that suicides 

contribute significantly to the total 

number of fatalities that are occurring 

on railroad tracks, it is appropriate to 

report and collect data about suicides in 

addition to the other causes of death in 

the industry. By requiring that the 

information be reported as suicide data, 

these fatalities will not be included in 

the normally reported fatality data. This 

new data may help FRA, organizations 

promoting safety on and around railroad 

property, and suicide prevention 

agencies assess the problem and 

develop programs to decrease the 

incidence of suicides by train. 

FRA notes that the collection of 

suicide data will also aid the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) in its 

collection and analysis of commuter 

railroad accidents, since FRA provides 

certain commuter railroad safety data to 

FTA. FTA relies on FRA to provide to 

it data on the types of accidents 

occurring on commuter rail, their 

primary causes, and the consequences, 

in terms of fatalities (which for FTA 

includes suicides under 49 CFR part 

659), injuries and property damage. The 

data FRA provides to FTA, however, is 

somewhat incomplete, in that FRA 

cannot provide suicide data to FTA. 

Consequently, FTA, which uses this 

information to better inform their 

assessments of safety plans and hazard 

analysis performed by commuter rail 

grantees applying for FTA grants, must 

work with an incomplete data set. 

Comments suggested that the 

collection of suicide data would create 

a duty on the part of the railroad to 

those individuals attempting to commit 

suicide as the railroads would now be 

aware of potential suicide hotspots. 

However, prior to this Final Rule, 

railroads were exempt from reporting 

suicides and attempted suicides. In 

order to exclude suicides and attempted 

suicides, railroads were required to 

prove cause of death by obtaining 

relevant documents to prove that a 

casualty was an attempted suicide or 

suicide. Consequently, railroads should 

already have knowledge of where 

suicides and attempted suicides are 

taking place. Therefore, the final rule 

does not create a new duty for the 

railroads, rather it simply requires them 

to compile the data. Ultimately, by 

collecting this information, FRA and 

other government agencies will be able 

to decrease the number of suicides and 

attempted suicides occurring on the 

railroad. 

Amtrak stated in its comments that 

persons entering railroad property to 

commit suicide are considered 

trespassers and the suicide is 

considered a superseding event. As 

such, Amtrak claims that an event or 

exposure arising from the operation of 

the railroad is not a cause. Consistent 

with OSHA, FRA maintains a no fault 

reporting system. As such, it does not 

matter whether the person caused their 

own injury so long as the event or 

exposure arising from the operation of 

the railroad is a discernable cause and 

it meets the general reporting criteria. 

And, the collection of this data will help 

to decrease the number of suicides and 

attempted suicides that occur each year. 

Moreover, FRA will not be providing 

this information to DOL. 

Commenters suggested that the 

collection of suicide data will not 

improve safety. As stated above, FRA 

believes that there are many benefits to 

collecting this information. Specifically, 

FRA will be able to determine where 

and how many suicides are occurring on 

the railroad. Suicides will be segregated 

from other fatalities, avoiding an over 

count of fatalities associated with 

railroad operations, and data will be 

gathered systematically so that others 

may use the data to design 

interventions. 

In order for FRA to capture suicide 

data, the final rule requires railroads to 

indicate suicide or attempted suicide on 

Forms FRA F 6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury 

and Illness Summary (Continuation 

Sheet);’’ FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Report;’’ 

and FRA F 6180.57, ‘‘Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 

Report;’’ as follows: 

(1) Form FRA F 6180.55a—The final 

rule requires that an ‘‘X,’’ representative 

of ‘‘suicide or attempted suicide,’’ be 

placed in ‘‘Special Cause Code’’ block 5r, 

when applicable. The final rule also 

changes the title of block 5m from 

‘‘Result’’ to ‘‘Tools.’’ This change is a 

correction to the current form and is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68879 

necessary to maintain consistency with 

types of Circumstance Codes in 

Appendix F of the FRA Guide. 

(2) Form FRA F 6180.54—The final 

rule adds four Miscellaneous Cause 

Codes for use in block 38 as follows: (i) 

Code M309 ‘‘Suicide (Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Accident);’’ (ii) Code 

M310 ‘‘Attempted Suicide (HighwayRail Grade Crossing Accident);’’ (iii) 

Code M509 ‘‘Suicide (Other Misc.);’’ and 

(iv) Code M510 ‘‘Attempted Suicide 

(Other Misc.).’’ These codes are added to 

Appendix C, ‘‘Train Accident Cause 

Codes’’ to refer to ‘‘Suicide or Attempted 

Suicide’’ for use in ‘‘Primary Cause 

Code’’ block 38. The final rule also 

requires railroads to include suicides 

and attempted suicides in the casualty 

counts in blocks 46, 47, and 48, as 

applicable. 

(3) Form FRA F 6180.57—The final 

rule adds a code for ‘‘Suicide or 

Attempted Suicide’’ to block 41 (the 

final rule also changes, among other 

things, the title of block 41 from ‘‘Driver’’ 

to ‘‘Highway User.’’). In addition, the 

final rule requires railroads to include 

suicides and attempted suicides, when 

appropriate, in the casualty counts in 

block numbers 46, 49, and 52. See FRA 

Guide for additional information. 

In addition, when appropriate, the 

final rule requires railroads to indicate 

whether a suicide or an attempted 

suicide was a cause of an injury or 

illness or an accident or incident in the 

applicable narrative or description 

section on the following forms: FRA F 

6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury 

and/or Illness Record’’ and FRA F 

6180.97, ‘‘Initial Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Record.’’ While 

employee suicides or attempted suicides 

are rare, FRA is still interested in 

capturing that information in order to 

learn more about suicides and 

attempted suicides in the work 

environment. 

Commenters inquired as to whether 

the NPRM’s proposed cause codes were 

sufficient to capture the facts 

surrounding suicides and attempted 

suicides. FRA believes that the codes 

and instructions listed above are 

sufficient at this time to identify key 

information. FRA welcomes the 

inclusion of additional information 

regarding such accidents/incidents in 

the applicable form’s narrative section 

(e.g., that the person is homeless). 

FRA notes that it is also concerned 

that suicides are being reported as 

trespasser fatalities, because some 

railroads have not always made a 

reasonable inquiry in their efforts to 

determine the cause of death. In fact, 

FRA has found that a number of 

reported trespasser fatalities are actually 

suicides. Accordingly, FRA revises 

Chapter 6 of the FRA Guide to clarify 

that, in order to fulfill its 

responsibilities to maintain accuracy in 

reporting, a railroad must try to obtain 

verbal or written confirmation of a 

trespasser’s cause of death by contacting 

the coroner, public police officer or 

other public authority by telephone and, 

if unsuccessful in obtaining the needed 

information by telephone, must followup in writing. The railroad must 

continue its efforts to obtain this 

information for a period of six months 

following the month in which the 

fatality occurred. The railroad must 

keep a record of its efforts to obtain such 

confirmation. This record and any 

documentation related to the case 

obtained by the railroad must be 

available for review and copying by an 

FRA representative under the same 

criteria as set forth in § 225.35(b). If a 

railroad cannot obtain confirmation of 

the cause of death by the end of the six 

month period, the railroad shall report 

the fatality as a trespasser fatality. 

FRA also revises Chapter 6 of the FRA 

Guide to clarify what documentation is 

required to prove that an individual 

committed suicide or attempted to 

commit suicide. FRA understands that 

railroads often have difficulty obtaining 

copies of death certificates and/or have 

to wait until the death certificate 

becomes publicly available. As such, as 

explained in the FRA Guide, railroads 

may accept verbal confirmation of a 

suicide or attempted suicide from a 

coroner, public police officer, or other 

public authority. When receiving verbal 

confirmation of a suicide or attempted 

suicide, a railroad must create an audit 

trail of that confirmation so that FRA 

can independently verify and confirm 

the determination. As part of this audit 

trail, for example, the railroad must 

document the date and time of verbal 

confirmation in addition to the name, 

title, address, and telephone number of 

the person who determined the cause of 

death or injury. 

Commenters stated that this 

information is too difficult to obtain, 

and that public authorities will often 

not cooperate with the railroads. 

Similarly, SEPTA suggested that the law 

prevents them from obtaining the 

written confirmation necessary to prove 

that a person committed suicide or 

attempted to commit suicide. However, 

railroads have been able to obtain this 

information under the requirements in 

the 2003 Final Rule and, therefore, FRA 

expects that they will continue to be 

able to do so. In addition, FRA hopes 

that allowing verbal confirmation will 

ease the railroad’s burden. Finally, 

when investigating a trespasser fatality, 

if a railroad cannot obtain the required 

information after making a documented, 

good faith effort for six months, then the 

railroad may discontinue its 

investigation and report the casualty as 

a trespasser fatality. 

Commenters also stated that the 

follow-up requirements are too 

burdensome. SEPTA suggested that 

railroads should only have to follow-up 

for 3 months, rather than 6 months. 

Moreover, other comments suggested 

that only one document request and one 

follow-up request should be necessary. 

However, based on past comments, 

railroads have asserted that public 

authorities require additional time to 

conclude that a fatality is a suicide. 

Therefore, FRA believes that the 

extended investigation period is 

necessary. Once a railroad obtains a 

determination, they may terminate their 

investigation. The FRA Guide indicates 

that a railroad must follow-up in writing 

only if a public authority cannot be 

reached by telephone, and then must 

continue such efforts for six months or 

until they have received confirmation. 

FRA does not mandate how the 

continued efforts be conducted, in 

writing or by telephone, so long as those 

efforts are documented. Consequently, 

after attempting to reach the public 

authority once by phone and in writing, 

a railroad may select the means by 

which they continue their investigation. 

Again, if a railroad cannot obtain the 

required information after making a 

documented, good faith effort for six 

months, then the railroad may 

discontinue its investigation and report 

the casualty as a trespasser fatality. 

Finally, FRA believes that these efforts 

are necessary based on the past apparent 

over-reporting of trespasser casualties 

that were in fact suicides. 

§ 225.17 Doubtful Cases 

In this section, the final rule amended 

part 225 by re-designating the ‘‘Alcohol 

or Drug Involvement’’ provisions, 

currently contained in § 225.17(d), to a 

newly added § 225.18. FRA has 

observed that the inclusion of the two 

unrelated topics in one section has led 

to confusion. This revision is intended 

to reduce possible confusion and does 

not substantively change FRA’s current 

accident/incident reporting 

requirements. 

§ 225.18 Alcohol or Drug Involvement 

As stated above, the final rule adds a 

new section, § 228.18, re-designating the 

Alcohol and Drug provisions currently 

contained in § 225.17(d) to a new 

section, § 225.18, for purposes of clarity 

only. The final rule also makes the 

following technical amendments: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

changing the word ‘‘title’’ to ‘‘chapter,’’ to 

reference the correct term; inserting ‘‘49 

CFR’’ in front of § 219.209, for clarity; 

and changing the word ‘‘paragraph’’ to 

‘‘section,’’ to accommodate the proposed 

re-designation of § 225.17(d) to § 225.18 

(a)–(d). 

Commenters suggested that 

contractors and subcontractors be 

included in § 225.18. The final rule does 

not adopt this suggestion because it is 

outside of the scope of the proposed 

rulemaking. Specifically, the NPRM did 

not propose any substantive changes, 

rather the sections were simply divided 

into two sections for purposes of clarity, 

and several technical amendments were 

made. 

§ 225.19 Primary Groups of Accidents/ 

Incidents 

In this section, the final rule revises 

paragraph (d) to clarify the agency’s 

existing reporting requirements for 

death, injury, and occupational illness 

and to further conform those 

requirements to OSHA’s recordkeeping 

and reporting regulations. 

As discussed, FRA’s accident/ 

incident reporting regulations that 

concern railroad occupational casualties 

are maintained, to the extent 

practicable, in general conformity with 

OSHA’s recordkeeping and reporting 

regulations in order to enable data 

comparisons on occupational casualties 

between various industries, to allow 

integration of railroad industry data into 

national statistical databases, and to 

improve the quality of data available for 

analysis of casualties in railroad 

accidents/incidents. See Section-bySection Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions’’ with respect to 

‘‘Discernable cause.’’ Moreover, 

maintaining such compatibility allows 

railroads to only have to report 

occupational casualties to FRA, rather 

than to both OSHA and FRA. See 29 

CFR 1904.3. 

With respect to employee injury and 

illness recording, OSHA’s regulations 

require that ‘‘each employer * * * must 

record each fatality, injury and illness 

that is work-related; and is a new case; 

and meets one or more of the general 

recording criteria * * * or the 

application to specific cases.’’ 29 CFR 

1904.4(a). 

By rewording paragraph (d) to more 

closely model OSHA’s wording, the 

final rule better conforms its reporting 

requirements to that of OSHA. The final 

rule also clarifies that only new cases 

are reportable (the current regulation 

requires that the injury or illness must 

be a new case or a significant 

aggravation of a pre-existing injury or 

illness). The final rule, therefore, 

requires, that, to be reportable, a 

significant aggravation of a pre-existing 

case must be a ‘‘new case’’ (i.e., a case 

in which either the employee has not 

previously experienced a reported 

injury or illness of the same type that 

affects the same part of the body, or the 

employee previously experienced a 

reported injury or illness of the same 

type that affected the same part of the 

body but had recovered completely (all 

signs and symptoms had disappeared) 

from the previous injury or illness and 

an event or exposure in the work 

environment caused the signs or 

symptoms to reappear). 

The final rule also revises paragraph 

(d) by amending the general reporting 

criteria, specifically paragraph (d)(2), 

which currently states, ‘‘injury to any 

person that results in medical 

treatment,’’ to include ‘‘significant injury 

to any person’’ and ‘‘loss of 

consciousness to any person.’’ Failure to 

include these classes of injuries as 

reportable for ‘‘any person,’’ rather than 

just railroad employees, in the general 

criteria in the agency’s 2003 Final Rule 

(68 FR 10107, March 3, 2003) has 

resulted in FRA not capturing data for 

non-employees with respect to 

significant injuries. 

Amtrak expressed concern that 

extending the reporting criteria to nonemployees would impose a significant 

burden on the passenger railroads. As 

an initial matter, significant injuries are 

limited to a small number of injuries 

(e.g., fractured or cracked bone or 

punctured eardrum), which must be 

diagnosed by a qualified physician, 

further narrowing the number of 

probable cases. In addition, significant 

injuries are generally serious, and are 

the type of injuries the railroads should 

already be investigating, and will 

generally meet the other general 

reporting criteria (i.e. someone with a 

broken bone will most likely receive 

medical treatment). As such, these 

changes should not substantially 

increase the investigative duties of the 

railroad or the number of cases they are 

reporting. With respect to loss of 

consciousness cases, railroads will not 

be required to report cases where the 

passenger’s loss of consciousness is not 

due to an event or exposure arising from 

the operation of the railroad. For these 

reasons, FRA does not believe that the 

additional reporting criteria for nonemployees will significantly increase 

the number of reportable cases. 

In addition, the final rule amends 

paragraph (d)(6)(E) (previously (d)(6)(v)) 

to remove the word ‘‘independently’’ for 

purposes of clarity. As explained in the 

Section-by-Section Analysis, MSD’s are 

injuries and illnesses under the rule and 

are subject to the same recording criteria 

that apply to other injuries and 

illnesses. 

Lastly, the final rule amends 

paragraph (d)(6) to include covered data 

cases. The addition of covered data 

cases to § 225.19(d) is a technical 

amendment and intended to correct the 

inadvertent omission of the criteria in 

the current rule text. The addition does 

not alter FRA’s reporting criteria or its 

policy on covered data as stated in 

§ 225.39. 

§ 225.21 Forms 

In this section, the final rule amends 

paragraph (j) in relation to the use of 

Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Record for Illnesses Claimed to be 

Work-Related.’’ Specifically, the final 

rule makes the use of the Form FRA F 

6180.107, in place of Form FRA F 

6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury 

and/or Illness Record,’’ optional, rather 

than mandatory, and amends and 

redesignates the instructions for the use 

of the form currently set forth at 

§ 225.21(j) to § 225.25(i), under the 

section entitled ‘‘Recordkeeping.’’ See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.25, ‘‘Recordkeeping,’’ for 

additional information and a discussion 

of the relevant comments. 

The final rule also amends this 

section by adding a paragraph (k) to 

address the newly created Form FRA F 

6180.150, ‘‘Highway User Injury Inquiry 

Form.’’ See FRA Guide. Form FRA F 

6180.150 shall be used by the railroads 

in determining whether a highway user 

suffered a reportable injury or illness in 

addition complying with part 225’s 

accident/incident requirements. A copy 

of the Form FRA F 6180.150 shall be 

sent to each potentially injured highway 

user, or their representative, involved in 

a highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident along with a cover letter and a 

prepaid/preaddressed return envelope. 

See FRA Guide, Chapter 10 for complete 

instructions. A railroad shall not send a 

Form FRA F 6180.150 to a highway 

user, or a highway user’s representative, 

who has died as a result of the accident/ 

incident. The railroad shall complete 

Part I of Form FRA F 6180.150 and send 

the form with the completed Part I to 

the highway user, or their 

representative. See FRA Guide for 

complete instructions. Moreover, the 

cover letter shall be drafted in 

accordance with the instructions 

contained in the FRA Guide. See FRA 

Guide, Chapter 10. 

§ 225.25 Recordkeeping 

In this section, the final rule 

eliminates from paragraph (a) the words 

‘‘that arise from the operation of the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68881 

railroad,’’ in order to maintain 

conformity with the definition of 

‘‘accountable injury or illness.’’ See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ for additional 

information. Moreover, such language is 

redundant with respect to reportablility, 

as § 225.19(d) clearly indicates an injury 

or illness is only reportable if an event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of a railroad is a discernable cause of the 

resulting condition or a discernable 

cause of a significant aggravation to a 

pre-existing injury or illness. 

The final rule also revises the criteria 

for using Form FRA F 6180.107, 

‘‘Alternative Record for Illnesses 

Claimed to be Work-Related,’’ and sets 

forth all of the information that must be 

included in an alternative railroaddesigned record that may be used in lieu 

of the form. 

Prior to FRA’s most recent 

amendments to part 225 in 2003, FRA 

required that all accountable and 

reportable injuries and illnesses be 

recorded on Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record,’’ or an equivalent record 

containing the same information. The 

subset of those cases that qualified for 

reporting were then reported to FRA on 

Form FRA F 6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury 

and Illness Summary (Continuation 

Sheet).’’ If the case was not reported, the 

railroad was required to state, on Form 

FRA F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee 

Injury and/or Illness Record,’’ or the 

equivalent record, the reason the injury 

or illness was not reportable. According 

to the final rule preamble, 68 FR 10107, 

10118, March 3, 2003: 

Although this system has generally worked 

well, problems have arisen with respect to 

accounting of claimed occupational illnesses. 

As further explained below, railroads are 

subject to tort-based liability for illnesses and 

injuries that arise as a result of conditions in 

the workplace. By their nature, many 

occupational illnesses, particularly repetitive 

stress cases, may arise either from exposures 

outside the workplace, inside the workplace, 

or a combination of the two. Accordingly, 

issues of work-relatedness become very 

prominent. Railroads evaluate claims of this 

nature using medical and ergonomic experts, 

often relying upon job analysis studies as 

well as focusing on the individual claims. 

With respect to accounting and 

reportability under part 225, railroad 

representatives asserted their concern that 

mere allegations (e.g., receipt of a complaint 

in a tort suit naming a large number of 

plaintiffs) not give rise to a duty to report. 

They added that many such claims are 

settled for what amounts to nuisance values, 

often with no admission of liability on the 

part of the railroad, so even the payment of 

compensation is not clear evidence that the 

railroad viewed the claim of workrelatedness as valid. 

Although sympathetic to these concerns, 

FRA was disappointed in the quality of data 

provided in the past related to occupational 

illness. Indeed, in recent years the number of 

such events reported to FRA has been 

extremely small. FRA has an obligation to 

verify, insofar as possible, whether the 

railroad’s judgments rest on a reasonable 

basis, and discharging that responsibility 

requires that there be a reasonable audit trail 

to verify on what basis the railroad’s 

decisions were made. 

As a result, FRA established, at 

§ 225.25(i)(1), a separate category of 

claimed occupational illnesses to be 

recorded on a new form, Form FRA F 

6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related.’’ 

This category is comprised of: Illnesses 

for which there is insufficient 

information to determine whether the 

illness is work-related; illnesses for 

which the railroad has made a 

preliminary determination that the 

illness was not work-related; and 

illnesses for which the railroad has 

made a final determination that the 

illness is not work-related. 

For any case later determined to be 

reportable, under § 225.25(i)(2), the 

railroad has been required to remove the 

designation ‘‘illness claimed to be workrelated’’ and transfer the record to the 

reporting officer for retention and 

reporting in the normal manner. In the 

event the railroad determined the case 

was not reportable, § 225.25(i)(3) 

requires that the railroad record an 

explanation in ‘‘narrative’’ block 19 of 

Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Record for Illnesses Claimed to be 

Work-Related,’’ describing the reason(s) 

the railroad made that determination, 

making reference to the ‘‘most 

authoritative’’ information relied upon. 

FRA believed that this system of 

accounting for contested illnesses 

would focus responsibility for reporting 

decisions and provide an appropriate 

audit trail. In addition, FRA thought 

that it would result in a body of 

information that could be used for 

research into the causes of prevalent 

illnesses, particularly in the case of 

musculoskeletal disorders. See 68 FR 

10107, 10118, March 3, 2003. 

Unfortunately, this has not been the 

case. 

Rather than use the Form FRA F 

6180.107 ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related,’’ 

to record only those illnesses described 

above, FRA found that railroads were 

frequently recording all occupational 

illnesses on Form FRA F 6180.107 as a 

matter of practice, even before 

evaluating the sufficiency of 

information provided and/or workrelatedness. Furthermore, FRA found 

that railroads were allowing these 

records to remain unevaluated for 

several months or more without 

updating or reviewing them for workrelatedness. Moreover, FRA found that 

railroads were not creating the Form 

FRA F 6180.107 record within seven 

working days after receiving 

information or acquiring knowledge that 

an employee asserted an occupational 

illness, as required by the FRA Guide. 

Consequently, this system of accounting 

did not focus responsibility for 

reporting decisions, did not provide an 

appropriate audit trail, did not result in 

a body of information that can be used 

in the future for research into the causes 

of prevalent illnesses, and was not 

helpful in correcting the underreporting of occupational illnesses to 

FRA. 

In order to correct this problem, the 

final rule refines the circumstances and 

procedures related to the recording of 

claimed occupational illnesses on Form 

FRA F 6180.107. Specifically, the final 

rule allows the use of the form to record 

only those claimed occupational 

illnesses for which the railroad carrier 

has not received, from the employee or 

their representative, information 

sufficient to determine whether the 

occupational illness is work-related. 

The final rule also includes, among 

other things, requirements that 

railroads: enter each illness claimed to 

be work-related on the record no later 

than seven working days after receiving 

information or acquiring knowledge that 

an employee is claiming they have 

incurred an occupational illness; make 

a good faith effort to obtain information 

necessary on occupational illness cases 

to make a reporting decision by 

December 1 of the next calendar year; 

document the receipt of new or 

additional case information in 

‘‘narrative’’ block 19 of Form FRA F 

6180.107 within fifteen calendar days of 

receipt, compared to the seven days 

proposed in the NPRM, and re-evaluate 

the case in light of the new information 

within forty-five calendar days of 

receipt of the information, compared to 

the thirty days proposed in the NPRM; 

complete a Form FRA F 6180.98 for any 

claimed occupational illness case 

determined to be accountable or 

reportable within seven calendar days of 

making such determination; retain the 

record in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in § 225.27 and 

report the illness in accordance with the 

regular reporting requirements; and 

provide complete narratives on Form 

FRA F 6180.107 for those cases the 

railroad determines are not reportable. 

The final rule also specifically defines 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

what data elements an alternative 

railroad-designed Form FRA F 6180.107 

must contain. 

Commenters suggested that there is no 

evidence of underreporting of 

occupational illnesses and, therefore, 

the narrowing of the use of the Form 

FRA F 6180.107 would impose a 

significant burden on the railroads. As 

explained above, FRA has found that 

the railroads have routinely used the 

Form FRA F 6180.107 to record all 

occupational illnesses and have failed to 

review additional evidence for lengthy 

periods of time, and that use of the form 

has resulted in the under-reporting of 

occupational illnesses. FRA believes 

that it is necessary to limit the use of the 

form to situations where the cause has 

not yet been determined, to avoid abuse 

of the form, to create an up-to-date audit 

trail, to continue to provide additional 

time to investigate causation based on 

the unique nature of occupational 

illnesses and to ensure that additional 

evidence is considered within a 

reasonable period of time. 

Many of the commenters critiqued the 

requirement that railroads update the 

forms and review additional 

information within a certain period of 

time. Several railroads also requested 

additional time to review new evidence 

and to update the forms. During the 

hearing on the NPRM, FRA requested 

that the railroads provide FRA with a 

timeframe that they believe is 

appropriate to update the forms and 

review additional evidence. AAR 

suggested that the current reporting 

timeline, which requires the railroad to 

update the form by December 1 of the 

following year, is appropriate. However, 

AAR also felt that 365 calendar days 

would be appropriate. In its comments, 

AAR failed to explain why such a 

lengthy period of time would be 

necessary. As explained above, railroads 

have used the Form FRA F 6180.107 to 

avoid reporting occupational illness by 

failing to reconsider additional 

information and to fully investigate the 

occupational illness. As such, FRA does 

not believe railroads need 365 days to 

simply update a form and to consider 

new evidence. Upon review, the final 

rule lengthens the amount of time that 

the railroads have to review new 

evidence and to update the Form FRA 

F 6180.107 from 30 days to 45 days. 

Moreover, the Form FRA F 6180.107 is 

an optional form that the railroads may 

use for occupational illnesses where 

they have not yet determined the cause 

of the injury or illness. 

AAR also submitted comments 

suggesting that the railroads should not 

be required to seek out information on 

claimed occupational illnesses. 

Specifically, AAR asserted that there is 

usually litigation surrounding these 

types of injuries and, as such, it is 

difficult to fully investigate the 

illnesses. Moreover, AAR claims that it 

will be difficult for FRA to determine 

whether the railroads made a good faith 

effort to determine causation. As an 

initial matter, the railroads’ concerns 

about litigation should not prevent them 

from making reasonable inquires in 

addition to updating the Federally 

required forms as they receive and 

review new information. However, FRA 

specifically created the Form FRA F 

6180.107 as an alternative form to 

provide the railroads with additional 

time to investigate these illnesses 

because of the unique nature of 

occupational illnesses and the external 

delays caused by litigation. Railroads 

should document their efforts, record 

new information, and evaluate that new 

information as required so that FRA can 

determine whether they are making a 

good faith effort. Again, the additional 

requirements are necessary based upon 

the railroads’ past use of the Form FRA 

F 6180.107 to document all 

occupational illnesses without making 

an initial causal determination, even in 

cases when work-relatedness was 

obvious, and then failing to update the 

form when they acquired new 

information within a reasonable time 

period. 

The final rule amends the 

requirement at § 225.25(b)(6) so that the 

alternative railroad-designed record for 

Form FRA F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad 

Employee Injury and/or Illness Record,’’ 

requires the input of the ‘‘Employee 

identification number’’ only (eliminating 

for privacy reasons the employee social 

security number option). The final rule 

makes the same amendment to the 

alternative railroad-designed record for 

Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Records for Illnesses Claimed to be 

Work-Related.’’ The final rule also 

makes corresponding changes for Forms 

FRA F 6180.98 and 6180.107. See FRA 

Guide. 

The final rule replaces the term ‘‘log 

entry’’ at § 225.25 (b)(28) with ‘‘record’’ 

and ‘‘report’’ at § 225.25 (e)(28) with 

‘‘record.’’ Both of these sections refer to 

‘‘records,’’ specifically alternative 

railroad-designed Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record’’ and Form FRA F 

6180.97, ‘‘Initial Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Record,’’ 

respectively. This amendment is 

technical, and is not intended to effect 

any substantive change. 

The final rule also amends the 

requirements for alternative railroaddesigned records by amending 

§ 225.25(b)(28) and (e)(28), and the 

newly created (j)(25), to reflect that the 

date required is the initial date the form 

was signed/completed. FRA finds it 

necessary to make this change because 

certain railroads do not retain the initial 

date a record was completed, but only 

the date of the most recent update to the 

record. Consequently, FRA is unable to 

discern if the railroad entered each 

reportable and accountable injury and 

illness and each reportable and 

accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident on the appropriate record, as 

required by § 225.25(a) through (e), no 

later than seven working days after 

receiving information or acquiring 

knowledge that an injury or illness or 

rail equipment accident/incident has 

occurred, as required by § 225.25(f). 

FRA believes that specifying the date 

will resolve any confusion regarding the 

requirement. The final rule creates a 

similar requirement for the alternative 

railroad-designed Form FRA F 

6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related,’’ 

and Forms FRA F 6180.98, 6180.97, and 

6180.107. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for Appendix H, ‘‘Forms.’’ 

§ 225.27 Retention of records 

In this section, the final rule adds a 

five-year record retention requirement 

for Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Record for Illnesses Claimed to be 

Work-Related’’ and Form FRA F 

6180.150, ‘‘Highway User Injury Inquiry 

Form.’’ The 2003 Final Rule did not set 

forth a retention period for the Form 

FRA F 6180.107 and the Form FRA F 

6180.150 is a newly created form. Five 

years is the same retention period as 

that of Form FRA F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad 

Employee Injury and/or Illness Record,’’ 

and is appropriate for accurate 

recordkeeping and auditing purposes. In 

addition, the final rule makes a 

technical change by restructuring the 

format of paragraph (a) in order to 

provide additional clarity. 

The final rule also adds a requirement 

that, in the event a railroad opts to 

submit their monthly Form FRA F 

6180.55, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary’’ via optical media or 

electronically via the Internet, rather 

than in hard copy, the railroad shall 

retain the original completed hard copy 

for a period of five years after the 

calendar year to which it relates. If the 

railroad opts to submit the report to 

FRA via the Internet, the final rule 

requires the railroad to also retain a 

hard copy print out of FRA’s electronic 

notice acknowledging receipt of the 

submission for a period of five years 

after the calendar year to which the 

report acknowledged relates. These 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68883 

requirements are made in light of the 

new electronic submission options in 

§ 225.37, ‘‘Optical media transfer and 

electronic submission,’’ of this final rule. 

The final rule also adds system 

standards for the electronic retention, by 

railroads, of accident/incident records. 

Historically, railroads have retained 

these records in hard copy form. 

Railroads may maintain these records 

electronically, so long as the integrity of 

the records are maintained. In order to 

ensure such integrity, the final rule adds 

minimum system requirements for the 

electronic retention of accident/incident 

records. These system standards do not 

become effective until after October 31, 

2011. The final rule establishes this 

delayed effective date, with respect to 

this requirement only, to provide 

railroads with sufficient time to bring 

any electronic retention systems into 

compliance. 

A commenter stated that railroads do 

not receive receipts from FRA 

acknowledging receipt of their 

electronic reports. FRA is reviewing this 

issue to ensure that railroads receive 

such receipts when electronic reports 

are properly submitted. A commenter 

also stated that the electronic records 

retention requirements are redundant 

and burdensome because railroads will 

have to retain every minor change, and 

will also result in a high cost to the 

railroads to both report and store such 

reports. However, FRA needs to track 

the development of these forms for 

purposes of accurate auditing. In 

addition, the ability to electronically 

submit forms should ease any possible 

burden. Moreover, railroads are already 

required to store many of these records. 

And, with respect to the Form FRA F 

6180.55, the final rule only seeks an 

extra 36 months of records (with one 

report per month, for 36 months). This 

burden is further eased by the fact that 

the electronic retention system 

standards do not go into effect until 

after October 31, 2011. In addition, 

railroads are not required to retain 

records electronically. 

§ 225.33 Internal Control Plan 

In this section, the final rule clarifies 

the current ambiguity of element 

number 11 of the internal control plan 

to allow railroads to have multiple 

named custodians and locations of 

completed Forms FRA F 6180.107, 

‘‘Alternative Records for Illnesses 

Claimed to be Work-Related,’’ or the 

alternate railroad-designed forms and 

supporting documentation. FRA 

recognizes that railroads do not 

necessarily keep completed Claimed 

Occupational Illness Records in a 

centralized location, and that different 

individuals may be responsible for 

keeping the records. By amending the 

regulation, railroads will be able to 

accurately indicate who the custodians 

are and where the custodians and 

records are located. 

In addition, FRA notes that it 

published a Notice of Interpretation in 

the Federal Register on March 30, 2009, 

informing interested parties of its 

application and enforcement of the 

harassment or intimidation provisions 

contained in 49 CFR part 225, 

specifically relating to situations in 

which a supervisor or other railroad 

official accompanies an injured 

employee into an examination room. 

See 74 FR 14091. FRA includes that 

Interpretation here for interested parties, 

as follows: 

A. General Principle 

Harassment and intimidation occur in 

violation of § 225.33(a)(1) when a railroad 

supervisor accompanies an injured employee 

into an examination room, unless one or 

more of the exceptions listed in section II(B) 

of this notice exists. 

B. Exceptions 

FRA recognizes that there are limited 

circumstances in which it is appropriate, and 

indeed preferable, for a supervisor to 

accompany an injured employee into an 

examination room. Thus, FRA believes that 

limited exceptions to the general principle 

articulated in section II(A) of this notice are 

necessary. Consequently, FRA recognizes the 

following limited exceptions: 

(1) The injured employee issues a 

voluntary invitation to the supervisor to 

accompany him or her in the examination 

room. The injured employee must issue this 

invitation freely, without coercion, duress, or 

intimidation. For example, an injured 

employee may seek the attendance of a 

supervisor where the supervisor is a friend. 

This exception does not encompass 

invitations issued by third parties, including 

physicians, unless the invitations are made 

pursuant to the request of the injured 

employee. 

(2) The injured employee is unconscious or 

otherwise unable to effectively communicate 

material information to the physician and the 

supervisor’s input is needed to provide such 

material information to the physician. In 

these circumstances, the supervisor is 

assisting the injured employee in providing 

information to the physician so that the 

injured employee may receive appropriate 

and responsive medical treatment. 

A commenter requested that the final 

rule ‘‘include safety’’ in this section. 

However, the intended meaning of this 

comment is unclear. Regardless, safety 

is a critical component of § 225.33, 

along with all of FRA’s regulations. 

§ 225.37 Optical Media Transfer and 

Electronic Submission 

The final rule updates the title of this 

section, to reflect changes in technology, 

to read, ‘‘Optical media transfer and 

electronic submission.’’ In 1994, at the 

request of many railroads, FRA designed 

a method for railroads to submit their 

monthly accident/incident reports to 

FRA using computer technologies. At 

the time, high speed Internet access was 

not available in many locations. Most 

Internet users used voice grade phone 

lines to access the Internet. Transferring 

high volumes of data was difficult and 

often led to data transmission errors 

(missing records or errors in characters 

received in transmission). The other 

technology used for sending data was a 

nine-track magnetic tape or 31⁄2 inch 

‘‘floppy disk.’’ Both the 9-track tape and 

floppy disk use a magnetic surface to 

record data. Due to the probability of 

errors in both data transmission and 

magnetic media, FRA required a Batch 

Control Sheet (Form FRA F 6180.99) to 

verify a complete and accurate receipt of 

all data. 

The current state of computer 

technology has changed significantly. 

High-speed Internet access is almost 

ubiquitous, via cable, DSL, and satellite. 

Transmission using phone lines and 

wireless (using cell phone technology) 

has also improved. Optical media (CD– 

ROM) is very reliable and the data is 

‘‘burned’’ into the disk. Optical media 

has replaced magnetic media for most 

data transfer (USB flash drives are not 

intended for this type of data exchange). 

In amending the current regulation, FRA 

has taken into account the current 

computer technologies by eliminating 

the requirement for a Batch Control 

Sheet, and substituted ‘‘magnetic media’’ 

with ‘‘optical media.’’ Further, FRA 

allows for document transmission using 

the .jpg and .pdf formats. 

The final rule also makes two changes 

related to Form FRA F 6180.55, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary.’’ 

FRA believes that both of these changes 

will reduce railroad burdens related to 

completing and submitting this form. 

The final rule replaces the oath and 

notarization requirement of Form FRA F 

6180.55, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary,’’ with a requirement that the 

signature be signed under penalty of 

perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

1746. Section 20901 of Title 49 of the 

United States Code requires a railroad to 

file an Accident/Incident report ‘‘under 

oath’’ no later than 30 days after the end 

of each month. To fulfill this 

requirement, FRA currently requires a 

railroad reporting officer to make a 

sworn statement, under oath, before a 

notary public each month attesting to 

the accuracy of that month’s 

submission. The question has arisen as 

to whether an un-sworn, un-notarized 

statement is adequate to fulfill the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6The discussion in this section with regard to 

States access to reports and reports relates only to 

those records and reports containing suicide data. 

section 20901 oath requirement. In 

1976, Congress addressed the use of 

‘‘unsworn declarations under penalty of 

perjury,’’ in lieu of a sworn affidavit. 

Section 1746 of Title 28 of the United 

States Code, entitled ‘‘Unsworn 

declarations under penalty of perjury,’’ 

provides that ‘‘wherever, under any law 

of the United States or under any rule, 

regulation, order, or requirement made 

pursuant to law, any matter is required 

or permitted to be supported, 

evidenced, established, or proved by the 

sworn declaration, verification, 

certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, 

in writing of the person making the 

same (other than a deposition, or an 

oath of office, or an oath required to be 

taken before a specified official other 

than a notary public), such matter may, 

with like force and effect, be supported, 

evidenced, established, or proved by the 

unsworn declaration, certificate, 

verification, or statement, in writing of 

such person which is subscribed by 

him, as true under penalty of perjury, 

and dated * * *’’ and provides 

examples of the form the declaration, 

certificate, verification, or statement 

must take. Consequently, the oath 

requirement of section 20901 can be met 

via an unsworn, un-notarized statement, 

so long as the statement meets the 

requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746. 

The final rule also updates the 

regulatory text to include provisions 

allowing railroads to make their 

monthly reporting submissions (Form 

FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Report’’; Form FRA F 

6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet)’’; and 

Form FRA F 6180.57, ‘‘Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 

Report’’) to FRA via optical media (CD– 

ROM) or electronically via the Internet. 

Batch control forms (Form FRA F 

6180.99) are no longer required for 

submission. Form FRA F 6180.55 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary’’ 

reports and Form FRA F 6180.81 

‘‘Employee Human Factor Attachment’’ 

reports may also be submitted through 

these means. However, the Form FRA F 

6180.55 must be submitted as an image 

of the completed and signed hard copy 

and must be in a .pdf or .jpg file format 

only, and the Form FRA F 6180.81 must 

also be in a .pdf or .jpg file format. If a 

railroad opts to submit their completed 

Form FRA F 6180.55 to FRA via optical 

media or electronically via the Internet, 

the railroad must maintain the original 

completed and signed Form FRA F 

6180.55 for at least five years after the 

calendar year to which the report 

relates, in accordance with § 225.27(c) 

of this final rule. FRA will provide to 

the railroad an electronic notice 

acknowledging the agency’s receipt of 

Form FRA F 6180.55 reports which are 

filed electronically via the Internet. 

Railroads must also maintain a hard 

copy of this acknowledgment notice for 

at least five years after the calendar year 

to which the report acknowledged 

relates, in accordance with § 225.27(c) 

of this final rule. The final rule also 

removes the language in paragraph (e), 

and replaces it with a statement 

requiring that railroads choosing to use 

the optical media transfer option, or the 

electronic submission via Internet 

option, must use one of the approved 

formats specified in the FRA 

Companion Guide. FRA will reject 

submissions that do not adhere to the 

required formats, which may result in 

the issuance of one or more civil penalty 

assessments against a railroad for failing 

to provide timely submissions of 

required reports as required by § 225.11. 

The previous requirements of paragraph 

(e) are no longer necessary because they 

addressed issues relating to magnetic 

media. 

§ 225.41 Suicide Data 

In this section, the final rule adds 

§ 225.41 ‘‘Suicide Data,’’ to detail FRA’s 

intended use of suicide data. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/incidents not to be 

reported’’ for additional information.6

In the NPRM, FRA requested 

comments and suggestions regarding 

States’ access to records containing 

‘‘suicide data.’’ FRA is concerned about 

the public use and dissemination of this 

data due to its sensitive nature, but also 

wants States to have access to such 

information for safety and enforcement 

purposes. Under the 2003 Final Rule, 

States could obtain reports directly from 

railroads pursuant to § 225.1. In 

addition, State agencies participating in 

investigative activities under part 212 

could obtain records and reports from 

the railroads and FRA. 

The final rule does not amend § 225.1 

as it relates to State access; as such, 

States may still obtain reports directly 

from a railroad. All of the reports that 

the States may access contain no 

Personal Identifying Information (PII) 

and, therefore, FRA is not concerned 

about their availability and use. In 

addition, the final rule does not amend 

State access pursuant to part 212, as that 

access is subject to an FRA agreement, 

see § 212.105, and allows States to assist 

FRA with its safety mission. State 

agencies participating in investigative 

activities under part 212 will have 

access to relevant claims and medical 

records in addition to Federal records 

and reports pursuant to § 225.35(b), 

which do contain PII. State access to 

these documents is limited to their role 

in investigative activities and is for the 

purpose of improving safety; therefore, 

the final rule does not limit State access 

pursuant to part 212. Once a State 

obtains copies of documents pursuant to 

part 212 or § 225.1, their disclosure and 

use are governed by the State’s privacy 

laws. Again, FRA wants to limit the 

distribution and use of the individual 

records and reports due to the sensitive 

nature of the information, and has 

limited the general public’s access to the 

extent reasonably practicable by 

limiting its availability online through 

FRA. 

Commenters stated that States wanted 

access to these reports to ensure the 

accuracy of their own databases and for 

other safety purposes. FRA believes that 

the States should have access to the 

‘‘Suicide data’’ in addition to the 

individual reports, pursuant to part 212 

and § 225.1, so that they may take steps 

to understand and prevent suicides 

occurring on the railroad. As stated 

above, pursuant to § 225.1, States only 

have access to certain reports (e.g., 

Forms FRA F 6180.54, FRA F 6180.57 

and FRA F 6180.55a) and do not have 

access to any records (e.g., Forms FRA 

F 6180.98 and FRA F 6180.97). Forms 

FRA F 6180.54, FRA F 6180.57, and 

FRA F 6180.55a do not contain PII and 

the FRA Guide contains instructions 

requiring railroads to not include any 

PII in the narrative section. As such, 

FRA is not concerned about allowing 

the railroads to provide those records to 

the States pursuant to § 225.1. 

As discussed above, State agencies 

participating in investigative activities 

under part 212 can obtain records and 

reports from the railroads and FRA. In 

this case, State agencies will have access 

to documents containing PII. Once the 

State agencies’ obtain these documents, 

their disclosure will be subject to State 

privacy laws rather than FOIA requests. 

While FRA wants to limit the general 

public’s access to these documents and 

their dissemination due to their 

sensitive nature, FRA believes that 

States will be able to use this 

information to improve safety and that 

FRA has limited the availability of this 

information to the extent reasonably 

practicable. 

ICC suggested that FRA create a 

secure Web site so that more 

information may be made available. At 

this time, FRA does not plan on creating 

such a Web site. Instead, FRA is making 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68885 

all of the relevant information available 

in the aggregate for the general public. 

Appendix A to Part 225—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties. 

Appendix A to part 225 contains a 

schedule of civil penalties for use in 

connection with this part. The final rule 

revises the schedule of civil penalties to 

reflect revisions made to part 225. 

Because such penalty schedules are 

statements of agency policy, notice and 

comment are not required prior to their 

issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). 

Although the schedules are statements 

of agency policy, the NPRM provided 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

comment. However, no such comments 

were submitted. 

FRA Guide 

Generally, FRA makes the following 

revisions to the FRA Guide: An 

improved table of contents; clarifying 

instructions on Forms FRA F 6180.57, 

6180.54, and 6180.150 that have fields 

requesting an U.S. DOT Grade Crossing 

Identification Number includes and is 

referencing the U.S. DOT Grade 

Crossing Inventory Number; an updated 

e-mail and U.S. postal mail address for 

the monthly accident/incident reporting 

submissions; the addition of a subject 

index; the reorganization of the chapter 

contents for ease of use; the inclusion of 

necessary updates; the inclusion of new 

and revised ‘‘Questions and Answers’’ 

and ‘‘Scenarios’’ taken from the FRA 

Safety Data Web page (http:// 

safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety) 

and from OSHA’s Web page (http:// 

www.osha.gov/comp-links.html) to 

clarify reporting issues; the inclusion of 

the prior and the current reporting 

threshold to reflect changes made in 

part 225; the inclusion of Web addresses 

for access to the most up-to-date contact 

information and data contained in the 

appendices; and the elimination of 

redundant language by replacing 

verbatim reiterations of part 225 rule 

text where appropriate (for ease of 

reference the FRA Guide includes the 

full regulatory text of part 225 in a 

newly created Appendix K). 

FRA also makes a technical 

amendment throughout the FRA Guide 

by changing the term ‘‘Gap’’ to 

‘‘Passenger Station Platform Gap’’ 

because it best captures the intended 

meaning. See FRA Guide. 

More specific changes include: 

Chapter 1, ‘‘Overview of Accident/ 

Incident Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements.’’ 

FRA revises the paragraph titled, 

‘‘Telephonic Reports of Certain 

Accidents/Incidents,’’ in accordance 

with the amendments set forth in 

§ 225.9, and includes the telephonic 

reporting requirements set forth in 49 

CFR parts 229, ‘‘Railroad Locomotive 

Safety Standards;’’ part 233, ‘‘Signal 

Systems Reporting Requirements;’’ part 

234, ‘‘Grade Crossing Signal System 

Safety;’’ and part 219, ‘‘Control of 

Alcohol and Drug Use.’’ Such 

incorporation is for informational 

purposes only, and places no new 

reporting requirements on railroads. By 

including these requirements in the 

FRA Guide, FRA hopes to better 

disseminate its telephonic reporting 

requirements, and to improve railroad 

compliance by providing a single 

reference location for determining when 

accident/incident telephonic 

notification is required. 

FRA also revises the section entitled 

‘‘Close of Calendar Year’’ by clarifying 

the requirements for submitting late and 

amended reports, revising the time 

frame in which FRA will accept 

additional late and amended accident/ 

incident reports, and changing from 

optional to mandatory the filing of 

amended reports for certain accidents/ 

incidents. 

FRA publishes final accident/incident 

counts following the conclusion of a 

reporting year. Submission of the 

December report concludes the 

reporting year. However, railroads are 

still required to provide to FRA late 

reports of unreported accidents/ 

incidents and amended reports that 

correct or update earlier submissions. 

Previously, the FRA Guide (Chapter 

1—Page 12 through 13) specified three 

cutoff dates for filing late and amended 

accident/incident reports following the 

completion of the reporting year: 

(1) April 15 of the next calendar year; 

(2) December 1 of the following year: 

and 

(3) Five years after the end of the 

calendar year to which the accident/ 

incident report relates. 

FRA found the reporting scheme to be 

confusing and outdated with the advent 

of improved technology. Moreover, 

improvements in database management 

strategies allow for contemporaneous 

viewing of reporting accident/incident 

statistics and have eliminated the need 

to impose artificial deadlines for 

keeping files open or for FRA to publish 

interim reports. As such, FRA removes 

references to the cutoff date of April 

15th of the next calendar year for 

accepting late reports and amendments. 

Accordingly, FRA will receive and 

process any and all late and amended 

reports for a period of five years 

following the calendar year to which an 

amended or late report relates. This 

accommodation does not relieve a 

railroad of its obligation to promptly file 

a late or amended report upon becoming 

aware of an omission, mistake or 

otherwise, in accordance with § 225.13 

and the late and amended reporting 

guidance set forth in the FRA Guide. 

FRA will continue to publish its Annual 

Report of Railroad Safety Statistics. 

Because the accident/incident databases 

will remain open for updating for a 

period of five years, the statistics 

published in the Annual Report will be 

subject to change. The authoritative 

source for rail safety statistics will now 

be the Office of Safety’s Web site: 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

OfficeofSafety. 

To clarify, these revisions do not 

change the following late and amended 

reporting requirements, which are 

currently set forth in the FRA Guide: 

(1) Railroads must file amended 

reports with FRA through December 1 of 

the year following the year in which the 

accident/incident was initially reported. 

(2) Railroads must file late reports 

with FRA for five years (following the 

end of the calendar year to which the 

accident/incident relates) for all 

unreported accident/incidents. 

FRA does, however, revise the 

reporting requirements with respect to 

certain specified accidents/incidents. 

Previously, the FRA Guide stated that 

railroads ‘‘should’’ continue to file 

amended reports after December 1 of the 

following year (i.e., for five years after 

the end of the calendar year to which 

they relate) for the changes listed below. 

These revisions make such amended 

reporting mandatory. Accordingly, 

railroads shall continue to file amended 

reports for five years after the end of the 

calendar year to which they relate for 

the following changes: 

(1) Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet) (Form 

FRA F 6180.55a): Change from Injury to 

Fatality (only if the injured person dies 

within 180 days from the date of the 

injury); 

(2) Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 

6180.57): Change from Injury to Fatality, 

change in Grade Crossing ID, change in 

the Rail Equipment Involved; and 

(3) Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 

Report (Form FRA F 6180.54): Change 

from Injury to Fatality, change in Grade 

Crossing ID, Rail Equipment Involved, 

Primary Cause Code, Contributing Cause 

Code, Type of Territory, Number of Cars 

Releasing or Evacuation. 

These revisions further provide that 

railroads shall continue to file amended 

reports for five years after the end of the 

calendar year to which they relate for 

the additional changes listed below: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet) (Form 

FRA F 6180.55a): A significant change 

in the number of reportable days away 

from work or days restricted; a 

significant change is at least a 10% 

variance in the number of actual 

reportable days away from work or days 

restricted compared to the number of 

days already reported. 

(2) Railroad Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54): 

A significant change in the damage costs 

for reportable rail equipment accidents/ 

incidents; a significant change is a 10% 

variance between the damage amount 

reported to FRA and the current cost 

figures. 

In light of these changes, FRA is 

revising the timeframe imposed for 

using the M505 code on the Form FRA 

F 6180.54. See FRA Guide, Chapter 7. 

Chapter 2, ‘‘Definitions.’’ 

In the NPRM, FRA added an example 

to the definition of Worker on DutyEmployee (Class A) characterizing an 

employee on his lunch break as on duty. 

In response to the example, AAR 

submitted comments stating that an 

employee on an unpaid break should 

not be considered a Worker on DutyEmployee (Class A) because they are not 

performing work at that time. AAR 

stated that there was no justification for 

this change at this time. FRA removes 

this example in the final rule to avoid 

any confusion. In general, an employee 

on a break, whether paid or unpaid, is 

considered an Employee Not On Duty 

(Class B). However, if an employee is 

performing work-related activities (i.e., 

lining a switch) during his or her break 

then the employee is a Worker on DutyEmployee (Class A). Thus, an employer 

should consider an employee’s actual 

activities during his or her break to 

determine whether the employee is on 

or off duty. 

FRA adds certain definitions for 

clarification and ease of reference, and 

removes definitions that reiterate 

definitions set forth in § 225.5. FRA 

adds a definition for ‘‘Temporary 

Barricaded Crossing’’ to mean ‘‘a 

highway-rail grade crossing that is 

temporarily closed to highway users by 

using temporary methods to block 

highway traffic such as barrels. A 

temporary barricaded crossing does not 

constitute a ‘closed’ crossing.’’ FRA also 

adds a definition for ‘‘Closed Crossing’’ 

to mean a location where a crossing has 

been physically removed or where rail 

operations, pathway or highway traffic 

is not possible (this does not include 

crossings that are temporarily closed for 

repairs to the track structure, crossing 

surface, or roadway approaches). 

Examples of ‘‘closed crossings’’ are 

locations where the crossing has been 

permanently barricaded and crossing 

surface material removed; where the 

railroad tracks have been cut or 

barricaded or physically removed; 

where a connecting turnout has been 

removed; or where rail operations are 

not possible because the railroad tracks 

are paved over, etc. Crossings along 

such inactive railroad lines are closed. 

FRA adds these definitions to the FRA 

Guide to eliminate confusion about the 

meaning of a ‘‘closed’’ versus 

‘‘barricaded’’ crossing, and to revise the 

definition of ‘‘closed crossing’’ to be 

consistent with the definition used in 

the Grade Crossing Inventory System 

(GCIS). The GCIS is a mandatory system 

used by States, railroads, and the 

Federal government to profile crossings 

and determine which crossings need 

improved warning systems for highway 

users. FRA and other users regularly 

compare information from the HighwayRail Crossing Accident/Incident Reports 

(Form FRA F 6180.57) to the GCIS. 

Clearly defining ‘‘closed crossing’’ and 

‘‘temporary barricaded crossing,’’ and 

making the GCIS and FRA definitions 

consistent, will reduce confusion and 

aid in grade crossing accident/incident 

reporting accuracy. 

FRA clarifies in the definition of 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/ 

Incident that all crossing locations 

within industry and rail yards, ports, 

and dock areas are considered highwayrail crossings within the meaning of 

highway-rail grade crossing. This 

clarifying amendment does not expand 

the railroads’ reporting requirements or 

create an additional burden as the 

amendment is consistent with the 2003 

FRA Guide, FRA’s longstanding policy, 

and industry practices. The purpose of 

the amendment is to place the entire 

definition in one location for ease of 

reference. 

FRA adds a definition for ‘‘Passenger 

Station Platform Gap’’ to mean, ‘‘the 

horizontal space between the edge of the 

passenger boarding platform and the 

edge of the rail car door threshold plate, 

and the vertical difference from the top 

of the passenger boarding platform and 

the top of the rail car threshold.’’ This 

definition, with a minor variation, was 

recommended by the RSAC General 

Passenger Safety Task Force to the full 

RSAC on October 25, 2007, along with 

the Cause Code Recommendations for 

platform gap related injuries (see 

discussion for Appendix F of the FRA 

Guide). The full RSAC agreed to the 

recommendations on October 25, 2007. 

The NPRM proposed adding a definition 

for ‘‘Gap,’’ as opposed to ‘‘Passenger 

Station Platform Gap.’’ A comment to 

the NPRM suggested that FRA use the 

phrase ‘‘Platform Gap,’’ rather than 

‘‘Gap.’’ The final rule uses the term 

‘‘Passenger Station Platform Gap’’ 

because it best captures the intended 

meaning. A comment to the NPRM also 

suggested that the definition itself is too 

narrow, and not consistent with the 

common definition of the term. 

However, as discussed, the definition in 

the final rule is consistent with the 

RSAC recommendations, and the 

definition facilitates the tracking of 

accidents/incidents that occur on high 

level platforms. 

FRA also adds a definition for 

‘‘Passenger Station Platform Gap 

Incident’’ to mean ‘‘an event involving a 

person who, while involved in the 

process of boarding or alighting a 

passenger train at a rail car door 

threshold plate at a high level passenger 

boarding platform (i.e., a platform that is 

48’’ or more above the top of the rail), 

has one or more body parts enter the 

area between the car body and the edge 

of the platform. The following are 

examples of a Passenger Station 

Platform Gap Incident: 

—While boarding or alighting a 

passenger train at a high level 

passenger boarding platform, a person 

misjudges the passenger station 

platform gap, resulting in the person’s 

leg entering the passenger station 

platform gap. 

—While boarding or alighting a 

passenger train at a high level 

passenger boarding platform, a person 

is struck by a closing door, resulting 

in the person’s leg entering the 

passenger station platform gap. 

The following are not examples of a 

Passenger Station Platform Gap 

Incident: 

—While boarding or alighting a 

passenger train at a high level 

passenger boarding platform, a person 

misjudges the gap and falls into the 

vestibule or platform, without a body 

part entering the gap. 

—While walking on a passenger station 

at a high level passenger boarding 

platform, a person slips on the 

platform, at a location other than the 

rail car door threshold, resulting in 

the person’s leg entering the gap. 

The definition and examples of 

‘‘Passenger Station Platform Gap 

Incident’’ were recommended by the 

RSAC General Passenger Safety Task 

Force to the full RSAC on October 25, 

2007, along with Cause Code 

Recommendations for platform gap 

related injuries (see discussion for 

Appendix F of the FRA Guide). The full 

RSAC agreed to these recommendations 

on October 25, 2007. The final rule 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68887 

adopts these recommendations with 

slight variation. 

FRA also revises the definition of 

‘‘Locomotive’’ to support changes 

necessary to include EMU and DMU 

cars on FRA Form F 6180.54, ‘‘RailEquipment Accident/Incident Report.’’ 

In the current FRA Guide (May 1, 2003), 

a cab car is defined as a locomotive. 

However, there is no definition for EMU 

and DMU cars, which created confusion 

because these cars provide power to the 

consist and can, therefore, also be 

classified as locomotives. 

FRA adds a definition for ‘‘Vehicle’’ to 

include automobiles, buses, trucks, 

motorcycles, bicycles, farm vehicles, 

and all other modes of surface 

transportation, motorized and 

nonmotorized. 

Chapter 3, Form FRA F 6180.55, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary.’’ 

FRA revises the instructions for the 

use of this form consistent with the 

changes in this final rule. See Sectionby-Section Analysis for § 225.27, 

‘‘Retention of records,’’ § 225.37, 

‘‘Magnetic media transfer and 

submission,’’ § 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/ 

incidents not to be reported,’’ § 225.41, 

‘‘Suicide data,’’ and the FRA Guide, 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional 

information. 

The final rule also revises the Form 

FRA F 6180.55 to clarify that by signing 

the form the reporting officer is attesting 

that all of the information on the form 

is true and correct. See FRA Guide, 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional 

information. 

In addition, FRA is clarifying that 

casualties due to suicides and attempted 

suicides, for which an event or exposure 

arising from the operation of the 

railroad is a discernable cause and 

meets the general reporting criteria, 

shall also be included in Field 18, 

Reported Casualties, on Forms FRA F 

6180.55, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary.’’ This will allow FRA to 

verify against the number of forms 

submitted with the actual count. The 

railroad should report the person by the 

‘‘type of person.’’ As such, if a trespasser 

commits suicide, the railroad shall 

report it as a trespasser fatality. See FRA 

Guide, Chapter 3. 

Chapter 4, Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record.’’ 

FRA revises the instructions for the 

use of this form consistent with the 

changes in this final rule. See Sectionby-Section Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions’’ definition for Accountable 

Injury or Illness; § 225.25, 

‘‘Recordkeeping,’’ § 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/ 

incidents not to be reported;’’ § 225.41, 

‘‘Suicide data;’’ and the FRA Guide, 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional 

information. 

FRA is clarifying that railroads must 

create a Form FRA F 6180.98 for 

employee casualties due to suicides and 

attempted suicides, that are accountable 

or reportable. Moreover, FRA instructs 

the railroad to indicate in the narrative 

section that the casualty resulted from 

the person’s suicidal act. 

Chapter 5, Form FRA F 6180.97, ‘‘Initial 

Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 

Record.’’ 

FRA revises the instructions for the 

use of this form consistent with the 

changes in this final rule. See Sectionby-Section Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions;’’ § 225.25, 

‘‘Recordkeeping;’’ § 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/ 

incidents not to be reported;’’ § 225.41, 

‘‘Suicide data;’’ and the FRA Guide, 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional 

information. 

FRA revised the Questions and 

Answers in Chapter 4 of the FRA Guide 

to reflect the changes to the definition 

of accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident. FRA removed the Q2/A2 from 

the FRA Guide as it dealt with the 

disruption of service criteria from the 

2003 Final Rule. 

In addition, FRA is clarifying that 

casualties due to suicides and attempted 

suicides, for which an event or exposure 

arising from the operation of the 

railroad is a discernable cause and that 

meet the general reporting criteria shall 

also be included in the Field 30, 

Casualties, on Forms FRA F 6180.97. 

Also, FRA is also including instructions 

that when an accountable or reportable 

rail equipment accident/incident is 

caused by a suicide or attempted 

suicide, the railroad shall indicate that 

fact in Field 31, Narrative Description. 

Chapter 6, Form FRA F 6180.55a, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Continuation Sheet).’’ 

FRA revises the instructions for the 

use of this form consistent with the 

changes in this final rule. FRA also adds 

instructions that, if an injury is due to 

a passenger station platform gap 

incident, the railroad must use in block 

5n (‘‘Cause’’), ‘‘Probable Reason for 

Injury/Illness Circumstance Codes,’’ 

code number 18—Slipped, fell, 

stumbled due to Passenger Station 

Platform Gap—regardless of whether 

other codes may also be applicable. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for § 225.5, 

‘‘Definitions;’’ § 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/ 

Incident not to be reported;’’ § 225.19 

‘‘Primary Groups of Accidents/ 

Incidents’’ and the FRA Guide, 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional 

information. 

FRA also revised Chapter 6 to make 

it consistent with the Notice of 

Interpretation it published in the 

Federal Register on March 30, 2009, 

informing interested parties of its 

application and enforcement of the 

harassment or intimidation provisions 

contained in 49 CFR part 225, 

specifically relating to situations in 

which a supervisor or other railroad 

official accompanies an injured 

employee into an examination room. 

See 74 FR 14091; see also Section-bySection Analysis for § 225.33, ‘‘Internal 

Control Plan.’’ 

FRA also revises Chapter 6 to instruct 

railroads that they must presume that a 

highway user who is involved in a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident and is transported from the 

scene of a highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident to a medical facility 

via ambulance or other form of medical 

conveyance did, more likely than not, 

sustain an FRA reportable injury (i.e., an 

injury meeting the general reporting 

criteria set forth at § 225.19(d)(1) 

through (d)(6)). Absent evidence to 

rebut the presumption, the railroad 

must report the injury to FRA on Form 

FRA F 6180.55a, and include the 

casualty on Form FRA F 6180.57. If the 

railroad later discovers that the highway 

user did not sustain a reportable injury, 

the railroad must notify FRA in 

accordance with the late reporting 

instructions set forth at § 225.13. FRA 

has found that railroads are underreporting highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents/incidents related to injures to 

persons other than railroad employees 

due to the railroads’ limited access to 

injured highway users’ medical records, 

especially in light of privacy protections 

related to health information provided 

by the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 

Public Law 104–191. 

FRA emphasizes, however, that this 

presumption does not relieve railroads 

of their duty to make reasonable inquiry 

to determine the nature and severity of 

highway-rail grade crossing injuries and 

to accurately report such injuries. In 

general, FRA has found that some 

railroads often do not make such 

reasonable inquiry into potentially 

reportable injuries of non-employees. 

Accordingly, the NPRM required a 

railroad to fulfill its reasonable inquiry 

responsibilities in determining the 

nature and severity of highway-rail 

grade crossing injuries and to accurately 

report such injuries, by contacting the 

injured individual or their 

representative by phone and, if 

unsuccessful in obtaining the needed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

information, in writing. Moreover, the 

NPRM required that a railroad keep a 

record of its efforts to make such contact 

and that this record and documentation 

of any information obtained be available 

for review and copying by an FRA 

representative under the same criteria as 

set forth in § 225.35(b). 

In light of comments received 

regarding the burden and effectiveness 

of contacting potentially injured 

highway users, the final rule revises the 

language in the NPRM and requires that 

the railroad fulfill its inquiry 

responsibilities by contacting any 

highway user potentially injured in a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident, or the highway user’s 

representative(s), in writing and, if 

unsuccessful in obtaining the needed 

information, by telephone. If a highway 

user died as a result of the highway-rail 

grade crossing accident/incident, a 

railroad shall not send this form to any 

person. Moreover, the final rule 

specifies that the written 

correspondence should contain the 

newly created Form FRA F 6180.150, 

‘‘Highway User Injury Inquiry Form,’’ a 

cover letter drafted in accordance with 

the instructions contained in the FRA 

Guide, and a return envelope that is 

prepaid and preaddressed. A railroad 

shall keep a record of its efforts to 

contact a highway user, and this record 

and documentation of any information 

obtained shall be available for review 

and copying by an FRA representative 

under the same criteria as set forth in 

§ 225.35(b). 

Form FRA F 6180.150 shall be 

completed in accordance with the 

instructions contained in the FRA Guide 

in Chapter 10, dealing with highway-rail 

grade crossing accidents/incidents. FRA 

has found that, when railroads do 

actually conduct an investigation into 

injuries to highway users, they will 

solicit medical records and other 

documents containing PII. This 

approach has resulted in a lack of 

response from individuals who do not 

want to divulge personal information 

and are unsure about the purpose of the 

request. This has resulted in the 

underreporting or inaccurate reporting 

of highway-rail grade crossing injuries. 

While a railroad may request this 

information, in order to make a 

reporting decision, a railroad is not 

required to obtain that type of 

documentation, although it can provide 

additional insight into the nature and 

severity of an injury or illness. As such, 

Form FRA F 6180.150 is meant to be 

minimally invasive and requires only 

that information which a railroad needs 

in order to determine whether the 

person suffered a reportable injury. This 

requirement does not prevent a railroad 

from conducting additional 

investigation, but is meant to ensure 

that the railroad performs an 

investigation into the nature and 

severity of highway-rail grade crossing 

injuries, in a less invasive manner. 

However, a railroad shall not require a 

highway user to present medical 

documentation or other supportive 

information in order to report the 

casualty. 

A railroad shall complete Part I of 

Form FRA F 6180.150 with information 

regarding the highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incident, in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in FRA Guide. The railroad 

shall hand deliver or send by first class 

mail the letter within a reasonable time 

period following the date of the 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident. The letter shall also contain a 

prepaid, pre-addressed return envelope, 

and a copy of the Form FRA F 6180.150 

with Part I completed, along with the 

required cover letter. Highway users are 

not required to complete Form FRA F 

6180.150. Consequently, FRA 

acknowledges that there will be 

situations in which a highway user 

cannot be reached even though a 

railroad contacts the person in writing 

and by telephone. Other times, a 

highway user will refuse to provide any 

information even though a railroad 

clearly explains the Federal reporting 

requirements and the reason for 

soliciting information. In those cases, a 

railroad is still responsible for deciding 

whether, considering all of the 

circumstances, the highway user 

suffered a reportable injury (or, whether 

the presumption discussed above, 

applies). The railroad must reconsider 

that determination if new or additional 

information is later acquired. Moreover, 

if a highway user completes Part II, or 

provides additional information during 

a telephone call, the railroad will be 

responsible for determining whether, 

based on the circumstances, the person 

suffered a reportable injury or illness 

and for using that information in 

complying with FRA reporting and 

recording requirements. 

The final rule adds a draft of Form 

FRA F 6180.150, ‘‘Highway User Injury 

Inquiry Form,’’ to Appendix H and a 

sample cover letter in Appendix N. See 

FRA Guide. The instructions added to 

the final rule for completing Form FRA 

F 6180.150 require the railroad to 

complete Part I of the form. See FRA 

Guide, Chapter 10. Form FRA F 

6180.150 was submitted to OMB for 

approval with the final rule and is still 

pending OMB approval; therefore, the 

railroads cannot use the form until it 

has been approved. FRA expects that, 

prior to the delayed six month effective 

date, the form with be approved. 

Following approval, the final form will 

be available at http://safetydata.fra.dot.

gov/officeofsafety. 

The cover letter that accompanies 

Form FRA F 6180.150 shall be drafted 

in accordance with the instructions 

contained in the FRA Guide, Chapter 

10. FRA has included a sample cover 

letter in the FRA Guide for use by the 

railroads. See FRA Guide, Appendix N. 

Specifically, the cover letter shall 

clearly explain the Federal reporting 

requirements imposed on the railroads, 

address only Federal reporting 

requirements and not the railroad’s 

claims process, explain that the form is 

voluntary, and provide clear 

instructions on how to complete the 

form. The cover letter may ask the 

highway user to provide additional 

information, but the cover letter shall 

not mandate that the individual provide 

certain information in order for a 

railroad to comply with Federal 

reporting requirements. See FRA Guide, 

Chapter 10 for a complete list of 

instructions. 

With regard to the cover letter, the 

instructions contained in the final rule 

require that the letter contain the 

following: 

• An explanation of why the railroad 

is contacting the highway user; 

• An explanation of part 225’s 

accident/incident reporting 

requirements; 

• An explanation of how the form 

and any response will be used for part 

225’s accident/incident reporting 

requirements; 

• An explanation that the highway 

user is not required to respond and that 

a response is voluntary; 

• An opportunity to correct incorrect 

information in Part I; 

• Identify and provide contact 

information for a person at the railroad 

who can answer questions with regard 

to the form; 

• Provide instructions on how to 

complete Part II; and, 

• An explanation of how any medical 

records, if requested, personal 

identifying information or information 

will be handled. 

The cover letter and Form FRA F 

6180.150 are meant to be tools that 

allow the railroad to gather information 

and comply with part 225’s accident/ 

incident reporting and recording 

requirements. As such, a railroad shall 

not require the highway user to provide 

any medical or personal information in 

order to report a casualty. Moreover, the 

cover letter and any communication for 

the purposes of part 225 shall remain 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68889 

separate from and not reference the 

railroad’s claims process in order to 

avoid confusion. 

As an initial matter, FRA received 

comments regarding the language 

proposed in the NPRM; however, as the 

language in the final rule simply 

elaborates on and provides additional 

directions on how to conduct an inquiry 

into a potentially reportable injury, a 

majority of the comments are still 

relevant. 

Commenters suggested that the 

requirements proposed in the NPRM 

were overly burdensome and would not 

be effective as individuals generally do 

not want to share personal information. 

As the requirements contained in the 

final rule are consistent with those 

proposed in the NPRM, the comments 

are still applicable. FRA is concerned 

that these injuries and fatalities are not 

being reported or investigated; as such, 

the changes are meant to ensure that 

both of these things occur. Moreover, 

the presumption of reportablity created 

in the final rule is meant to simplify the 

process. Also, a railroad is allowed to 

terminate its investigation after calling 

and mailing the individual as required 

by this final rule. The inquiry 

requirement does not impose a 

timeframe on the follow-up the railroad 

is required to perform, except that the 

railroad must initiate its investigation 

within a reasonable time after the date 

of the highway-rail grade crossing 

accident. FRA created the Form FRA F 

6180.150 and the sample cover letter in 

an effort to open the communication 

process with potentially injured 

highway users to ensure that railroads 

and FRA are gathering accurate 

information. Finally, the final rule 

requires the railroads to contact the 

highway user by mail prior to contacting 

the person by phone because FRA 

believes that this will be a less 

intimidating approach. 

In addition, UP stated in its comments 

that the additional requirements would 

force them to intrude on the private 

lives of the general public and could 

increase issues with pending litigation. 

As an initial matter, private litigation 

matters should not prevent the railroads 

from reporting information about 

casualties and investigating the 

potential causes of accidents/incidents 

arising out of the operation of the 

railroad. Also, the railroads should 

already be investigating these casualties. 

FRA’s creation of the presumption is 

meant to alleviate some burden upon 

the railroad where they follow-up but 

cannot eventually obtain the necessary 

information. While the new requirement 

does mandate that a railroad follow-up 

with injured persons, a railroad is 

simply required to send a letter to and 

possibly call the highway user in an 

effort to obtain information in order to 

complete a Federal form. As explained 

above, the Form FRA F 6180.150 and 

the cover letter, explaining the purpose 

of the railroad’s inquiry, is meant to 

encourage the sharing of information 

and to be less intimidating. 

Commenters also suggested that this 

requirement would not improve safety. 

FRA uses information about reportable 

injuries to understand the severity of 

accidents and incidents occurring due 

to the operation of the railroad. When 

the railroads fail to report injuries and 

illnesses, this prevents FRA from fully 

understanding the impact and severity 

of such accidents and incidents. 

Amtrak submitted comments stating 

that, due to their large number of 

passengers, the burden of these 

additional requirements will be 

extreme. As an initial matter, the duty 

to investigate highway-rail grade 

crossing incidents and trespasser 

fatalities, which are discussed below, do 

not generally apply to passengers (or 

individuals legally on railroad 

property). While railroads are required 

to conduct a reasonable inquiry into any 

potentially reportable injury or illness, 

FRA is particularly concerned with, and 

the additional requirements apply to, 

only highway users potentially injured 

in a highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident and trespasser 

fatalities. See FRA Guide. 

Next, FRA is also concerned that 

suicides are being reported as trespasser 

fatalities. Often this occurs because 

railroads do not always make reasonable 

inquiry in their efforts to determine the 

cause of death. In fact, FRA has found 

that a number of reported trespasser 

fatalities are actually suicides. 

Accordingly, FRA revised Chapter 6 to 

clarify that, in order to fulfill its 

responsibilities in determining the 

nature of a trespasser fatality and to 

accurately report such a fatality, a 

railroad must try to obtain 

documentation indicating the cause of 

death by contacting the coroner, public 

police officer, or other public authority 

by telephone and, if unsuccessful, in 

writing. The railroad must continue its 

efforts to obtain this documentation for 

a period of six months following the 

month in which the fatality occurred. 

The railroad must keep a record of its 

efforts to obtain such documentation. 

This record and any documentation 

obtained must be available for review 

and copying by an FRA representative 

under the same criteria as set forth in 

§ 225.35(b). 

Commenters further suggested that 

there are already sufficient steps in 

place requiring the railroads to fully 

investigate fatalities and to obtain 

relevant information. As stated above, 

FRA has found that the railroads often 

report fatalities as trespasser fatalities 

when they are in fact suicides. To 

understand and prevent deaths arising 

from the operation of the railroad and 

suicides occurring on the railroad, FRA 

needs to have accurate and complete 

information. As such, FRA believes that 

the additional requirements are 

necessary. See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data’’ for 

additional discussion of the comments 

and requirements. 

Other comments suggested that the 

six-month follow-up requirement is too 

burdensome. FRA has found that it 

often takes time for public authorities to 

complete their investigations and 

declare a cause of death. Therefore, FRA 

believes that the six-month requirement 

will provide the railroads with 

sufficient time to obtain this 

information. One railroad suggested that 

the railroads should only have to 

follow-up with one document request 

within an initial three-month period 

from the date of the incident. Again, 

FRA has found that it often takes more 

time to obtain this information and that 

follow-up by different means is more 

effective. In addition, once a railroad 

has obtained confirmation of the cause 

of death, they may terminate their 

investigation. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the railroads do not have the legal 

authority to obtain the required 

documentation. As stated above, the 

railroads have historically been able to 

obtain this information. If a railroad 

cannot obtain this information and 

properly documents its efforts, then the 

railroad has fulfilled its obligations 

under part 225. However, if a railroad 

cannot confirm cause of death, the 

railroad will still be responsible for 

reporting the casualty as a trespasser 

fatality. Finally, FRA believes that 

allowing the railroads to accept verbal 

confirmation of the cause of death, 

which they must document, will ease 

any potential burden. See the Sectionby-Section Analysis for § 225.15, 

‘‘Accidents/incidents not to be 

reported.’’ 

In addition, FRA revises the FRA 

Guide to clarify who can declare a 

casualty as an attempted suicide or 

suicide. As discussed above, the final 

rule revises the definition of ‘‘Suicide 

data’’ to mean ‘‘data regarding the death 

of an individual due to the individual’s 

commission of suicide as determined by 

a coroner, public police officer or other 

public authority; or injury to an 

individual due to that individual’s 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

attempted commission of suicide as 

determined by a public police officer or 

public authority.’’ The FRA Guide 

explains that a ‘‘public authority’’ is a 

Federal, State or local government 

entity, such as a public health 

department, that has the legal authority 

to declare a fatality a suicide or an 

injury to a person an attempted suicide. 

Lastly, FRA revises Chapter 6 to 

instruct railroads that they must 

complete the longitude and latitude 

fields in blocks 5s and 5t on the Form 

FRA F 6180.55a for any reportable 

casualty to a trespasser. This 

requirement may be satisfied by either 

using global positioning system (GPS) 

equipment to determine the actual 

longitude and latitude, or by using a free 

online technology to determine an 

estimated longitude and latitude. See 

FRA Guide for additional information. 

Chapter 7, Form FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Report.’’ 

FRA revises the instructions for the 

use of this form consistent with the 

changes in this final rule. FRA also adds 

instructions to Chapter 7 requiring that, 

if an accident is caused by a bond wire 

attachment issue (see Appendix C 

‘‘Train Accident Cause Codes’’), 

information on the methods and 

locations of those attachments be 

provided in the narrative block 52. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§§ 225.5, 225.15, 225.19 and Revisions 

to the FRA Guide, Appendix H. 

FRA also revises Chapter 7 to instruct 

railroads that they must complete the 

longitude and latitude in blocks 50 and 

51. This requirement may be satisfied by 

either using GPS equipment to 

determine the actual longitude and 

latitude or by using a free online 

technology to determine an estimated 

longitude and latitude. See FRA Guide 

for additional information. 

The ICC’s comments suggested adding 

additional fields on the Form FRA F 

6180.54. FRA did not adopt these 

recommendations at this time, as the 

information is captured elsewhere or 

can be easily obtained at a later time. 

ICC suggested a field requesting whether 

the train was equipped with a digital or 

other recording device and whether the 

information was retrieved. FRA believes 

that this field is unnecessary as the train 

number provides sufficient information, 

and this information can be obtained at 

a later time. In addition, ICC 

recommended requesting whether the 

grade crossing had a recording device 

and whether the information was 

retrieved. FRA believes that sufficient 

information is already being captured 

on Forms FRA F 6180.54 and FRA F 

6180.57, in addition to the U.S. DOT 

Grade Crossing Inventory. ICC also 

suggested including a field asking 

whether the train movement was 

recorded and whether that information 

was retrieved. Again, this additional 

field is not necessary as PTC becomes 

mandatory. In addition, ICC wanted a 

field asking whether the train movement 

was recorded by GPS and was the 

information reported by a wireless 

device. Again, FRA believes that this 

information can easily be obtained at a 

later time and does not believe an 

additional field is necessary. In 

addition, this change may be done at a 

later time. 

The final rule revises the 

requirements for the Primary Cause 

Code with regard to cause code M505 

and the railroads’ responsibility to 

update this code. The final rule 

eliminates the April 15 deadline as it no 

longer serves a purpose with the 

updated technology and to be consistent 

with the changes made in FRA Guide at 

Chapter 1. See FRA Guide, Chapter 1. 

Consequently, the railroad will be 

required to submit an amended report 

pursuant to § 225.13 once it has closed 

its investigation and determined the 

cause of the accident/incident. This 

duty is consistent as the railroad’s 

responsibility under the 2003 FRA 

Guide, as railroads were previously 

required to submit an amended report 

once it determined the cause of 

accident/incident. 

The final rule also adds clarifying 

instructions on Form FRA F 6180.54, 

which provide that fields requesting a 

U.S. DOT Grade Crossing Identification 

Number are referring to the U.S. DOT 

Grade Crossing Inventory Number. 

Chapter 10—Form FRA F 6180.57— 

‘‘Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/ 

Incident Report.’’ 

As an initial matter, the final rule 

revises the title of Chapter 10 to Forms 

FRA F 6180.57—Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Accident/Incident Report & 

FRA F 6180.150—Highway User Injury 

Inquiry Form. This change was made in 

light of the newly created Form FRA F 

6180.150 and the instructions which are 

contained in FRA Guide at Chapter 10. 

The final rule revises the instructions 

for the use of this form consistent with 

the changes in this final rule. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/Incident not to be 

reported’’ and the FRA Guide, Appendix 

H, ‘‘Forms’’ for additional information. 

The final rule revises Chapter 10 to 

instruct railroads that they shall 

presume that a highway user who is 

involved in a highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incident and is 

transported from the scene of a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident to a medical facility via 

ambulance or other form of medical 

conveyance, did, more likely than not, 

sustain an FRA reportable injury (i.e., an 

injury meeting the general reporting 

criteria set forth at § 225.19(d)(1) 

through (d)(6)). Absent evidence to 

rebut this presumption, the railroad 

must report the injury to FRA on Form 

FRA F 6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury and 

Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet)’’ 

and must include the casualty on Form 

FRA F 6180.57. This presumption does 

relieve the railroad of its responsibility 

to an inquiry into the nature and 

severity of the highway user’s injuries. 

In order to fulfill its responsibilities in 

determining the nature and severity of 

a highway-rail grade crossing injury and 

to accurately report such injury, a 

railroad must try to contact potentially 

injured highway users involved in a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident, or their representatives, in 

writing and, if unsuccessful, obtain the 

needed information, by telephone. 

There is no requirement to contact a 

representative of a highway user who 

has died as a result of the accident. The 

written communication must include a 

Form FRA F 6180.150, cover letter and 

prepaid/preaddressed return envelope. 

Form FRA F 6180.150 and the cover 

letter must be completed, drafted and 

sent in compliance with the instructions 

contained in § 225.21 and FRA Guide at 

Chapter 10. A highway user is not 

required to respond to a railroad’s 

written or verbal requests for additional 

information with regard to potential 

injuries. However, railroads are required 

to use any response in complying with 

part 225’s accident/incident reporting 

and recording requirements. See FRA 

Guide, Chapter 6 of this Final Rule for 

a complete discussion of the 

requirements and relevant comments. 

Form FRA F 6180.150 was submitted 

to OMB for approval with the final rule 

and is still pending OMB approval; 

therefore, the railroads cannot use the 

form until it has been approved. FRA 

expects that prior to the delayed sixmonth effective date, the form will be 

approved. Following approval, the final 

form will be available at http:// 

safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety. 

The railroad must keep a record of its 

efforts to make such contact including, 

but not limited to, retaining a copy of 

the dated Form FRA F 6180.150 that 

was sent to the highway user and the 

accompanying cover letter, 

documenting the date, time and content 

of the follow-up call, and retaining any 

response from the highway user. This 

record and documentation of any 

information obtained must be available 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68891 

for review and copying by an FRA 

representative under the same criteria as 

set forth in § 225.35(b). For additional 

information see Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.15 and the FRA 

Guide, Subsection F, Form FRA F 

6180.55a. 

A comment to the NPRM suggested 

that block 41 on Form FRA F 6180.57 

be expanded from ‘‘Driver’’ to ‘‘Highway 

User.’’ As discussed below, the final rule 

does make this change. Another 

comment to the NPRM suggests that 

block 44 on Form FRA F 6180.57 be 

changed from ‘‘Driver’’ to ‘‘Highway 

User’’ so as to include non-motorist 

accidents. The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because this information 

is captured in block 46. In addition, 

additional instruction is included in the 

FRA Guide to clarify that block 44 only 

concerns motor vehicle operators. 

The final rule adds instructions 

pertaining to the narrative section on 

Form FRA F 6180.57 stating ‘‘Do not 

record personal identifiers, e.g., names, 

Social Security Numbers, payroll 

identification.’’ This change is 

consistent with the instructions for 

Forms FRA F 6180.55a and FRA F 

6180.54. 

The final rule also adds clarifying 

instructions on Form FRA F 6180.57 the 

field requesting an U.S. DOT Grade 

Crossing Identification Number means 

and is referencing to the U.S. DOT 

Grade Crossing Inventory Number. 

Chapter 13, pertaining to Form FRA F 

6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for Illness 

Claimed to be Work-Related.’’ 

FRA revised the instructions for the 

use of the form consistent with the 

changes adopted in the final rule. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.21, ‘‘Forms,’’ § 225.25, 

‘‘Recordkeeping,’’ § 225.27, ‘‘Record 

Retention,’’ § 225.33, ‘‘Internal Control 

Plan’’ and the FRA Guide, Appendix H, 

‘‘Forms’’ for additional information. 

The final rule revises Q1 in the 

Question and Answer box as the form 

no longer has a data element for an 

employee’s social security number. 

Rather, employee social security 

number has been replaced with a field 

requesting the employee’s identification 

number. This clarifying amendment is 

meant to make the Q1 accurate and 

consistent with the changes to the form. 

Appendix A, ‘‘Railroad Codes.’’ 

The FRA Guide updates the railroad 

codes. In addition, the final rule adds a 

web address where there is an up-todate list of railroad codes. 

Appendix B, ‘‘State Codes.’’ 

The FRA Guide updates the State 

codes by adding the abbreviation for 

Hawaii. This is a correction of an 

inadvertent admission and is consistent 

with the change to Form FRA F 6180.56. 

Appendix C, ‘‘Train Accident Cause 

Codes.’’ 

The FRA Guide revises the following 

Train Accident Cause Codes: 

• T224 ‘‘Rail defect originating from 

bond wire attachment.’’ FRA added 

Train Accident Cause Code T224 in 

response to the National Transportation 

Safety Board’s (NTSB) 2005 

recommendation that FRA provide a 

train accident cause code for 

derailments caused by bond wire 

attachments. This recommendation 

arose from the NTSB’s investigation of 

the derailment of northbound National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) train No. 58 while operating 

on Canadian National (CN) track near 

Flora, Mississippi, on April 6, 2004. The 

derailment resulted in one fatality, 35 

injuries (that were reportable to FRA), 

and damage costs of approximately $7 

million. The NTSB recommended that 

FRA include in the FRA Guide a train 

accident cause code for derailments 

caused by rail cracks originating from 

bond wire attachments, and that 

information on the methods and 

locations of those attachments be 

provided in the narrative section of the 

accident/incident report (NTSB 

Recommendation Number RAR–05/02); 

• S104 ‘‘Radio controlled switch not 

locked effectively.’’ FRA amends Train 

Accident Cause Code S104 by adding 

‘‘(equipment failure)’’ to the code’s 

description. The description of Cause 

Code S104 as amended reads, ‘‘Radio 

controlled switch not locked effectively 

(equipment failure).’’ FRA incorporated 

this change in order to clarify that S104 

pertains to equipment failure, not 

human error. 

• H707 ‘‘Radio controlled switch not 

locked effectively.’’ FRA amends Train 

Accident Cause Code H707 by adding 

‘‘(human error)’’ to the code’s 

description. The description for Cause 

Code H707 denotes ‘‘Radio controlled 

switch not locked effectively (human 

error).’’ FRA incorporated this change in 

order to clarify that H707 pertains to 

human error, not equipment failure. 

• M 309 ‘‘Grade Crossing Suicide’’; 

M310 ‘‘Grade Crossing Attempted 

Suicide’’; M509 ‘‘Suicide Resulting in 

Train Accident’’; and M510 ‘‘Attempted 

Suicide Resulting in Train Accident’’ for 

use in block 38 of Form FRA F 6180.54, 

‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 

Report.’’ See Section-by-Section 

Analysis for § 225.15, ‘‘Accidents/ 

incidents not to be reported’’ and the 

FRA Guide, Appendix H, ‘‘Forms’’ for 

additional information. 

Appendix F, ‘‘Circumstance Codes.’’ 

FRA adds the following ‘‘Probable 

Reason for Injury/Illness Circumstance 

Codes,’’ (Probable Reason Circumstance 

Code) under the subtitle ‘‘Remotely 

controlled locomotive(s) environment’’ 

to the Remote Control Locomotive 

Switching Operations Fatality Analysis 

Codes (RCL SOFA Codes) to the May 1, 

2003, guide as amended: 

• R1 Object fouling track, related to 

using RCL 

• R2 Outside caused (e.g., assaulted/ 

attacked), related to using RCL 

• R3 Lack of communication, related 

to using RCL 

• R4 Slack adjustment during 

switching operation, related to using 

RCL 

• R5 Insufficient training, related to 

using RCL 

• R6 Failure to provide adequate 

space between equipment during 

switching operation, related to using 

RCL 

• R7 Close or no clearance, related to 

using RCL 

• R8 Act of God, related to using RCL 

• U1 Object fouling track, unrelated 

to using RCL 

• U2 Outside caused (e.g., assaulted/ 

attacked), unrelated to using RCL 

• U3 Lack of communication, 

unrelated to using RCL 

• U4 Slack adjustment during 

switching operation, unrelated to using 

RCL 

• U5 Insufficient training, unrelated 

to using RCL 

• U6 Failure to provide adequate 

space between equipment during 

switching operations unrelated to using 

RCL 

• U7 Close or no clearance, unrelated 

to using RCL 

• U8 Act of God, unrelated to using 

RCL 

In the final regulation to 49 CFR part 

225, 68 FR 10107, March 3, 2003, new 

codes and form changes were made to 

accommodate the recording events 

when remote control locomotive 

operations (RCL) were involved. 

A special task group of railroad safety 

officers representing labor and industry 

and FRA members was created in the 

RSAC Accident/Incident Working 

Group to discuss the coding of RCL. The 

results of the special task group would 

be presented to the entire working group 

for approval. The concern of the 

reporting officers was to prevent any 

major changes to the then current forms 

or databases. In part, this rested on their 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

information technology offices’ internal 

charges for making major programming 

changes. The FRA team was tasked with 

finding a way to include RCL involved 

accidents and incidents on the 

following three forms: Form FRA F 

6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report’’; Form FRA F 6180.57, 

‘‘Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/ 

Incident Report’’; and Form FRA F 

6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury/Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet),’’ 

without changing the database 

structures. 

FRA found a way to capture RCLrelated incidents on both the Form FRA 

F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report,’’ and Form FRA F 

6180.57, ‘‘Highway-Rail Crossing 

Accident/Incident Report’’ without 

expanding the database or making a 

major change on the form or the 

respective database. Capturing this 

information on Form FRA F 6180.55a, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

(Continuation Sheet),’’ remained 

problematic due to the small number of 

data fields and limited amount of data 

collected for each reportable event. FRA 

developed a solution by expanding the 

number of Probable Causes in the 

Circumstance Codes. The method 

chosen by FRA, and accepted by the 

RSAC Working Group, was to take each 

code for Probable Reason Circumstance 

Codes and create two additional codes, 

one for RCL-related to the event and 

another for RCL involved but unrelated 

to the event. Therefore, the probable 

reason of ‘‘Equipment,’’ code 04 had two 

additional codes: ‘‘Equipment, related to 

using RCL,’’ code 24, and ‘‘Equipment, 

unrelated to using RCL,’’ code 44. This 

technique, although clumsy, satisfied 

railroad safety reporting officers, rail 

labor officials, and FRA. 

Codes 21 through 59 in Probable 

Reason for the ‘‘Remotely Controlled 

Locomotive(s) Environment’’ was 

approved by the full RSAC Working 

Group for Accident/Incident Reporting. 

At a later RSAC Working Group Meeting 

in New Orleans, LA, a new discussion 

started about the Probable Reason 

Circumstance Codes. This discussion 

centered on Switching Operations 

Fatality Analysis (SOFA). SOFA events 

were claiming 40 to 50 percent of all 

fatalities of railroad workers. The 

Working Group decided to include new 

codes to insure that fatal and non-fatal 

SOFA events were culled from other 

injuries. A small task group was formed, 

and worked one evening to develop the 

eight new codes. The full Working 

Group approved these SOFA codes the 

next day. However, there was an 

oversight by the Working Group in the 

process. There should have been two 

additional sets of codes for SOFA RCL 

events (related to RCL and unrelated to 

RCL). This oversight was not discovered 

until October 2003, well after the 

publication and effective date of the 

revised regulation. 

All of the parties to the Full Working 

Group agreed that any omission in 

capturing SOFA related injuries was a 

serious problem. FRA developed 16 

additional codes to correspond to the 

previous eight codes. The new codes R1 

through R8 and U1 through U8 were 

promulgated in December 2003, and 

were subsequently added to the FRA 

Guide to remedy the immediate 

concern. While the initial publication of 

these SOFA codes was not subject to a 

notice and comment period, FRA 

invited comments on the addition of 

these SOFA codes but did not receive 

any comments on this change. 

FRA is also adding new Circumstance 

Codes to Appendix F of the FRA Guide 

for use on Form FRA F 6180.55a, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Continuation Sheet),’’ to better identify 

injuries that occur in or due to 

passenger station platform gap. FRA 

believes that the collection of this 

information will allow the agency to 

assess the magnitude of these types of 

injuries, identify locations where 

passenger station platform gap related 

injuries frequently occur, and ultimately 

aid FRA in efforts to reduce such 

injuries. 

The RSAC General Passenger Safety 

Task Force reported to the full RSAC on 

October 25, 2007, its Cause Code 

Recommendations for passenger station 

platform gap related injuries as follows: 

(1) To the ‘‘Physical Act Circumstance 

Codes’’ add codes for: 

• Passenger Train-Boarding; and 

• Passenger Train-Alighting. 

Also revise the ‘‘Physical Act 

Circumstance Codes’’ to clarify that 

codes 63 (stepping up) and 64 (stepping 

over) are to be used for boarding/ 

alighting at high level platforms. 

(2) To Part III of the ‘‘Location 

Circumstance Codes’’ add codes for: 

• Rail Car Door Threshold Plate to 

Edge of Passenger Station Platform Gap; 

• Area Between Coupled Cars and 

Platform; 

• Area Along Car body, other than 

Threshold Plate and Platform Edge; 

• Car in Vestibule; and 

• On Platform—Other. 

Also change Location Circumstance 

Code C2—‘‘On Platform’’ to ‘‘On 

Platform Station.’’ 

(3) To the ‘‘Event Circumstance 

Codes’’ add a code for: 

• Slipped, fell, stumbled due to 

Passenger Station Platform Gap. 

(4) To Part I of the ‘‘Location 

Circumstance Codes’’ add a code for: 

• Other than Platform. 

Also change the Location Circumstance 

Code ‘‘P—Passenger Terminal’’ to ‘‘P— 

Passenger Station on Platform’’. 

(5) To the ‘‘Tools, Machinery, 

Appliances, Structures, Surfaces, (etc.) 

Circumstance Codes’’ add codes for: 

• Door, End or Side—Passenger 

Train; and 

• Door, Trap. 

The full RSAC agreed to these 

recommendations on October 25, 2007. 

Subsequently, FRA’s Safety 

Knowledge Management Division’s 

database experts reviewed the RSAC 

approved coding scheme in an effort to 

prevent redundant codes, develop ease 

in coding for reporting officers and 

clerks not familiar with all the nuances 

in gap incidents, and to develop a 

system to easily cull passenger station 

platform gap incidents from the casualty 

database. Based on this review, FRA is 

adding the following new codes to 

Appendix F—Circumstance Codes as 

follows: 

(1) To the ‘‘Physical Act Circumstance 

Codes’’ FRA proposes to add code: 

• 80—Stepping across (passenger 

cars). 

(2) To Part III of the ‘‘Location 

Circumstance Codes’’ FRA proposes to 

add codes: 

• G1—Rail Car Door Threshold Plate 

to Edge of Platform—Gap; 

• G2—Area Between Coupled Cars 

and Platform; 

• G3—Area Along Car body, other 

than Threshold Plate and Platform Edge; 

and 

• G4—Car in Vestibule. 

(3) To the ‘‘Probable Reason for Injury/ 

Illness Circumstance Codes’’ FRA 

proposes to add code: 

• 18—Slipped, fell, stumbled due to 

Passenger Station Platform Gap. 

(4) To the ‘‘Tools, Machinery, 

Appliances, Structures, Surfaces, (etc.) 

Circumstance Codes’’ FRA proposes to 

add codes: 

• 1G—Door, End or Side—Passenger 

Train; and 

• 2G—Door, Trap—Passenger Train. 

The instructions for coding passenger 

station platform gap incidents are 

included in the FRA Guide. 

Appendix G, ‘‘FRA Regional Offices and 

Headquarters.’’ 

The FRA Guide updates these entries 

and includes the web address where the 

most current contact information can be 

obtained. 

Appendix H, ‘‘Forms.’’ 

FRA is revising its forms, as follows: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68893 

(1) Form FRA F 6180.97 and Form 

FRA F 6180.98. FRA is revising block 36 

on Form FRA F 6180.97 ‘‘Date’’ to state 

‘‘Date Initially Signed/Completed’’; and 

block 44 on Form FRA F 6180.98 ‘‘Date’’ 

to state ‘‘Date Initially Signed/ 

Completed’’ to clarify that the block 

must contain the initial date the form 

was completed. FRA finds it necessary 

to make such change because certain 

railroads do not retain the initial date a 

record was completed, but only the date 

of the most recent update to the record. 

Consequently, FRA is unable to discern 

if the railroad entered each reportable 

and accountable injury and illness and 

each reportable and accountable rail 

equipment accident/incident on the 

appropriate record, as required by 

§ 225.25 (a)–(e), no later than seven 

working days after receiving 

information or acquiring knowledge that 

an injury or illness or rail equipment 

accident/incident has occurred, as 

required by § 225.25(f). FRA believes 

that specifying the date which is 

required to be maintained on the record 

will resolve any confusion regarding the 

requirement. 

(2) Form FRA F 6180.97. FRA is 

renaming block 12, ‘‘Division’’ to 

‘‘Subdivision’’ and requiring railroads to 

provide train accident location by 

providing subdivision data in this block 

as a means of improving railroad safety 

in the area of train accidents. If the 

railroad is not so divided, enter the 

word ‘‘system.’’ If subdivision data is not 

applicable, the railroad must enter 

terminal/yard name. This change also 

applies to alternative railroad-designed 

Form FRA 6180.97. This change is 

consistent with the ‘‘Division’’ to 

‘‘Subdivision’’ change on Form FRA F 

6180.54. See paragraph N(6) of this 

appendix, ‘‘Form FRA F 6180.54’’ for 

additional information. 

FRA is also clarifying that, in 

situations of joint operations, block 26, 

‘‘Equipment Damage (in dollars)’’, refers 

to the aggregate amount of equipment 

damage incurred for all railroads 

involved, and that Block 27, ‘‘Track, 

Signal, Way & Structure Damage (in 

dollars)’’ refers to the aggregate amount 

of track, signal, way and structure 

damage incurred for all track owners. 

This revision does not change existing 

reporting requirements, and does not 

represent an additional reporting 

burden, because both railroads should 

already be exchanging relevant cost data 

to determine if the accident was FRA 

reportable. 

(3) Form FRA F 6180.98. FRA is 

replacing the ‘‘Social Security Number’’ 

requirement in block 6 with a 

requirement for ‘‘Employee 

Identification Number.’’ FRA is making 

this change in response to privacy 

concerns. This chapter will include 

instructions addressing FRA’s 

requirement that (by amending the 

definition for ‘‘Accountable Injury or 

Illness’’) railroads complete a Form FRA 

F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury 

and/or Illness Record’’ for any abnormal 

condition or disorder of a railroad 

employee that causes or requires the 

railroad employee to be examined or 

treated by a qualified health care 

professional regardless of whether or 

not it meets the general reporting 

criteria listed in § 225.19(d)(1) through 

(6), and that the railroad employee 

claims that, or the railroad otherwise 

has knowledge that, an event or 

exposure arising from the operation of 

the railroad is a discernable cause of the 

abnormal condition or disorder. 

(4) Form FRA F 6180.55. FRA has 

eliminated the notary requirement on 

Form FRA F 6180.55 block 10, and 

replaced it with a requirement that the 

report be signed under penalty of 

perjury. The NPRM proposed that the 

signature read, as follows: 

(1) If executed within the United 

States, its territories, possessions, or 

commonwealths: ‘‘I declare (or certify, 

verify, or state) under penalty of perjury 

that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on (date). 

(Signature).’’ 

(2) If executed without (i.e., outside 

of) the United States: ‘‘I declare (or 

certify, verify, or state) under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the United 

States of America that the foregoing is 

true and correct. Executed on (date). 

(Signature).’’ 

To make clear the signee is attesting to 

the accuracy of all of the information on 

the form, the final rule revised the 

language, as follows: 

(1) If executed within the United 

States, its territories, possessions, or 

commonwealths: ‘‘I declare (or certify, 

verify, or state) under penalty of perjury 

that the information on this form is true 

and correct. Executed on (date). 

(Signature).’’ 

(2) If executed without (i.e., outside 

of) the United States: ‘‘I declare (or 

certify, verify, or state) under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the United 

States of America that the information 

on this form is true and correct. 

Executed on (date). 

(Signature).’’ 

FRA is able to replace the oath 

requirement, mandated by 49 U.S.C. 

20901, with a signature under penalty of 

perjury under 28 U.S.C. 1746. See 

Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 225.37, ‘‘Magnetic media transfer and 

electronic submission,’’ for additional 

information. 

(5) Form FRA F 6180.55a. FRA 

requires railroads to place an ‘‘X’’ 

representative of ‘‘suicide’’ or ‘‘attempted 

suicide’’ in block 5r when reporting a 

suicide or attempted suicide. FRA also 

adds instructions that, if an injury is 

due to a passenger station platform gap 

incident, the railroad must use in block 

5n (‘‘Cause’’), ‘‘Probable Reason for 

Injury/Illness Circumstance Codes’’ code 

number 18—Slipped, fell, stumbled due 

to Passenger Station Platform Gap, 

regardless of whether other codes may 

also be applicable. See Section-bySection analysis for § 225.15, 

‘‘Accidents/incidents not to be 

reported,’’ for additional information. 

FRA also changes the title of block 5m 

from ‘‘Result’’ to ‘‘Tools’’ to remain 

consistent with the wording in 

Appendix F. 

In addition, in the NPRM, FRA 

requested comments and suggestions on 

whether FRA should require railroads to 

complete the longitude and latitude 

blocks on Form FRA F 6180.55a, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Continuation Sheet)’’ (blocks 5s and 5t) 

for reportable trespasser casualties, and 

on Form FRA F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Report’’ 

(blocks 50 and 51). Currently, 

completion of longitude and latitude 

data on both of these forms is optional. 

Because railroads do not report 

longitude and latitude to FRA, FRA 

cannot currently geo-locate reportable 

trespasser casualties. In addition, 

although FRA can geo-locate reportable 

accidents/incidents based on the 

information available in the Form FRA 

F 6180.54, it is time consuming. The 

final rule provides FRA with the ability 

to determine the precise location of 

accidents and trespasser injuries. For 

example, FRA will be able to determine 

the exact location of releases of 

hazardous materials or leakages of 

diesel fuel. Having the location 

information for all train accidents will 

allow FRA to develop better inspection 

planning, identify locations of 

hazardous materials contamination 

affecting the health and/or environment, 

and provide to the Transportation 

Security Administration another tool for 

security planning. Traditionally, FRA 

and the railroad industry have relied on 

the railroad milepost system to 

reference location, and, in many cases, 

such location data is accurate for shortterm issues. However, the railroad 

milepost system is not reliable. Over the 

long-term, railroads change mileposts 

during mergers and reorganizations. 

Also, mileposts can be inaccurate when 

a railroad is able to build a shorter link, 

or when a railroad does not remove old 

mileposts when replacement mileposts, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7PTC refers to technology that is capable of 

preventing certain train collisions, derailments, and 

unauthorized train movements. 

which have a different starting location, 

are installed. 

Several commenters generally 

supported the collection of this type of 

information. One commenter, while not 

opposed to the collection of such data, 

was concerned about the resulting costs 

and indicated that the requirement 

should be phased-in so railroads had 

time to acquire the technology to 

comply with the regulation. This 

commenter also indicated that FRA 

should consider providing funding for 

GPS equipment, and that longitude and 

latitude should only be required for 

certain types of incidents. Commenters 

who were opposed to the mandatory 

inclusion of longitude and latitude 

generally argued that the cost to obtain 

GPS technology was too costly, that the 

technology was unreliable, that the 

industry was not ready for such a 

change, and that the regulation would 

not improve data collection or railroad 

safety. 

After considering the comments 

received, this final rule requires the 

mandatory completion of the longitude 

and latitude blocks on Form FRA F 

6180.55a (blocks 5s and 5t) for any 

reportable casualty to a trespasser, and 

on Form FRA F 6180.54 (blocks 50 and 

51). In order to defray potential costs, 

the longitude and latitude coordinates 

may be either actual or estimated. 

Obtaining actual coordinates requires 

GPS technology in the field, but 

obtaining estimated coordinates only 

requires internet access. For example, 

this requirement may be satisfied by 

providing either: The actual longitude 

and latitude, as determined at the time 

of the accident/incident, or injury using 

GPS technology; or an estimated 

longitude and latitude, as determined by 

using a Web site, such as Google maps 

or the FRA’s free Web site (http:// 

fragis.frasafety.net/GISFRASafety/ 

default.aspx). Moreover, as discussed 

previously, the final rule is effective 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011. As such, 

railroads do have a significant period of 

time to come into compliance. 

Regardless, the latitude/longitude 

requirement has been an optional field 

on both forms, and while it will be 

mandatory on the Form FRA F 6180.54 

for all reportable rail equipment 

accidents/incidents, with respect to the 

FRA Form F 6180.55a, it will only be a 

requirement for reportable casualties to 

trespassers. 

FRA believes that the majority of 

railroads already have the capability to 

determine actual longitude and latitude 

for such events on-site. Moreover, 

within the next six years, about one half 

of the general rail system will be 

equipped with Positive Train Control 

(‘‘PTC’’).7 While such PTC systems will 

vary widely in complexity and 

sophistication, such systems will 

provide railroads with longitude and 

latitude coordinates for specific track 

locations. For those railroads that do not 

currently have the equipment necessary 

to obtain longitude and latitude 

coordinates, the final rule permits the 

use of estimated coordinates which can 

be freely obtained on the internet. For 

example, railroads may estimate 

longitude and latitude via publicly 

accessible Web sites at no charge (e.g., 

http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/ 

googleMapLocation.php or http:// 

itouchmap.com/latlong.html). 

A comment to the NPRM stated that 

this revision may create a duty for 

railroads towards trespassers that 

somehow impacts States’ rights. This 

revision does not create any such duty, 

and railroads are already required to 

collect information on trespassers—this 

revision simply adds a level of detail to 

increase the value of the information. 

See Section-by-Section Analysis 

§ 225.41, ‘‘Suicide data,’’ for additional 

information. A comment suggested that 

longitude/latitude should be collected 

and stored in decimal degrees. The final 

rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because the FRA Guide provides 

recording instructions that are sufficient 

for FRA’s needs. A comment suggested 

that additional fields be added for the 

city name, station name, railroad 

division, and milepost to help 

determine where the incident occurred. 

The final rule does not adopt this 

suggestion because such information is 

not necessary as the longitude/latitude 

will be captured. A comment suggested 

that additional fields be added for 

weather, visibility, gender, and railroad 

yard name. The final rule does not 

adopt these suggestions because they are 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking, 

and weather and visibility information 

are currently captured by the Form FRA 

F 6180.54. Comments stated that some 

GPS equipment would not get reception 

in all areas, and that GPS is unreliable 

because satellite networks can fail. 

However, FRA believes that, in general, 

GPS does get reception in most areas 

and that satellites generally do not have 

failures. Regardless, railroads may use 

free online technology to provide 

estimated longitude/latitude in the 

event that there is no GPS reception. A 

comment stated that GPS will not 

provide any additional information that 

is not otherwise available, and thus 

would not improve safety. As stated, 

FRA does not currently obtain sufficient 

information to geo-locate trespassers. In 

addition, although FRA can geo-locate 

reportable accidents/incidents based on 

information available in the Form FRA 

F 6180.54, it is time consuming, and 

thus the requirement of longitude/ 

latitude on that form streamlines the 

data collection process. Furthermore, 

longitude/latitude information enables 

FRA to obtain specific location 

information in order to pinpoint areas of 

concern. 

(6) Form FRA F 6180.54. FRA is 

revising block 30 by changing the name 

of the block from ‘‘Methods of 

Operation’’ to ‘‘Type of Territory.’’ The 

block will have five coding blocks. Each 

of the five coding blocks printed in 

block 30 will be labeled for exclusive 

use in accordance with codes listed in 

Appendix J. The coding blocks are 

representative of the following 

information: The first block (mandatory) 

will indicate the type of territory 

(signaled or non-signaled); the second 

block (mandatory) will indicate the 

authority for movement; and the third, 

fourth, and fifth blocks (optional) will 

indicate additional information through 

the use of supplemental codes. 

FRA is making this change because in 

the past few years, with the 

advancement of PTC, there has been a 

growing requirement for FRA to 

definitively identify signalized versus 

‘‘dark’’ territory. 

The revisions should make 

completing the block less burdensome 

and allow for the identification of 

territory in a manner compatible with 

the railroads’ internal railroad coding 

system. These changes are consistent 

with suggestions by railroads and the 

AAR that such coding be made easier 

and that the FRA Guide provide clearer 

instruction. They also take into 

consideration railroad concerns about 

expense associated with having to revise 

the form and expressed the desire for 

FRA to retain the current form and 

redesign the coding system but not 

change the database structure or the 

record size. See FRA Guide, Appendix 

J, ‘‘Type of Territory Codes’’ for 

additional information. 

FRA is renaming block 12, ‘‘Division’’ 

to ‘‘Subdivision’’ and requiring railroads 

to provide train accident location by 

subdivision data (block 12) on Form 

FRA F 6180.54 as a means of improving 

railroad safety in the area of train 

accidents. If the railroad is not so 

divided, enter the word ‘‘system.’’ If 

subdivision data is not applicable, the 

railroad must enter terminal/yard name. 

FRA also revises this form to require 

latitude and longitude. This revision is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68895 

discussed in detail in FRA Guide, 

Chapter 6, Form FRA F 6180.55a. 

FRA is adding to block 49, ‘‘Special 

Study Block’’ descriptive references ‘‘a.’’ 

to line one and ‘‘b.’’ to line two for ease 

of reference. FRA requires railroads to 

indicate in block ‘‘Special Study Block’’ 

49a the type of track an accident/ 

incident occurred on, by using the codes 

‘‘CWR’’ for continuous welded rail or 

‘‘OTH’’ for other. FRA notes that the 

special study block was created to allow 

for the collection of specific accident 

information as the need arises. See 61 

FR 30940, June 18, 1996. The primary 

purpose of these revisions to the rule is 

to increase the accuracy, completeness, 

and utility of FRA’s accident database 

and the clarity of the definitions and 

requirements. In light of recent trackrelated accidents/incidents, FRA finds it 

necessary to gather and analyze data of 

this nature. The collection and analysis 

of this data is consistent with 49 CFR 

part 213 regarding joint bar inspection 

and reporting. 

To account for suicides and attempted 

suicides on Form FRA F 6180.54, FRA 

adds four Miscellaneous Cause Codes to 

Appendix C for use in block 38, Primary 

Cause Code: M309 ‘‘Suicide (HighwayRail Grade Crossing)’’; M310 ‘‘Attempted 

Suicide (Highway-Rail Grade Crossing)’’; 

M509 ‘‘Suicide (Other Misc.)’’; and 

M510 ‘‘Attempted Suicide (Other 

Misc.)’’ to Appendix C, ‘‘Train Accident 

Cause Codes’’ to indicate ‘‘Suicide or 

Attempted Suicide.’’ Additionally, FRA 

requires railroads to include suicides 

and attempted suicides in the casualty 

counts in boxes 46, 47, and 48, as 

applicable, and to maintain consistent 

casualty counts between the different 

reporting forms. 

FRA, for all highway-rail grade 

crossing fatalities, requires railroads to 

include a description in narrative block 

52 of the circumstances of the accident. 

FRA also requires that, if an accident 

is caused by a bond wire attachment 

issue (see proposed Appendix C ‘‘Train 

Accident Cause Codes’’), information on 

the methods and locations of those 

attachments be provided in the narrative 

block 52. 

(7) Forms FRA F 6180.54 and FRA F 

6180.57. The final rule revises the ‘‘Type 

of Equipment’’ block—block 25 on Form 

FRA F 6180.54 and block 24 on Form 

FRA F 6180.57—as follows: 

• Code ‘‘2’’ was changed from 

‘‘Passenger Train’’ to ‘‘Passenger Train— 

Pulling;’’ 

• Code ‘‘3’’ was changed from 

‘‘Commuter Train’’ to ‘‘Commuter 

Train—Pulling;’’ 

• New code ‘‘B’’ reads ‘‘Passenger 

Train—Pushing;’’ 

• New code ‘‘C’’ reads ‘‘Commuter 

Train—Pushing;’’ 

• New Code ‘‘D’’ reads ‘‘EMU Train;’’ 

and 

• New Code ‘‘E’’ reads ‘‘DMU Train.’’ 

These amendments allow for the 

delineation of additional types of 

equipment in FRA’s database, 

specifically, locomotives pushing or 

pulling, and EMU and DMU trains. The 

need for such information comes in 

light of the 2005 passenger train 

accident, in which an impact with a 

deliberately placed obstruction caused a 

derailment with two consequent 

secondary collisions in Glendale, 

California, in which a number of 

individuals were killed or injured. 

Subsequent to that event, FRA was 

asked to conduct analysis regarding the 

relative safety of trains with passengeroccupied cars in the lead. Under its 

prior reporting criteria, FRA could not 

determine from the database if the 

passenger or commuter equipment being 

used was in ‘‘pull’’ or ‘‘push’’ mode at the 

time of an accident/incident (i.e., 

whether the locomotive unit providing 

power was in the front or back of the 

train). In addition, because EMU and 

DMU trains neither push nor pull as all 

of the cars provide power to the train, 

FRA needed a code to accurately 

describe that circumstance as well. 

(8) FRA Form FRA F 6180.57. The 

final rule revises block 16, ‘‘Position,’’ to 

read as follows: (1) Stalled or stuck on 

crossing (currently ‘‘Stalled on 

Crossing’’); (2) Stopped on crossing; 

(3) Moving over crossing; (4) Trapped 

on crossing by traffic (currently 

‘‘Trapped’’); and (5) Blocked on crossing 

by gates. In doing so, FRA clarifies the 

difference between choices (1) and (4). 

FRA has found that under the prior 

options railroads did not necessarily 

understand that prior option (4) 

‘‘Trapped’’ means trapped by traffic. The 

final rule also adds a fifth option, (5) 

‘‘Blocked on crossing by gates,’’ to 

capture those situations where a 

highway user is prevented from leaving 

the crossing because the highway user is 

blocked-in by the crossing gates. 

The final rule also revises block 34 by 

changing the title from ‘‘Whistle Ban’’ to 

‘‘Roadway Conditions’’ and by including 

the following options: (A) Dry; (B) Wet; 

(C) Snow/Slush; (D) Ice; (E) Sand, Mud, 

Dirt, Oil, Gravel; and (F) Water 

(Standing, Moving). Block 34 captures 

the roadway conditions at the time of 

the highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident. This information is 

needed because data provided to FRA 

regarding ‘‘Weather Conditions’’ in block 

23 does not necessarily speak to road 

conditions. For example, while the 

weather may be clear at the time of a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident, the roadway may be wet, 

covered with snow, or icy. This revision 

provides FRA with vital information 

useful in assessing the risks and causes 

of highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incidents. In addition, FRA no longer 

needs to capture Whistle Ban/Quiet 

Zone information in Form FRA F 

6180.57, as this information is provided 

to FRA in Quiet Zone Notices of 

Establishment. See FRA 49 CFR part 

222. 

The final rule revises the title of block 

numbers 38, ‘‘Drivers Age;’’ 39, ‘‘Driver’s 

Gender;’’ 40, ‘‘Driver Drove Behind or in 

Front of Train and Struck or was Struck 

by Second Train;’’ and 41, ‘‘Driver,’’ by 

replacing the term ‘‘Driver’’ or ‘‘Driver’s’’ 

with ‘‘Highway User’’ or ‘‘Highway 

User’s’’, as applicable. In addition, the 

final rule revises block numbers 40 (in 

block title) and 41 (in block’s response 

options) by replacing the term ‘‘drove’’ 

with ‘‘went.’’ Such changes clarify that 

railroads should provide the 

information for all highway users 

involved in a highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incident, rather than 

just for drivers. 

The final rule revises block 41 by 

adding the following descriptive 

options: ‘‘Went around/thru temporary 

barricade’’ and ‘‘Suicide/Attempted 

suicide.’’ The final rule also revises the 

‘‘Drove around or thru the gate’’ 

descriptor to two separate descriptive 

choices: ‘‘Went around the gate’’; and 

‘‘Went thru the gate.’’ If ‘‘Went around/ 

thru temporary barricade’’ is selected in 

block 41 due to the temporary closure 

of the crossing, the circumstance of the 

closure (e.g., the roadway was closed for 

repair of crossing surface; maintenance/ 

testing of automated warning devises; 

etc.) should be explained in narrative in 

block 54. Additionally, such a narrative 

should explain how the closure was 

accomplished (e.g., roadway closed to 

traffic with jersey barriers (concrete 

traffic barriers) on both approaches; 

roadway closed with construction 

barrels on easterly approach; etc.). In the 

event of a suicide or attempted suicide, 

option 8, ‘‘Suicide/Attempted suicide’’ 

must be indicated in block 41, 

regardless of whether other choices may 

also be applicable. The final rule 

requires the inclusion of the suicide or 

attempted suicide in the casualty counts 

in block numbers 46, 49, and 52, as 

applicable, to maintain consistent 

casualty counts between the different 

reporting forms. 

The final rule revises the title of block 

48, ‘‘Total Number of Highway-Rail 

Crossing Users’’ to read ‘‘Total Number 

of Vehicle Occupants (including 

driver).’’ Collection of this data allows 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

FRA to cross-check ‘‘Casualties to:’’ 

block 46 with the number of vehicle 

occupants in block 48. FRA has found 

that this information is an important 

tool in analyzing reports and ensuring 

continuity and compliance in reporting. 

In accordance with Chapter 2 of the 

FRA Guide, vehicles include 

automobiles, buses, trucks, motorcycles, 

bicycles, farm vehicles, and all other 

modes of surface transportation, 

motorized, and unmotorized. 

The final rule requires, in ‘‘Special 

Study Block’’ 53a, that railroads indicate 

whether the highway-rail crossing 

accident/incident was recorded by a 

locomotive video recorder and, if so, 

whether information gathered in 

viewing the recording was used by the 

railroad to complete the FRA HighwayRail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 

Report. To facilitate the collection of 

this information, FRA includes 

instructions in the FRA Guide and 

places two sets of ‘‘yes or no’’ options in 

block 53a; one for ‘‘video taken’’ and one 

for ‘‘video used.’’ This information 

provides FRA with knowledge of the 

availability of video footage for 

particular accidents/incidents; how 

often and to what degree railroads are 

collecting and reviewing video footage 

of these accidents/incidents; and make 

available to FRA an additional tool to 

study the causes and circumstances of 

these accident/incidents. Whether or 

not video footage was captured and 

reviewed for a particular accident/ 

incident may also serve as an indicator 

as to the accuracy of the railroad’s 

accident/incident report. For additional 

information on requirements related to 

locomotive event recorders, see 49 CFR 

229.135, ‘‘Event Recorders.’’ 

The final rule includes instructions 

that railroads should limit the use of the 

‘‘unknown’’ option in block 36, 

‘‘Crossing Warning Interconnected with 

Highway Signals’’ and block 37, 

‘‘Crossing Illuminated by Street Lights or 

Special Lights.’’ FRA has found that 

numerous completed Form FRA F 

6180.57 forms are submitted to the 

agency with ‘‘unknown,’’ marked in 

block numbers 36 and/or 37. Railroads 

have an obligation to submit accurate 

reports to FRA and may not simply 

mark ‘‘unknown’’ without investigating 

the matter. As such, block 36 requires 

that a railroad must only enter option 3, 

‘‘unknown,’’ after having first consulted 

with the signal department of the 

railroad responsible for track 

maintenance in an effort to obtain the 

information. In Block 37, the railroad 

must only enter option 3, ‘‘unknown’’ 

after the railroad has first made a 

diligent effort to discern the relevant 

lighting conditions in an effort to obtain 

the information, but still cannot make a 

determination. These limitations will 

increase the quality and accuracy of 

data the agency gathers related to 

highway-rail grade crossing accidents/ 

incidents by requiring railroads to make 

an effort to gather the information. 

In the NPRM, FRA requested 

comments and suggestions for any 

additional information that might be 

gathered on Form FRA F 6180.57, that 

would be useful in determining how 

and why highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents/incidents occur. This final 

rule makes several revisions to the FRA 

Guide specifically regarding Form FRA 

F 6180.57 based on the comments 

received, in addition to other changes 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Specifically, the final rule revises the 

FRA Guide to clarify that block 41’s 

‘‘other’’ designation should be selected 

for drivers who were shoved onto the 

track and who were then in a collision, 

so that the accident/incident may be 

described in the narrative section. The 

final rule also revises the FRA Guide 

regarding block 14 in order to clarify 

that the inclusion of a vehicle speed of 

0 mph when the form elsewhere 

indicates that the vehicle was moving 

over the crossing or around the gate is 

prohibited. The final rule also revises 

the FRA Guide by designating block 39 

(‘‘Highway user’s Gender’’) as a 

mandatory field, unless the gender is 

unknown as a result of the accident/ 

incident being a hit and run. The final 

rule also revises the FRA Guide by 

designating block 38 (Highway user’s 

Age) as a mandatory field, unless the 

highway user’s age is unknown as a 

result of the accident/incident being a 

hit and run. In addition, the final rule 

revises the FRA Guide by clarifying that 

block 6 seeks the time of the accident/ 

incident in the local time of the location 

where the accident/incident occurred 

(the time in the headquarters should not 

be used). 

One commenter asserted that some of 

the publicly-submitted comments 

regarding Form FRA F 6180.57 were 

improper because they were new and 

should be pursued in a separate 

rulemaking. However, interested parties 

had opportunities to address such 

comments during the hearing and in the 

second comment period. In addition, 

the interested parties were on notice 

that FRA was interested in receiving 

suggested changes to Form FRA F 

6180.57. The revisions to the FRA Guide 

regarding Form FRA F 6180.57 are a 

logical outgrowth of this notice. A 

commenter also requested that no 

additional fields be added to the form 

because any such additions would be 

unduly burdensome. However, the final 

rule does not add additional fields, and 

only clarifies the available selections for 

existing fields. 

FRA received the following other 

comments regarding proposed Form 

FRA F 6180.57 revisions that are not 

adopted in this final rule: 

• A commenter requested that FRA 

revise block 32 by adding a field to 

indicate whether there was a stop/yield 

sign at the highway-rail grade crossing, 

to determine whether such signs are 

effective. This final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because this data can be 

captured in the U.S. DOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. 

• A commenter requested that FRA 

eliminate the ‘‘Watchman’’ code in block 

32 because it is rarely used. The final 

rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because the ‘‘Watchman’’ code provides 

valuable safety data. 

• A commenter requested that FRA 

revise block 32 by adding a field to 

show whether the crossing warning was 

a pedestrian or vehicular warning 

device. The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because block 32 

sufficiently captures data relating to the 

type of crossing warning. 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 be revised to collect 

‘‘near miss’’ information. The final rule 

does not adopt this suggestion because 

it would be very difficult to obtain such 

information and it is overly 

burdensome. 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 require railroad carriers 

to submit up-to-date crossing 

information because the inventory is out 

of date. The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because § 204 of the 

Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 

2008, once implemented, imposes a 

mandatory inventory updating scheme 

for both States and railroads. 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture whether trains 

involved in highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents/incidents had retroreflective 

sheeting. The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because, in general, all 

trains will be required to have such 

retroreflective sheeting, capturing the 

data is overly burdensome, and it would 

be difficult to enforce. 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 be reconciled with the 

U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form, so 

that discrepancies between the forms 

would be flagged. The final rule does 

not adopt this suggestion because it is 

not germane to the substance of Form 

FRA F 6180.57, and FRA can check for 

mismatches in certain data fields 

between the Form FRA F 6180.57 and 

the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68897 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture the relevant 

police report number for reported 

accidents/incidents as well as the police 

department information. The final rule 

does not adopt this suggestion because 

it does not contribute material safety 

information to the Form, is overly 

burdensome, and is not supported by 

the November 28, 2005, report by the 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General, entitled, ‘‘Audit of 

Oversight of Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Accident Reporting, 

Investigations, and Safety Regulations,’’ 

Report No. MH–2006–016. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 require a narrative when 

‘‘other’’ is checked in a data field and 

when there is a collision resulting in a 

fatality. The final rule does not make 

any revisions to Form FRA F 6180.57 in 

response to this suggestion because the 

narrative is already mandatory in such 

cases. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture the total tonnage 

of trains involved in collisions. The 

final rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because such data does not contribute 

additional material safety information as 

the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form 

captures the number of trains that use 

the track. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture whether the 

train or the automatic warning device at 

the crossing had an event recorder. The 

final rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because such data does not contribute 

material safety information to the Form. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture annual track 

density and total train tonnage. The 

final rule does not adopt these 

suggestions because such data does not 

contribute material safety information to 

the Form. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture the relevant 

posted speed limit. The final rule does 

not adopt this suggestion because such 

data can be captured in the U.S. DOT 

National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture, with respect to 

collisions that occur at a private 

crossing, whether the crossing was 

located within the limits of a railroad 

yard and whether the collision involved 

an on-duty railroad employee or 

contractor. The final rule does not adopt 

this suggestion because such data does 

not contribute material safety 

information to the Form, there are few 

such accidents, and such information 

may be captured by the Form FRA F 

6180.55a if the accident resulted in an 

injury or a fatality. 

• A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture data regarding 

the quality and ‘‘rideability’’ of the 

surface of the highway-rail grade 

crossing at the time of the collision. The 

final rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because it is subjective, difficult data to 

capture, and overly burdensome. • A commenter requested that Form 

FRA F 6180.57 capture data regarding 

whether a sidewalk was available for 

non-motorized vehicles, the type of 

sidewalk, and whether the person used 

the sidewalk. The final rule does not 

adopt this suggestion because it is 

overly burdensome. • Lastly, a commenter requested that 

Form FRA F 6180.57 capture whether a 

traffic violation was issued. The final 

rule does not adopt this suggestion 

because such data does not contribute 

material safety information to the Form. FRA received another comment taking 

the position that some comments 

regarding Form FRA F 6180.57 are not 

proper because they are new and should 

be pursued in a separate rulemaking. 

The final rule does adopt some of the 

comments, as discussed above. 

Interested parties had an opportunity to 

respond during the hearing and in the 

second comment period. In addition, 

the interested parties were on notice 

that FRA was interested in receiving 

suggested changes to Form FRA F 

6180.57. Revisions to Form FRA F 

6180.57 and the FRA Guide are a logical 

outgrowth of this notice. FRA notes that the final rule makes 

many of the Form FRA F 6180.57 

revisions in response to a November 28, 

2005, report by the Department of 

Transportation’s Office of Inspector 

General, entitled, ‘‘Audit of Oversight of 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident 

Reporting, Investigations, and Safety 

Regulations, Report No. MH–2006–016. (9) Form FRA F 6180.107. FRA revises 

block 6 on Form FRA F 6180.107, 

‘‘Employee Number or Social Security 

Number’’ to ‘‘Employee Identification 

Number’’ to address privacy concerns. FRA revises block 23 on Form FRA F 

6180.107 ‘‘Date the Log Entry was 

Completed (mm/dd/yy)’’ to state ‘‘Date 

initially signed/completed.’’ FRA made 

this change to clarify that the block 

must contain the initial date the form 

was completed. FRA finds it necessary 

to make such change because the agency 

has found certain railroads do not retain 

the initial date a record was completed, 

but only the date of the most recent 

update to the record. FRA is making this 

revision to ensure that it can discern if 

the railroad entered each claimed 

occupational illness on the appropriate 

record no later than seven calendar days 

after receiving information or acquiring 

knowledge that an injury or illness or 

rail equipment accident/incident has 

occurred, as required in § 225.25(i)(2). 

FRA believes that by specifying the date 

required to be maintained on the record, 

any confusion regarding the 

requirement will be resolved. 

The final rule revises Questions and 

Answers section at the bottom of the 

form as the form no longer has a data 

element for an employee’s social 

security number. Rather, employee 

social security number has been 

replaced with field requesting the 

employee’s identification number. This 

is a clarifying amendment is meant to 

make the Questions and Answers 

section accurate and consistent with the 

changes to the form. 

(10) Form FRA F 6180.150. In the final 

rule, FRA included a draft of this form 

dealing with following up with 

potentially injured highway user 

involved in a highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incident. See FRA 

Guide, Chapters 10 and 6 of this final 

rule for further discussion. Form FRA F 

6180.150 was submitted to OMB for 

approval with the final rule and is still 

pending OMB approval; therefore, the 

railroads cannot use the form until it 

has been approved. FRA expects that 

prior to the delayed six month effective 

date, the form will be approved. 

(11) Form FRA F 6180.56. The final 

rule amends Block 6, State, by adding 

Hawaii to the list of States. Hawaii was 

mistakenly omitted. This is a technical 

amendment and should not create 

additional reporting requirements for 

the railroads. 

Appendix I, ‘‘Model Internal Control 

Plans, Including Model Statement of 

Policy against Harassment and 

Intimidation and Model Complaint 

Procedures.’’ 

The FRA Guide reorders the ICP 

components in Appendix I’s sample 

Internal Control Plan (ICP) to more 

closely model the listing of components 

as set forth in § 225.33. 

Appendix J, ‘‘Type of Territory Codes.’’ 

FRA adds an Appendix J to the FRA 

Guide, which provides Type of Territory 

Codes and instructions for the use of 

those codes when completing block 30, 

‘‘Type of Territory,’’ on Form FRA F 

6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report.’’ The codes represent 

type of territory (i.e., signaled territory 

versus non-signaled territory); the 

authority for movement (i.e., signal 

indication; mandatory directive; other 

than main track—Rule 105); and 

additional miscellaneous supplemental 

codes. See FRA Guide, Appendix H, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Forms’’ in this final rule for additional 

information. 

Appendix K, ‘‘Electronic Submission of 

Reports to FRA.’’ 

The FRA Guide adds Appendix K to 

specifically provide electronic 

submission instructions and guidance. 

Appendix L, ‘‘49 CFR part 225.’’ 

The FRA Guide includes in Appendix 

L the full regulatory text of part 225. 

Appendix M, ‘‘Telephonic Reporting 

Chart.’’ 

The FRA Guide revises the 

Telephonic Reporting Chart to correct 

an error. This clarification is intended to 

bring the chart into compliance with the 

rule text. Specifically, this change 

simply instructs the user to look at other 

reasons why telephone notification may 

be required regardless of whether the 

answer to the question—‘‘Was the 

fatality to Railroad Employee, 

Contractor on Railroad Property, 

Passenger, Highway User due to 

collision with railroad rolling stock?’’— 

is ‘‘No.’’ 

Appendix N, ‘‘Form FRA F 6180.150, 

‘‘Highway User Injury Inquiry Form,’’ 

Sample Cover Letter.’’ 

The final rule included a sample 

cover letter that the railroads could use 

to comply with the requirement that 

they send a Form FRA F 6180.150 and 

a cover letter to each potentially injured 

highway user involved in a highway-rail 

grade crossing accident/incident. The 

cover letter must be drafted and comply 

with the requirements outlined in 

§ 225.21 and the FRA Guide at Chapter 

10. 

With regard to the cover letter, the 

instructions contained in the final rule 

require that the letter contain the 

following: 

• An explanation of why the railroad 

is contacting the highway user; 

• An explanation of part 225 

accident/incident reporting 

requirements; 

• An explanation of how the form 

and any response will be used for part 

225 reporting requirements; 

• An explanation that the highway 

user is not required to respond; 

• An opportunity to correct incorrect 

information in Part I; 

• Identify and provide contact 

information for a person at the railroad 

who can answer questions with regard 

to the form; 

• Provide instructions on how to 

complete Part II; and, 

• An explanation of how any medical 

records or information will be handled. 

The cover letter and Form FRA F 

6180.150 are meant to be tools that 

allow the railroad to gather information 

and comply with part 225 accident/ 

incident reporting and recording 

requirements. As such, the railroad the 

cover letter should not require the 

highway user to provide any medical or 

personal information in order to report 

a casualty. Moreover, the cover letter 

and any communication for the 

purposes of part 225 should not 

reference claims process. 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures, and determined to be nonsignificant under both Executive Order 

12866 and DOT policies and 

procedures. 44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979. FRA has prepared and placed in 

the docket a regulatory evaluation 

addressing the economic impact of this 

final rule. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Docket material is also available for 

inspection on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Photocopies may 

also be obtained by submitting a written 

request to the FRA Docket Clerk at the 

Office of Chief Counsel, RCC–10, Mail 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

please refer to Docket No. FRA–2006– 

26173. 

The changes in this final rule would 

serve to simplify accident/incident 

reporting for railroads, ensure that 

railroad worker casualty statistics 

conform to the same criteria as statistics 

from other Federal agencies, and 

improve the quality of data available for 

analysis of railroad accidents and 

incidents. 

The amendments to part 225 will 

increase the accuracy, precision, 

completeness of railroad accidents/ 

incident records and reports, and 

correspondingly, FRA’s and the railroad 

industry’s information base related to 

accidents and incidents. This increased 

awareness will not only aid FRA in 

assessing and managing risk, but aid 

railroads, their employees, and other 

interested parties in recognizing and 

correcting dangerous conditions and 

practices in order to maintain a safe and 

healthy environment for railroad 

workers and the public. Moreover, FRA 

anticipates that requirements related to 

the collection of longitude and latitude 

data for trespasser accidents/incidents 

on Form FRA F6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad 

Injury and Illness Summary 

(Continuation Sheet)’’ will reduce 

trespasser casualties. In addition to the 

final revisions to its regulations 

contained in this notice, FRA is revising 

the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/ 

Incident Reports, certain accident/ 

incident recording and reporting forms, 

and the FRA Companion Guide: 

Guidelines for Submitting Accident/ 

Incident Reports by Alternative 

Methods. 

When quantifiable, FRA estimated 

costs and benefits for the twenty-year 

period immediately following 

implementation of this final rule. FRA 

estimated total, present discounted costs 

to equal approximately $5.5 million 

using a 3 percent discount rate and $3.9 

million using a 7 percent discount rate. 

Total, present discounted benefits are 

estimated to equal approximately $51 

million at a 3 percent discount rate and 

$32.2 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

The net present discounted benefits of 

the impacts quantified in this analysis 

equal approximately $45.5 million at a 

discount rate of 3 percent and $28.3 

million at a discount rate of 7 percent. 

FRA expects that the benefits flowing 

from this final rulemaking will surpass 

any additional costs imposed by the 

regulation. Most significant are benefits 

arising from the final rule’s requirement 

that longitude and latitude blocks on 

Form FRA F6180.55a be completed for 

trespassers. This requirement will 

ultimately result in fewer trespasser 

injuries and fatalities. Additional 

benefits will arise from consolidated 

reporting provisions, the easing of 

telephonic reporting requirements, and 

accident/incident reporting 

simplification. Lastly, FRA anticipates 

substantial but presently unquantifiable 

benefits flowing from more precise and 

complete accident/incident reporting 

data. Not only does the analysis of 

reported data provide information as to 

the cause of an accident/incident, this 

data can help determine trends, assess 

hazards, and assist in the development 

of effective countermeasures that may 

then be implemented to prevent similar 

accidents and incidents from occurring 

in the future. More precise and 

complete data will also help to identify 

where safety-oriented programs should 

be focused and aid railroads and FRA in 

setting priorities among inspection and 

safety improvement efforts. 

Accordingly, FRA is confident that such 

benefits, combined with those that were 

quantified, will more than justify 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68899 

8Note that FRA has not, unless specifically noted, 

updated the data used in this analysis from the 

Certification Statement for the NPRM. Adjustments 

were not made for this final certification because 

they would not significantly affect numerical 

estimates, would result in very few additional costs 

and would not change the outcome or results of the 

analysis. 

incurring the costs associated with 

implementation of the final rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 

Order 13272 (67 FR 53461; August 16, 

2002) require agency review of proposed 

and final rules to assess their impact on 

small entities. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities. An agency must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

unless it determines and certifies that a 

rule is not expected to have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

the FRA Administrator certifies that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Although a 

substantial number of small railroads 

will be affected by the rule, none of 

these entities will be significantly 

impacted. At the NPRM stage, FRA 

certified that the proposal would not 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

and requested comment on such 

certification as well all other aspects of 

the NPRM. Although many comments 

were received in response to the NPRM, 

no comments directly addressed the 

certification. In developing the final 

rule, FRA considered all comments 

received in response to the NPRM. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601 as including a small business 

concern that is independently owned 

and operated, and is not dominant in its 

field of operation. The U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

authority to regulate issues related to 

small businesses, and stipulates in its 

size standards that a ‘‘small entity’’ in 

the railroad industry is a for profit ‘‘linehaul railroad’’ that has fewer than 1,500 

employees, a ‘‘short line railroad’’ with 

fewer than 500 employees, or a 

‘‘commuter rail system’’ with annual 

receipts of less than seven million 

dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions 

and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part 121 subpart 

A. Additionally, section 601(5) defines 

as ‘‘small entities’’ governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts with 

populations less than 50,000. SBA’s 

‘‘size standards’’ may be altered by 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

SBA and in conjunction with public 

comment. Pursuant to that authority 

FRA has published a final statement of 

agency policy that formally establishes 

‘‘small entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as 

being railroads, contractors and 

hazardous materials shippers that meet 

the revenue requirements of a Class III 

railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1– 

1, which is $20 million or less in 

inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and 

commuter railroads or small 

governmental jurisdictions that serve 

populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 

24891, May 9, 2003, codified at 

Appendix C to 49 CFR part 209. The $20 

million limit is based on the Surface 

Transportation Board’s revenue 

threshold for a Class III railroad carrier. 

Railroad revenue is adjusted for 

inflation by applying a revenue deflator 

formula in accordance with 49 CFR 

1201.1–1. FRA is using this definition 

for this rulemaking. This final rule 

applies to railroads.8 There are 

approximately 665 small railroads that 

would be affected by this final rule. FRA 

anticipates that most of the recording 

and reporting burdens imposed by this 

regulation will be borne by railroads 

that are not considered small, due to the 

decreased likelihood that a small 

railroad will experience an accident/ 

incident necessitating such recording 

and/or reporting. For example, on 

average from 2005 through 2007, small 

railroads reported approximately 875 or 

nine percent of all reportable casualties, 

and only 294 or 10 percent of all 

reportable accidents/incidents. 

FRA also anticipates that the 

computer-related burdens will be borne 

by the larger railroads because the large 

railroads have chosen to retain their 

accident/incident records and reports 

electronically in their own systems. 

Large railroads also submit their 

accident/incident reports to FRA 

electronically via their own systems. 

Most small railroads complete their 

federally required accident/incident 

recordkeeping and reporting on a 

personal computer using FRA supplied 

Accident/Incident Report Generator 

(AIRG) software. This software allows 

railroads to send reports to FRA on a 

CD–ROM or to transmit the information 

to FRA over the Internet. FRA will send 

a free updated or new version of the 

AIRG software to any railroad that 

requests it. Other small railroads do not 

use a computer system for reporting. 

Accordingly, FRA does not anticipate 

that these burdens will be imposed on 

small entities. 

The factual basis for the certification 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, is 

that the total cost incurred is far less 

than one percent of the annual average 

revenue for small railroads 

(approximately $47,000 each in 2006 

(not discounted)). Total costs to small 

railroads due to this final regulation will 

be approximately $159 (not discounted) 

per railroad during the first year of the 

analysis. This burden is solely due to 

the time (3 hours each) for reporting 

officers to become acquainted with the 

revised FRA Guide. On an individual 

basis, FRA estimates that $159 is one 

percent or more of the annual operating 

revenues for less than one percent of all 

small railroads. FRA estimates the total 

cost for years 2 through 20 will be less 

than $100 for small railroads impacted 

(not discounted) per year, and that the 

small railroads will experience a 

positive net benefit for those years. 

Accordingly, FRA does not consider this 

impact to be significant. Nor does FRA 

anticipate that this regulation would 

result in long-term or short-term 

insolvency for any small railroad. 

C. Paperwork Statement—Accident/ 

Incident Reporting and Recordkeeping 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The sections that 

contain the new and current 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 

CFR Section—49 CFR Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden 

hours 

225.6—Consolidated Reporting—New Requirements—Written Request by RR.718 railroads .......... 4 requests ................ 40 hours ................. 160 

—Written agreements on subsidiaries .................................... 718 railroads .......... 4 agreements ........... 2 hours ................... 8 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR Section—49 CFR Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden 

hours 

—Notifications on changes to subsidiaries and amended 

written agreement.

718 railroads .......... 1 notification + 1 

agreement.

1 hr. + 1 hr ............. 2 

225.9—Telephone Reports—Certain Accidents/Incidents and 

Other Events.

718 railroads .......... 3,300 reports ............ 15 minutes .............. 825 

225.11—Reporting of Rail Equipment Accidents/Incidents 

(Form FRA F 6180.54).

718 railroads .......... 3,600 forms .............. 2 hours ................... 7,200 

225.12(a)—Form FRA F 6180.81—Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Reports—Human Factor.

718 railroads .......... 1,600 forms .............. 15 minutes .............. 400 

225.12(b)—Form FRA F 6180.78—Part I Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports (Human Factor).718 railroads .......... 1,000 notices + 

4,000 copies + 10 

copies.

10 minutes + 3 minutes.367 

225.12(c)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Joint Operations.

718 railroads .......... 100 requests ............ 20 minutes .............. 33 

225.12(d)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Late Identification.

718 railroads .......... 20 attachments + 20 

notices.

15 minutes .............. 10 

225.12(g)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Employee Supplement—Part II Form FRA 

F 6180.78.

718 railroads .......... 75 statements .......... 1.5 hours ................ 113 

225.12(g)(3)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Employee Confidential Letter.

RR Employees ....... 10 letters .................. 2 hours ................... 20 

225.13—Late Reports ............................................................. 718 railroads .......... 25 reports ................. 1 hour ..................... 25 

—Amended Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports .......... 718 railroads .......... 50 amended rpts/40 

copies.

1 hour + 3 minutes 52 

225.18—Alcohol or Drug Involvement .................................... 718 railroads .......... 80 reports ................. 30 minutes .............. 40 

—Appended Reports ............................................................... 718 railroads .......... 5 reports ................... 30 minutes .............. 3 

225.19—Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Reports—Form FRA F 6180.57.718 railroads .......... 2,880 forms .............. 2 hours ................... 5,760 

—Death, Injury, or Occupational Illness—(Form FRA F 

6180.55a).

718 railroads .......... 11,544 forms ............ 20 minutes .............. 3,848 

—Trespasser Fatalities (FRA F 6180.55a) ............................. 718 railroads .......... 486 forms ................. 50 minutes .............. 405 

—New Requirement—Suicide/Attempted Suicide Data (FRA 

F 6180.55a).

718 railroads .......... 608 forms ................. 65 minutes .............. 659 

225.21 Forms 

—Form FRA F 6180.55—Railroad Injury/Illness Summary .... 718 railroads .......... 8,616 forms .............. 10 minutes .............. 1,436 

—Form FRA F 6180.56—Railroad Annual Report of Man 

Hours by State.

718 railroads .......... 718 forms ................. 15 minutes .............. 180 

—Form FRA F 6180.98—Railroad Employee—Injury and/or 

Illness Record.

718 railroads .......... 18,900 forms ............ 1 hour ..................... 18,900 

—Form FRA F 6180.98—Copies ............................................ 718 railroads .......... 567 copies ................ 2 minutes ................ 19 

—Form FRA F 6180.97—Initial Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Record.718 railroads .......... 18,200 forms ............ 30 minutes .............. 9,100 

—New Requirement—Suicide/Attempted Suicide Narrative— 

Form FRA F 6180.97.

718 railroads .......... 1 form ....................... 30 minutes .............. 1 

—Form FRA F 6180.107—Alternate Record for Illnesses 

Claimed To Be Work Related.

718 railroads .......... 300 forms ................. 75 minutes .............. 375 

—Form FRA F 6180.39i—RR Accident Notification & Initial 

Investigation Report.

654 Class I & II RR/ 

55 Federal/State 

agencies/562 inspectors.

1,000 forms .............. 90 minutes .............. 1,500 

—New Requirement—Form FRA F 6180.150—Highway 

User Statement—Sent Out by RRs to Potentially Injured 

Individuals.

718 railroads .......... 950 forms ................. 50 minutes .............. 792 

—New Requirement—Form FRA F6180.150—Highway User 

Statement Return Responses by Persons.

950 possibly injured 

individuals.

665 forms ................. 45 minutes .............. 499 

225.25—Posting of Monthly Summary .................................... 718 railroads .......... 8,616 lists ................. 16 minutes .............. 2,298 

225.27—Retention of Records—FRA F 6180.98 (New Requirement).718 railroads .......... 18,900 records ......... 2 minutes ................ 630 

—Form FRA F 6180.107 ......................................................... 718 railroads .......... 300 records .............. 2 minutes ................ 10 

—Monthly List of Employee Injuries ........................................ 718 railroads .......... 8,616 records ........... 2 minutes ................ 288 

—Form FRA F 6180.97 records .............................................. 718 railroads .......... 18,200 records ......... 2 minutes ................ 607 

—Records required under section 225.12 .............................. 718 railroads .......... 2,675 records ........... 2 minutes ................ 89 

—New Requirement—Electronic Recordkeeping System Requirements and RR System Modifications.718 railroads .......... 18 systems ............... 120 hours ............... 2,160 

225.33—Internal Control Plans—Amended ............................ 718 railroads .......... 25 amendments ....... 14 hours ................. 350 

225.35—Access to Records and Reports—Lists .................... 15 railroads ............ 400 lists .................... 20 minutes .............. 133 

—Subsequent Years ............................................................... 4 railroads .............. 16 lists ...................... 20 minutes .............. 5 

225.37—Optical Media Transfers ............................................ 8 railroads .............. 200 transfers ............ 3 minutes ................ 10 

—Electronic Submissions—Form FRA F 6180.55 .................. 718 railroads .......... 2,400 forms .............. 3 minutes ................ 120 

225.6—Consolidated Reporting—New Requirements—Written Request by RR.718 railroads .......... 4 requests ................ 40 hours ................. 160 

—Written agreements on subsidiaries .................................... 718 railroads .......... 4 agreements ........... 2 hours ................... 8 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68901 

CFR Section—49 CFR Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden 

hours 

—Notifications on changes to subsidiaries and amended 

written agreement.

718 railroads .......... 1 notification + 1 

agreement.

1 hr. + 1 hr ............. 2 

225.9—Telephone Reports—Certain Accidents/Incidents and 

Other Events.

718 railroads .......... 3,300 reports ............ 15 minutes .............. 825 

225.11—Reporting of Rail Equipment Accidents/Incidents 

(Form FRA F 6180.54).

718 railroads .......... 3,600 forms .............. 2 hours ................... 7,200 

225.12(a)—Form FRA F 6180.81—Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Reports—Human Factor.

718 railroads .......... 1,600 forms .............. 15 minutes .............. 400 

225.12(b)—Form FRA F 6180.78—Part I Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports—(Human Factor).718 railroads .......... 1,000 notices + 

4,000 copies + 10 

copies.

10 minutes + 3 minutes.367 

225.12(c)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Joint Operations.

718 railroads .......... 100 requests ............ 20 minutes .............. 33 

225.12(d)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Late Identification.

718 railroads .......... 20 attachments + 20 

notices.

15 minutes .............. 10 

225.12(g)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Employee Supplement—Part II Form FRA 

F 6180.78.

718 railroads .......... 75 statements .......... 1.5 hours ................ 113 

225.12(g)(3)—Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports— 

Human Factor—Employee Confidential Letter.

RR Employees ....... 10 letters .................. 2 hours ................... 20 

225.13—Late Reports ............................................................. 718 railroads .......... 25 reports ................. 1 hour ..................... 25 

—Amended Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports .......... 718 railroads .......... 50 amended rpts/40 

copies.

1 hour + 3 minutes 52 

225.18—Alcohol or Drug Involvement .................................... 718 railroads .......... 80 reports ................. 30 minutes .............. 40 

—Appended Reports ............................................................... 718 railroads .......... 5 reports ................... 30 minutes .............. 3 

225.19—Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Reports—Form FRA F 6180.57.718 railroads .......... 2,880 forms .............. 2 hours ................... 5,760 

—Death, Injury, or Occupational Illness—(Form FRA F 

6180.55a).

718 railroads .......... 11,544 forms ............ 20 minutes .............. 3,848 

—Trespasser Fatalities (FRA F 6180.55a) ............................. 718 railroads .......... 486 forms ................. 50 minutes .............. 405 

—New Requirement—Suicide/Attempted Suicide Data(FRA 

F 6180.55a).

718 railroads .......... 608 forms ................. 65 minutes .............. 659 

225.21 Forms 

—Form FRA F 6180.55—Railroad Injury/Illness Summary .... 718 railroads .......... 8,616 forms .............. 10 minutes .............. 1,436 

—Form FRA F 6180.56—Railroad Annual Report of Man 

Hours by State.

718 railroads .......... 718 forms ................. 15 minutes .............. 180 

—Form FRA F 6180.98—Railroad Employee—Injury and/or 

Illness Record.

718 railroads .......... 18,900 forms ............ 1 hour ..................... 18,900 

—Form FRA F 6180.98—Copies ............................................ 718 railroads .......... 567 copies ................ 2 minutes ................ 19 

—Form FRA F 6180.97—Initial Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Record.718 railroads .......... 18,200 forms ............ 30 minutes .............. 9,100 

—New Requirement—Suicide/Attempted Suicide Narrative— 

Form FRA F 6180.97.

718 railroads .......... 1 form ....................... 30 minutes .............. 1 

—Form FRA F 6180.107—Alternate Record for Illnesses 

Claimed To Be Work Related.

718 railroads .......... 300 forms ................. 75 minutes .............. 375 

—Form FRA F 6180.39i—RR Accident Notification & Initial 

Investigation Report.

654 Class I & II RR/ 

55 Federal/State 

agencies/562 inspectors.

1,000 forms .............. 90 minutes .............. 1,500 

—New Requirement—Form FRA F 6180.150—Highway 

User Statement–Sent Out by RRs to Potentially Injured Individuals.

718 railroads .......... 950 forms ................. 50 minutes .............. 792 

—New Requirement—Form FRA F6180.150—Highway User 

Statement Return Responses by Persons.

950 possibly injured 

Individuals.

665 forms ................. 45 minutes .............. 499 

225.25—Posting of Monthly Summary .................................... 718 railroads .......... 8,616 lists ................. 16 minutes .............. 2,298 

225.27—Retention of Records—FRA F 6180.98 (New Requirement).718 railroads .......... 18,900 records ......... 2 minutes ................ 630 

—Form FRA F 6180.107 ......................................................... 718 railroads .......... 300 records .............. 2 minutes ................ 10 

—Monthly List of Employee Injuries ........................................ 718 railroads .......... 8,616 records ........... 2 minutes ................ 288 

—Form FRA F 6180.97 records .............................................. 718 railroads .......... 18,200 records ......... 2 minutes ................ 607 

—Records required under section 225.12 .............................. 718 railroads .......... 2,675 records ........... 2 minutes ................ 89 

—New Requirement—Electronic Recordkeeping System Requirements and RR System Modifications.718 railroads .......... 18 systems ............... 120 hours ............... 2,160 

225.33—Internal Control Plans—Amended ............................ 718 railroads .......... 25 amendments ....... 14 hours ................. 350 

225.35—Access to Records and Reports—Lists .................... 15 railroads ............ 400 lists .................... 20 minutes .............. 133 

—Subsequent Years ............................................................... 4 railroads .............. 16 lists ...................... 20 minutes .............. 5 

225.37—Optical Media Transfers ............................................ 8 railroads .............. 200 transfers ............ 3 minutes ................ 10 

—Electronic Submissions—Form FRA F 6180.55 .................. 718 railroads .......... 2,400 forms .............. 3 minutes ................ 120 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan at 202–493–6292 or Ms. 

Kimberly Toone at 202–493–6132 or via 

e-mail at the following addresses: 

Robert.Brogan@dot.gov; 

Kimberly.Toone@dot.gov. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

attn: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may 

also be sent via e-mail to the Office of 

Management and Budget at the 

following address: 

oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. 

FRA cannot impose a penalty on 

persons for violating information 

collection requirements which do not 

display a current OMB control number, 

if required. FRA intends to obtain 

current OMB control numbers for any 

new information collection 

requirements resulting from this 

rulemaking action prior to the effective 

date of this final rule. The OMB control 

number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Aug. 

10, 1999), which requires FRA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

government officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

Where a regulation has federalism 

implications and preempts State law, 

the agency seeks to consult with State 

and local officials in the process of 

developing the regulation. 

FRA has determined that this final 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among 

various levels of government. In 

addition, FRA has determined that this 

final rule will not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

AAJ commented that FRA should delete 

any language in the preamble regarding 

the preemption of State common law 

claims. AAJ stated that, contrary to the 

agency’s assertions, the Federal Railroad 

Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) does not 

authorize the preemption of State 

common law claims. AAJ claimed that 

FRA regulations have never lawfully 

preempted State law claims. The 

petition also stated that Congress 

reiterated its intent to preserve State tort 

claims against negligent railroads. 

Finally, AAJ argued that agency rules 

must clearly follow the FRSA’s limited 

preemption language, and that State 

common law should govern railroad 

safety issues. 

Although this final rule removes the 

preemption language previously 

contained in part 225, FRA notes that 

this part could have preemptive effect 

by the operation of law under the FRSA. 

See 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 

provides that States may not adopt or 

continue in effect any law, regulation, or 

order related to railroad safety or 

security that covers the subject matter of 

a regulation prescribed or issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially 

local safety or security hazard’’ 

exception to § 20106. 

In sum, FRA has analyzed this final 

rule in accordance with the principles 

and criteria contained in Executive 

Order 13132, and has determined that 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for this final rule is 

not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This rulemaking is 

purely domestic in nature and is not 

expected to affect trade opportunities 

for U.S. firms doing business overseas or 

for foreign firms doing business in the 

United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule in 

accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(FRA’s Procedures) (64 FR 28545; May 

26, 1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not a 

major FRA action (requiring the 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment) 

because it is categorically excluded from 

detailed environmental review pursuant 

to section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 

See 64 FR 28547; May 26, 1999. Section 

4(c)(20) reads as follows: 

Actions categorically excluded. Certain 

classes of FRA actions have been determined 

to be categorically excluded from the 

requirements of these Procedures as they do 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment. 

* * * The following classes of FRA actions 

are categorically excluded: * * * 

Promulgation of railroad safety rules and 

policy statements that do not result in 

significantly increased emissions or air or 

water pollutants or noise or increased traffic 

congestion in any mode of transportation. 

In accordance with section 4(c) and 

(e) of FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this final rule 

is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68903 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) [$140.8 million in 2010] in 

any 1 year, and before promulgating any 

final rule for which a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This final rule would not 

result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $140.8 million or more in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

H. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001. Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this final rule in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

I. Privacy Act 

Interested parties should be aware 

that anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any agency docket by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). To get more 

information on this matter and to view 

the Regulations.gov Privacy Notice go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

footer/privacyanduse.jsp. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 225 

Investigations, Penalties, Railroad 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA amends part 225 of 

chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code 

of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 225—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 225 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 

20107, 20901–02, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. 

■ 2. Section 225.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.1 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to provide 

the Federal Railroad Administration 

with accurate information concerning 

the hazards and risks that exist on the 

Nation’s railroads. FRA needs this 

information to effectively carry out its 

regulatory responsibilities under 49 

U.S.C. chapters 201–213. FRA also uses 

this information for determining 

comparative trends of railroad safety 

and to develop hazard elimination and 

risk reduction programs that focus on 

preventing railroad injuries and 

accidents. Any State may require 

railroads to submit to it copies of 

accident/incident and injury/illness 

reports filed with FRA under this part, 

for accidents/incidents and injuries/ 

illnesses which occur in that State. 

■ 3. Section 225.3 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 225.3 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Internal Control Plan 

requirements in § 225.33(a)(3) through 

(a)(11) do not apply to— 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 225.5 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding definitions for 

‘‘discernable cause,’’ ‘‘event or 

exposure,’’ ‘‘injury or illness,’’ ‘‘railroad 

carrier,’’ ‘‘significant aggravation of a 

pre-existing injury or illness,’’ and 

‘‘suicide data’’; 

■ b. By revising paragraphs (1) and (3) 

in the definition of ‘‘accident/incident’’; 

and 

■ c. By revising the definitions of 

‘‘accountable injury or illness,’’ 

‘‘accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident,’’ ‘‘event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad,’’ 

‘‘general reporting criteria,’’ ‘‘highwayrail grade crossing,’’ ‘‘new case,’’ 

‘‘qualified health care professional,’’ 

‘‘railroad,’’ ‘‘work environment,’’ and 

‘‘work-related.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 225.5 Definitions. 

As used in this part— 

Accident/incident means: 

(1) Any impact between railroad ontrack equipment and a highway user at 

a highway-rail grade crossing. The term 

‘‘highway user’’ includes automobiles, 

buses, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, 

farm vehicles, pedestrians, and all other 

modes of surface transportation 

motorized and un-motorized; 

* * * * * 

(3) Each death, injury, or occupational 

illness that is a new case and meets the 

general reporting criteria listed in 

§ 225.19(d)(1) through (d)(6) if an event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of a railroad is a discernable cause of the 

resulting condition or a discernable 

cause of a significant aggravation to a 

pre-existing injury or illness. The event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of a railroad need only be one of the 

discernable causes; it need not be the 

sole or predominant cause. 

Accountable injury or illness means 

any abnormal condition or disorder of a 

railroad employee that causes or 

requires the railroad employee to be 

examined or treated by a qualified 

health care professional, regardless of 

whether or not it meets the general 

reporting criteria listed in § 225.19(d)(1) 

through (d)(6), and the railroad 

employee claims that, or the railroad 

otherwise has knowledge that, an event 

or exposure arising from the operation 

of the railroad is a discernable cause of 

the abnormal condition or disorder. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Accountable rail equipment accident/ 

incident means 

(1) Any derailment regardless of 

whether or not it causes any damage or 

(2) Any collision, highway-rail grade 

crossing accident/incident, obstruction 

accident, other impact, fire or violent 

rupture, explosion-detonation, act of 

God, or other accident/incident 

involving the operation of railroad ontrack equipment (standing or moving) 

that results in damage to the railroad ontrack equipment (standing or moving), 

signals, track, track structures or 

roadbed and that damage impairs the 

functioning or safety of the railroad ontrack equipment (standing or moving), 

signals, track, track structures or 

roadbed. 

* * * * * 

Discernable cause means a causal 

factor capable of being recognized by 

the senses or the understanding. An 

event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad is a discernable 

cause of (i.e., discernably caused) an 

injury or illness if, considering the 

circumstances, it is more likely than not 

that the event or exposure is a cause of 

the injury or illness. The event or 

exposure arising from the operation of a 

railroad need not be a sole, predominant 

or significant cause of the injury or 

illness, so long as it is a cause (i.e., a 

contributing factor). 

* * * * * 

Event or exposure includes an 

incident, activity, or occurrence. 

Event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad means— 

(1) With respect to a person who is 

not an employee of the railroad: 

(i) A person who is on property 

owned, leased, maintained or operated 

by the railroad, an event or exposure 

that is related to the performance of the 

railroad’s rail transportation business; or 

(ii) A person who is not on property 

owned, leased, maintained or operated 

over by the railroad, an event or 

exposure directly resulting from one or 

more of the following railroad 

operations: 

(A) A train accident, a train incident, 

or a non-train incident involving the 

railroad; or 

(B) A release of a hazardous material 

from a railcar in the possession of the 

railroad or of another dangerous 

commodity that is related to the 

performance of the railroad’s rail 

transportation business. 

(2) With respect to a person who is an 

employee of the railroad, an event or 

exposure that is work-related. 

* * * * * 

General reporting criteria means the 

criteria listed in § 225.19(d)(1) through 

(6). 

Highway-rail grade crossing means: 

(1) A location where a public 

highway, road, or street, or a private 

roadway, including associated 

sidewalks, crosses one or more railroad 

tracks at grade; or 

(2) A location where a pathway 

explicitly authorized by a public 

authority or a railroad carrier that is 

dedicated for the use of non-vehicular 

traffic, including pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and others, that is not associated with 

a public highway, road, or street, or a 

private roadway, crosses one or more 

railroad tracks at grade. The term 

‘‘sidewalk’’ means that portion of a street 

between the curb line, or the lateral line 

of a roadway, and the adjacent property 

line or, on easements of private 

property, that portion of a street that is 

paved or improved and intended for use 

by pedestrians. 

Injury or illness means an abnormal 

condition or disorder. Injuries include 

cases such as, but not limited to, a cut, 

fracture, sprain, or amputation. Illnesses 

include both acute and chronic 

illnesses, such as but not limited to, a 

skin disease, respiratory disorder, or 

poisoning. A musculoskeletal disorder 

is also an injury or illness. Pain is an 

injury or illness when it is sufficiently 

severe to meet the general reporting 

criteria listed in § 225.19(d)(1) through 

(6). 

* * * * * 

New case means a case in which 

either the injured or ill person has not 

previously experienced a reported 

injury or illness of the same type that 

affects the same part of the body, or the 

injured or ill person previously 

experienced a reported injury or illness 

of the same type that affected the same 

part of the body but had recovered 

completely (all signs and/or symptoms 

disappeared) from the previous injury or 

illness, and an event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad 

discernably caused the signs and/or 

symptoms to reappear. 

* * * * * 

Qualified health care professional is a 

health care professional operating 

within the scope of his or her license, 

registration, or certification. In addition 

to licensed physicians, the term 

includes members of other occupations 

associated with patient care and 

treatment such as chiropractors, 

podiatrists, physicians assistants, 

psychologists, and dentists. 

Railroad means a railroad carrier. 

Railroad carrier means a person 

providing railroad transportation. 

* * * * * 

Significant aggravation of a preexisting injury or illness means 

aggravation of a pre-existing injury or 

illness that is discernably caused by an 

event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad that results in: 

(1) With respect to any person: 

(i) Death, provided that the preexisting injury or illness would likely 

not have resulted in death but for the 

event or exposure; 

(ii) Loss of consciousness, provided 

that the pre-existing injury or illness 

would likely not have resulted in loss of 

consciousness but for the event or 

exposure; or 

(iii) Medical treatment in a case where 

no medical treatment was needed for 

the injury or illness before the event or 

exposure, or a change in the course of 

medical treatment that was being 

provided before the event or exposure. 

(2) With respect to a railroad 

employee, one or more days away from 

work, or days of restricted work, or days 

of job transfer that otherwise would not 

have occurred but for the event or 

exposure. 

* * * * * 

Suicide data means data regarding the 

death of an individual due to the 

individual’s commission of suicide as 

determined by a coroner, public police 

officer or other public authority or 

injury to an individual due to that 

individual’s attempted commission of 

suicide as determined by a public police 

office or other public authority. Only 

the death of, or injury to, the individual 

who committed the suicidal act is 

suicide data. Therefore, casualties to a 

person caused by the suicidal act of 

another person are not considered 

suicide data. 

* * * * * 

Work environment means the 

establishment and other locations where 

one or more railroad employees are 

working or present as a condition of 

their employment. The work 

environment includes not only physical 

locations, but also the equipment or 

materials processed or used by an 

employee during the course of his or her 

work, and activities of a railroad 

employee associated with his or her 

work, whether on or off the railroad’s 

property. 

Work-related means related to an 

event or exposure occurring within the 

work environment. An injury or illness 

is presumed work-related if an event or 

exposure occurring in the work 

environment is a discernable cause of 

the resulting condition or a discernable 

cause of a significant aggravation to a 

pre-existing injury or illness. The causal 

event or exposure need not be 

peculiarly occupational so long as it 

occurs at work. For example, a causal 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68905 

event or exposure may be outside the 

employer’s control, such as a lightning 

strike; involve activities that occur at 

work but are not directly productive, 

such as horseplay; or involve activities 

that are not peculiar to work, such as 

walking on a level floor, bending down, 

climbing stairs or sneezing. Such 

activities, along with other normal body 

movements, are considered events. So 

long as the event or exposure occurred 

at work and is a discernable cause of the 

injury or illness, the injury or illness is 

work-related. It does not matter whether 

there are other or bigger causes as well, 

or that the activity at work is no 

different from actions performed outside 

work. If an injury is within the 

presumption of work-relatedness, the 

employer can rebut work-relatedness 

only by showing that the case falls 

within an exception listed in § 225.15. 

In cases where it is not obvious whether 

a precipitating event or exposure 

occurred at work or outside work, the 

employer must evaluate the employee’s 

work duties and environment and 

decide whether it is more likely than 

not that an event or exposure at work 

was at least one of the causes of the 

injury of the injury or illness. 

■ 5. Section 225.6 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.6 Consolidated reporting. 

A parent corporation may request in 

writing that FRA treat its commonly 

controlled railroad carriers, which 

operate as a single, seamless, integrated 

United States rail system, as a single 

railroad carrier for purposes of this part. 

(a) The written request must include 

the following: 

(1) A list of the subsidiary railroads 

controlled by the parent corporation; 

and 

(2) An explanation as to how the 

subsidiary railroads operate as a single, 

seamless, integrated United States 

railroad system. 

(b) The request must be sent to the 

FRA Docket Clerk, Federal Railroad 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, RCC–10, Mail Stop 10, 

West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31– 

109, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Each request 

received shall be acknowledged in 

writing. The acknowledgment shall 

contain the docket number assigned to 

the request and state the date the 

request was received. 

(c) FRA will notify the applicant 

parent corporation of the agency’s 

decision within 90 days of receipt of the 

application. 

(d) If FRA approves the request, the 

parent corporation must enter into a 

written agreement with FRA specifying 

which subsidiaries are included in its 

railroad system, agreeing to assume 

responsibility for compliance with this 

part for all named subsidiaries making 

up the system, and consenting to 

guarantee any monetary penalty 

assessments or other liabilities owed to 

the United States government that are 

incurred by the named subsidiaries for 

violating Federal accident/incident 

reporting requirements. Any change in 

the subsidiaries making up the railroad 

system requires immediate notification 

to FRA and execution of an amended 

agreement. Executed agreements will be 

published in the docket. 

■ 6. Section 225.7 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 225.7 Public examination and use of 

reports. 

(a) Accident/Incident reports made by 

railroads in compliance with these rules 

shall be available to the public in the 

manner prescribed by part 7 of this title. 

Accident/Incident reports may be 

inspected at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Safety, West 

Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Written requests for a copy of a report 

should be addressed to the Freedom of 

Information Act Coordinator, Office of 

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, RCC–10, Mail Stop 10, 

West Building 3rd Floor, Room W33– 

437, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, and be 

accompanied by the appropriate fee 

prescribed in part 7 of this title. To 

facilitate expedited handling, each 

request should be clearly marked ‘‘FOIA 

Request for Accident/Incident Report.’’ 

For additional information on 

submitting a FOIA request to FRA see 

FRA’s Web site at http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/us/foia. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 225.9 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to 

read as follows: 

§ 225.9 Telephonic reports of certain 

accidents/incidents and other events. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A fatality resulting from a train 

accident or train incident at a highwayrail grade crossing when death occurs 

within 24 hours of the accident/ 

incident; 

(iv) A train accident resulting in 

damage (based on a preliminary gross 

estimate) of $150,000 or more to railroad 

and nonrailroad property; or 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 225.11 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.11 Reporting of accidents/incidents. 

(a) Each railroad subject to this part 

shall submit to FRA a monthly report of 

all railroad accidents/incidents 

described below: 

(1) Highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents/incidents described in 

§ 225.19; 

(2) Rail equipment accidents/ 

incidents described in § 225.19; and 

(3) Death, injury and occupational 

illness accidents/incidents described in 

§ 225.19. 

(b) The report shall be made on the 

forms prescribed in § 225.21 in hard 

copy or, alternatively, by means of 

optical media or electronic submission 

via the Internet, as prescribed in 

§ 225.37, and shall be submitted within 

30 days after expiration of the month 

during which the accidents/incidents 

occurred. Reports shall be completed as 

required by the current FRA Guide. A 

copy of the FRA Guide may be obtained 

from the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Safety 

Analysis, RRS–22, Mail Stop 25 West 

Building 3rd Floor, Room W33–107, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 or downloaded 

from FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis 

Web site at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

officeofsafety/, and click on ‘‘Click Here 

for Changes in Railroad Accident/ 

Incident Recordkeeping and Reporting.’’ 

■ 9. Section 225.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.12 Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 

Reports alleging employee human factor as 

cause; Employee Human Factor 

Attachment; notice to employee; employee 

supplement. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) Information that the employee 

wishes to withhold from the railroad 

must not be included in this 

Supplement. If an employee wishes to 

provide confidential information to 

FRA, the employee should not use the 

Supplement form (part II of Form FRA 

F 6180.78, ‘‘Notice to Railroad Employee 

Involved in Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Attributed to Employee Human 

Factor; Employee Statement 

Supplementing Railroad Accident 

Report’’), but rather provide such 

confidential information by other 

means, such as a letter to the employee’s 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

collective bargaining representative, or 

to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Safety 

Analysis, RRS–22, Mail Stop 25 West 

Building 3rd Floor, Room W 33–306, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The letter 

should include the name of the railroad 

making the allegations, the date and 

place of the accident, and the rail 

equipment accident/incident number. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 225.15 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 225.15 Accidents/incidents not to be 

reported. 

The following accidents/incidents are 

not reportable: 

(a) With respect to persons other than 

railroad employees. A railroad is not to 

report injuries that occur at highway-rail 

grade crossings that do not involve the 

presence or operation of on-track 

equipment, or the presence of railroad 

employees then engaged in the 

operation of a railroad; 

(b) With respect to railroad employees 

on duty. A railroad is not to report the 

following injuries to or illnesses of a 

railroad employee as Worker on Duty— 

Employee (Class A), if any of the 

conditions in this paragraph (b) are met. 

(These exceptions apply only to Worker 

on Duty—Employee (Class A) and do 

not affect a railroad’s obligation to 

report these injuries and illnesses as 

other types of persons (Employee Not 

On Duty (Class B); Passenger on Trains 

(Class C); Nontrespassers-On Railroad 

Property (Class D); Trespassers (Class 

E)), or a railroad’s obligation to maintain 

a ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury/Illness 

Record’’ (Form FRA F 6180.98 or 

alternative railroad-designed form)). 

(1) The injury or illness occurred in 

or about living quarters and an event or 

exposure not arising from the operation 

of a railroad was the cause; 

(2) At the time of the injury or illness, 

the employee was present in the work 

environment as a member of the general 

public rather than as an employee; or 

(3) The injury or illness is caused by 

a motor vehicle accident and occurs on 

a company parking lot or company 

access road while the employee is 

commuting to or from work. 

(c) With respect to railroad employees 

on or off duty. A railroad is not to report 

the following injuries to or illnesses of 

a railroad employee, Worker on Duty— 

Employee (Class A) or Employee Not on 

Duty (Class B), if any of the following 

conditions in this paragraph (c) are met: 

(1) The injury or illness involves signs 

or symptoms that surface at work but 

result solely from a non-work-related 

event or exposure that occurs outside 

the work environment; 

(2) The injury or illness results solely 

from voluntary participation in a 

wellness program or in a medical, 

fitness, or recreational activity such as 

blood donation, physical examination, 

flu shot, exercise class, racquetball, or 

baseball; 

(3) The injury or illness is solely the 

result of an employee eating, drinking, 

or preparing food or drink for personal 

consumption. However, if the employee 

is made ill by ingesting food 

contaminated by workplace 

contaminants (such as lead), or gets food 

poisoning from food supplied by the 

employer, the case would be considered 

work-related and reported as either a 

Worker on Duty—Employee (Class A) or 

Employee Not on Duty (Class B) 

depending on the employees duty 

status; 

(4) The injury or illness is solely the 

result of an employee doing personal 

tasks (unrelated to their employment) at 

the establishment outside of the 

employee’s assigned working hours; 

(5) The injury or illness is solely the 

result of personal grooming, self 

medication for a non-work-related 

condition, or is intentionally selfinflicted (except that for FRA reporting 

purposes a railroad shall not exclude an 

accountable or reportable injury or 

illness that is the result of a suicide or 

attempted suicide); 

(6) The illness is the common cold or 

flu (Note: contagious diseases such as 

tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A, or 

plague are considered work-related if 

the employee is infected at work); or 

(7) The illness is a mental illness. 

Mental illness will not be considered 

work-related unless the employee 

voluntarily provides the employer with 

an opinion from a physician or other 

licensed health care professional with 

appropriate training and experience 

(psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric 

nurse practitioner, etc.) stating that the 

employee has a mental illness that is 

work-related. 

(d) With respect to contractors and 

volunteers. A railroad is not to report 

injuries to contractors and volunteers 

that are listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) 

of this section. For purposes of this 

paragraph only, an exception listed in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) referencing ‘‘work 

environment’’ is construed to mean for 

contractors and volunteers only, on 

property owned, leased, operated over 

or maintained by the railroad. 

(e) With respect to rail equipment 

accidents/incidents. A railroad is not to 

report rail equipment accidents/ 

incidents if the conditions in this 

paragraph are met. (This exception does 

not affect a railroad’s obligation to 

maintain records of accidents/incidents 

as required by § 225.25 (Form FRA F 

6180.97, ‘‘Initial Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Record’’)). 

(1) Cars derailed on industry tracks by 

non-railroad employees or non-railroad 

employee vandalism, providing there is 

no involvement of railroad employees; 

and 

(2) Damage to out of service cars 

resulting from high water or flooding 

(e.g., empties placed on a storage or 

repair track). This exception does not 

apply if such cars are placed into a 

moving consist and as a result of this 

damage a reportable rail equipment 

accident results. 

§ 225.17 [Amended] 

■ 11. Section 225.17 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d). 

■ 12. Section 225.18 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.18 Alcohol or drug involvement. 

(a) In preparing Form FRA F 6180.54, 

‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 

Report,’’ under this part, the railroad 

shall make such specific inquiry as may 

be reasonable under the circumstances 

into the possible involvement of alcohol 

or drug use or impairment in such 

accident or incident. If the railroad 

comes into possession of any 

information whatsoever, whether or not 

confirmed, concerning alleged alcohol 

or drug use or impairment by an 

employee who was involved in, or 

arguably could be said to have been 

involved in, the accident/incident, the 

railroad shall report such alleged use or 

impairment as provided in the current 

FRA Guide. If the railroad is in 

possession of such information but does 

not believe that alcohol or drug 

impairment was the primary or 

contributing cause of the accident/ 

incident, then the railroad shall include 

in the narrative statement of such report 

a brief explanation of the basis of such 

determination. 

(b) For any train accident within the 

requirement for post-accident testing 

under § 219.201 of this chapter, the 

railroad shall append to the Form FRA 

F 6180.54, ‘‘Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report,’’ any report required by 

49 CFR 219.209(b) (pertaining to failure 

to obtain samples for post-accident 

toxicological testing). 

(c) For any train or non-train incident, 

the railroad shall provide any available 

information concerning the possible 

involvement of alcohol or drug use or 

impairment in such accident or 

incident. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68907 

(d) In providing information required 

by this section, a railroad shall not 

disclose any information concerning use 

of controlled substances determined by 

the railroad’s Medical Review Officer to 

have been consistent with 49 CFR 

219.103. 

■ 13. Section 225.19 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.19 Primary groups of accidents/ 

incidents. 

* * * * * 

(d) Group III—Death, injury, or 

occupational illness. Each death, injury, 

or occupational illness that is a new 

case and meets the general reporting 

criteria listed in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (6) of this section shall be 

reported to FRA on Form FRA F 

6180.55a, ‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet)’’ if an 

event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad is a discernable 

cause of the resulting condition or a 

discernable cause of a significant 

aggravation to a pre-existing injury or 

illness. The event or exposure arising 

from the operation of a railroad need 

only be one of the discernable causes; it 

need not be the sole or predominant 

cause. The general injury/illness 

reporting criteria are as follows: 

(1) Death to any person; 

(2) Injury to any person that results in: 

(i) Medical treatment; 

(ii) Significant injury diagnosed by a 

physician or other licensed health care 

professional even if it does not result in 

death, medical treatment or loss of 

consciousness of any person; or 

(iii) Loss of consciousness; 

(3) Injury to a railroad employee that 

results in: 

(i) A day away from work; 

(ii) Restricted work activity or job 

transfer; or 

(iii) Significant injury diagnosed by a 

physician or other licensed health care 

professional even if it does not result in 

death, medical treatment, loss of 

consciousness, a day away from work, 

restricted work activity or job transfer of 

a railroad employee; 

(4) Occupational illness of a railroad 

employee that results in: 

(i) A day away from work; 

(ii) Restricted work activity or job 

transfer; 

(iii) Loss of consciousness; or 

(iv) Medical treatment; 

(5) Significant illness of a railroad 

employee diagnosed by a physician or 

other licensed health care professional 

even if it does not result in death, a day 

away from work, restricted work activity 

or job transfer, medical treatment, or 

loss of consciousness; 

(6) Illness or injury that: 

(i) Meets the application of any of the 

following specific case criteria: 

(A) Needlestick or sharps injury to a 

railroad employee; 

(B) Medical removal of a railroad 

employee; 

(C) Occupational hearing loss of a 

railroad employee; 

(D) Occupational tuberculosis of a 

railroad employee; 

(E) Musculoskeletal disorder of a 

railroad employee if this disorder is 

reportable under one or more of the 

general reporting criteria; or 

(ii) Is a covered data case. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 225.21 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (j) and adding paragraph (k) 

to read as follows: 

§ 225.21 Forms. 

The following forms and copies of the 

‘‘FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/ 

Incident Reports’’ may be obtained from 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Railroad Administration, Office 

of Safety Analysis, RRS–22, Mail Stop 

25 West Building 3rd Floor, Room W33– 

107, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 or downloaded 

from FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis 

Web site at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

officeofsafety/, and click on ‘‘Click Here 

for Changes in Railroad Accident/ 

Incident Recordkeeping and Reporting.’’ 

* * * * * 

(j) Form FRA F 6180.107—Alternative 

Record for Illnesses Claimed to be WorkRelated. Form FRA F 6180.107 or an 

alternative railroad-designed record may 

be used by a railroad in lieu of Form 

FRA F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee 

Injury and/or Illness Record’’ (described 

in paragraph (h) of this section), to 

record each illness claimed by an 

employee to be work-related that is 

reported to the railroad for which there 

is insufficient information for the 

railroad to determine whether the 

illness is work-related. This record shall 

be completed and retained in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in § 225.25 and § 225.27. 

(k) Form FRA F 6180.150—Highway 

User Injury Inquiry Form.—Form FRA F 

6180.150 shall be sent to every 

potentially injured highway user, or 

their representative, involved in a 

highway-rail grade crossing accident/ 

incident. If a highway user died as a 

result of the highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident, a railroad must not 

send this form to any person. The 

railroad shall hand deliver or send by 

first class mail the letter within a 

reasonable time period following the 

date of the highway-rail grade crossing 

accident/incident. The form shall be 

sent along with a cover letter and a 

prepaid preaddressed return envelope. 

The form and cover letter shall be 

completed in accordance with 

instructions contained in the current 

‘‘FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/ 

Incident Reports.’’ Any response from a 

highway user is voluntary and not 

mandatory. A railroad shall use any 

response from a highway user to comply 

with part 225’s accident/incident 

reporting and recording requirements. 

■ 15. Section 225.25 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(6) and 

(b)(28), (e)(28), and (i), and by adding 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 225.25 Recordkeeping. 

(a) Each railroad shall maintain either 

the Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record (Form FRA F 6180.98) or 

an alternative railroad-designed record 

as described in paragraph (b) of this 

section of all reportable and accountable 

injuries and illnesses of its employees 

for each railroad establishment where 

such employees report to work, 

including, but not limited to, an 

operating division, general office, and 

major installation such as a locomotive 

or car repair or construction facility. 

(b) * * * 

(6) Employee identification number; 

* * * * * 

(28) The railroad shall identify the 

preparer’s name; title; telephone 

number with area code; and the date the 

record was initially signed/completed. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(28) Date the record was initially 

signed/completed. 

* * * * * 

(i) Claimed Occupational Illnesses. (1) 

Each railroad may maintain a Form FRA 

F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Records for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related,’’ 

or an alternate railroad-designed record 

as described in paragraph (j) of this 

section, in place of Form FRA F 

6180.98, ‘‘Railroad Employee Injury 

and/or Illness Record,’’ only for those 

claimed occupational illnesses for 

which the railroad has not received 

information sufficient to determine 

whether the occupational illness is 

work-related. 

(2) Each railroad shall enter each 

illness claimed to be work-related on 

the appropriate record, as required by 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section, as early 

as practicable, but no later than seven 

working days after receiving 

information or acquiring knowledge that 

an employee is claiming they have 

incurred an occupational illness. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) When a railroad does not receive 

information sufficient to determine 

whether a claimed occupational illness 

case is accountable or reportable, the 

railroad shall make a good faith effort to 

obtain the necessary information by 

December 1 of the next calendar year. 

(4) Within 15 calendar days of 

receiving additional information 

regarding a claimed occupational illness 

case, each railroad shall document 

receipt of the information, including 

date received and type of document/ 

information received, in narrative block 

19 of Form FRA F 6180.107, 

‘‘Alternative Record for Illnesses 

Claimed to be Work-Related.’’ 

(5) Within 45 calendar days of 

receiving additional information 

regarding a claimed occupational 

illness, each railroad shall re-evaluate 

the claimed occupational illness to 

determine work-relatedness, taking into 

account the new information, and 

document any findings resulting from 

the re-evaluation in narrative block 19 

of Form FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative 

Record for Illnesses Claimed to be 

Work-Related.’’ 

(6) For any claimed occupational 

illness case determined to be 

accountable or reportable, each railroad 

shall: 

(i) Complete a Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record’’ or alternative railroaddesigned form within seven days of 

making such determination; 

(ii) Retain the Form FRA F 6180.98, 

‘‘Railroad Employee Injury and/or 

Illness Record,’’ in accordance with 

§ 225.27; and 

(iii) Report the occupational illness, 

as applicable, in accordance with 

§ 225.11. 

(7) For any claimed occupational 

illness case determined not to be 

accountable or reportable, each railroad 

shall include the following information 

in narrative block 19 of Form FRA F 

6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related’’ 

or alternative railroad-designed form: 

(i) Why the case does not meet 

reporting criteria; 

(ii) The basis upon which the railroad 

made this determination; and 

(iii) The most authoritative 

information the railroad relied upon to 

make the determination. 

(8) Although Form FRA 6180.107, 

‘‘Alternative Record for Illnesses 

Claimed to be Work-Related’’ (or the 

alternate railroad-designed form), may 

not include all supporting 

documentation, such as medical 

records, the alternative record shall note 

the custodian of those documents and 

where the supporting documents are 

located so that they are readily 

accessible to FRA upon request. 

(j) An alternative railroad-designed 

record may be used in lieu of the Form 

FRA F 6180.107, ‘‘Alternative Record for 

Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related.’’ 

Any such alternative record shall 

contain all of the information required 

on the Form FRA F 6180.107. Although 

this information may be displayed in a 

different order from that on Form FRA 

F 6180.107, the order of the information 

shall be consistent from one such record 

to another such record. The order 

chosen by the railroad shall be 

consistent for all of the railroad’s 

reporting establishments. Railroads may 

list additional information in the 

alternative record beyond the 

information required on Form FRA F 

6180.107. The alternative record shall 

contain, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(1) Name of Reporting Railroad; 

(2) Case/Incident Number; 

(3) Employee’s Name (first, middle, 

last); 

(4) Employee’s Date of Birth (mm/dd/ 

yy); 

(5) Employee’s Gender; 

(6) Employee Identification Number; 

(7) Date Employee was Hired (mm/ 

dd/yy); 

(8) Employee’s Home Address 

(include street address, city, State and 

Zip code); 

(9) Employee’s Home Telephone 

Number (with area code); 

(10) Name of Facility Where Railroad 

Employee Normally Reports to Work; 

(11) Location, or Last Know Facility, 

Where Employee Reports to Work; 

(12) Job Title of Railroad Employee; 

(13) Department to Which Employee 

is Assigned; 

(14) Date on Which Employee or 

Representative Notified Company 

Personnel of Condition (mm/dd/yy); 

(15) Name of Railroad Official 

Notified; 

(16) Title of Railroad Official Notified; 

(17) Nature of Claimed Illness; 

(18) Supporting Documentation; 

(19) Custodian of Documents (Name, 

Title, and Address); 

(20) Location of Supporting 

Documentation; 

(21) Narrative; 

(22) Preparer’s Name; 

(23) Preparer’s Title; 

(24) Preparer’s Telephone Number 

(with area code); and 

(25) Date the record was initially 

signed/completed (mm/dd/yy). 

■ 16. Section 225.27 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 225.27 Retention of records. 

(a)(1) Five-year retention period. Each 

railroad shall retain the following forms 

for at least five years after the end of the 

calendar year to which they relate: 

(i) Form FRA F 6180.98, ‘‘Railroad 

Employee Injury and/or Illness Record;’’ 

(ii) Form FRA F 6180.107, 

‘‘Alternative Record for Illnesses 

Claimed to be Work-Related;’’ 

(iii) Monthly List of Injuries and 

Illnesses required by § 225.25; and 

(iv) Form FRA F 6180.150, ‘‘Highway 

User Injury Inquiry Form.’’ 

(2) Two-year retention period. Each 

railroad shall retain the following forms 

for at least two years after the end of the 

calendar year to which they relate: 

(i) Form FRA F 6180.97, ‘‘Initial Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Record,’’ 

required by § 225.25; 

(ii) The Employee Human Factor 

Attachments (Form FRA F 6180.81, 

‘‘Employee Human Factor Attachment’’) 

required by § 225.12, that have been 

received by the railroad; 

(iii) The written notices to employees 

required by § 225.12 (Part I of Form FRA 

F 6180.78, ‘‘Notice to Railroad Employee 

Involved in Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Attributed to Employee Human 

Factor; Employee Statement 

Supplementing Railroad Accident 

Report’’), that have been received by the 

railroad; and 

(iv) The Employee Statements 

Supplementing Railroad Accident 

Reports described in § 225.12(g) (Part II 

of Form FRA F 6180.78, ‘‘Notice to 

Railroad Employee Involved in Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident 

Attributed to Employee Human Factor; 

Employee Statement Supplementing 

Railroad Accident Report’’), that have 

been received by the railroad. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each railroad shall retain the 

original hard copy of each completed 

and signed Form FRA F 6180.55, 

‘‘Railroad Injury and Illness Summary,’’ 

that the railroad submits to FRA on 

optical media (CD–ROM) or 

electronically via the Internet to 

aireports@frasafety.net for at least five 

years after the calendar year to which it 

relates. If the railroad opts to submit the 

report to FRA electronically via the 

internet, the railroad must also retain a 

hard copy print out of FRA’s electronic 

notice acknowledging receipt of the 

railroad’s submission for a period of five 

years after the calendar year to which 

the report acknowledged relates. 

(d) Railroads may retain accident/ 

incident records as required by 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in 

hard copy format or in electronic 

format. After October 31, 2011, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68909 

accident/incident records, retained by 

railroads as required by paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, in hard copy 

format or electronic format are subject to 

the following system requirements: 

(1) Design Requirements. Any 

electronic record keeping system used 

to retain a record required to be retained 

by this part shall meet the following 

design parameters: 

(i) The electronic record system shall 

be designed such that the integrity of 

each record is retained through 

appropriate levels of security such as 

recognition of an electronic signature, or 

other means, which uniquely identify 

the initiating person as the author of 

that record. No two persons shall have 

the same electronic identity; 

(ii) The electronic system shall ensure 

that each record cannot be modified, or 

replaced, once the record is submitted 

to FRA; 

(iii) Any amendment to a record shall 

be electronically stored apart from the 

record which it amends. Each 

amendment to a record shall uniquely 

identify the person making the 

amendment and the date the 

amendment was made; 

(iv) The electronic system shall 

provide for the maintenance of reports 

as originally submitted to FRA without 

corruption or loss of data; and 

(v) Policies and procedures must be in 

place to prevent persons from altering 

electronic records, or otherwise 

interfering with the electronic system. 

(2) Accessibility and availability. Any 

electronic record system used to create, 

maintain, or transfer a record required 

to be maintained by this part shall meet 

the following access and availability 

parameters: 

(i) Paper copies of electronic records 

and amendments to those records that 

may be necessary to document 

compliance with this part shall be 

provided to any representative of the 

FRA or of a State agency participating 

in investigative and/or surveillance 

activities under part 212 of this chapter 

or any other authorized representative 

for inspection and photocopying upon 

request in accordance with § 225.35; 

and 

(ii) Paper copies provided to FRA or 

of a State agency participating in 

investigative and/or surveillance 

activities under part 212 of this chapter 

or any other authorized representative 

shall be produced in a readable text 

format and all data shall be identified by 

narrative descriptions (e.g., ‘‘accident/ 

incident number,’’ ‘‘number of days 

away from work,’’ ‘‘date of occurrence,’’ 

etc.). 

■ 17. Section 225.33 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(11) to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.33 Internal Control Plans. 

(a) * * * 

(11) In the case of the Form FRA F 

6180.107 or the alternate railroaddesigned form, a statement that specifies 

the name(s), title(s) and address(es) of 

the custodian(s) of these records, all 

supporting documentation, such as 

medical records, and where the 

documents are located. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 225.37 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 225.37 Optical media transfer and 

electronic submission. 

(a) A railroad has the option of 

submitting the following reports, 

updates, and amendments by way of 

optical media (CD–ROM), or by means 

of electronic submission via the 

Internet: 

(1) The Rail Equipment Accident/ 

Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54); 

(2) The Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Form FRA F 6180.55); 

(3) The Railroad Injury and Illness 

Summary (Continuation Sheet) (Form 

FRA F 6180.55a); 

(4) The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 

6180.57); and 

(5) The Employee Human Factor 

Attachment (Form FRA F 6180.81) (the 

Employee Human Factor Attachment 

must be in .pdf or .jpg format only). 

(b) Each railroad utilizing the optical 

media option shall submit to FRA a 

computer CD–ROM containing the 

following: 

(1) An electronic image of the 

completed and signed hard copy of the 

Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Form FRA F 6180.55) in .pdf or .jpg 

format only; and 

(2) The completed accident/incident 

report submissions. 

(c) (1) Each railroad utilizing the 

electronic submission via the Internet 

option shall submit to FRA at 

aireports@frasafety.net: 

(i) An electronic image of the 

completed and signed hard copy of the 

Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 

(Form FRA F 6180.55) in .pdf or .jpg 

format only; and 

(ii) The completed accident/incident 

report submissions. 

(2) FRA will provide to the railroad an 

electronic notice acknowledging receipt 

of submissions filed electronically via 

the Internet. 

(d) Each railroad employing either the 

optical media or electronic submission 

via the Internet option, shall submit its 

monthly reporting data for the reports 

identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section in a year-to-date file format as 

described in the FRA Guide. 

(e) A railroad choosing to use optical 

media or electronic submission via the 

internet must use one of the approved 

formats specified in the Companion 

Guide. FRA will reject submissions that 

do not adhere to the required formats, 

which may result in the issuance of one 

or more civil penalty assessments 

against a railroad for failing to provide 

timely submissions of required reports 

as required by § 225.11. 

■ 19. Section 225.41 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 225.41 Suicide Data. 

FRA does not include suicide data (as 

defined in § 225.5) in its periodic 

summaries of data on the number of 

injuries and illnesses associated with 

railroad operations. FRA will maintain 

suicide data in a database that is not 

publicly accessible. Suicide data will 

not be available on FRA’s Web site for 

individual reports or downloads. 

Suicide data will be available to the 

public in aggregate format on FRA’s 

Web site and via requests under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

■ 20. Appendix A to part 225 is revised 

to read as follows: 

APPENDIX A TO PART 225—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES 1

Section 2 Violation Willful 

Violation 

225.6: Failure to comply with consolidated reporting requirements ............................................................................... $2,500 $5,000 

225.9: 

(1) Failure to report .................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000 

(2) Failure to immediately report .............................................................................................................................. 1,000 2,000 

(3) Failure to accurately report ................................................................................................................................. 1,000 2,000 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2
68910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX A TO PART 225—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES 1—Continued 

Section 2 Violation Willful 

Violation 

225.11: 

(1) Failure to report accident/incident ...................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(a) Highway-rail grade crossing.

(b) Rail Equipment.

(c) Death, Injury, or occupational illness.

(2) Report is incomplete ........................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

225.12: Failure to file Railroad Employee Human Factor form ...................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(a) Failure to file Railroad Employee Human Factor Attachment correctly: 

(1) Employee identified ..................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(2) No employee identified ................................................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000 

(b) 

(1) Failure to notify employee properly ............................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000 

(2) Notification of employee not involved in accident ....................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(c) Failure of employing railroad to provide requested information properly ........................................................... 1,000 2,000 

(d) 

(1) Failure to revise report ................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000 

(2) Failure to notify after late identification ....................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(f) Submission of notice if employee dies as result of the reported accident ......................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(g) Willfully false accident statement by employee .................................................................................................. .................... 5,000 

225.13: 

(1) Failure to Late reports ........................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000 

(2) Failure to Review Employee Statement ............................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000 

(3) Failure to Amend Report .................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

225.18: Alcohol or drug involvement ............................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

225.23: Joint operations .................................................................................................................................................. (1) (1) 

225.25: 

(1) Recordkeeping .................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(2) Failure to post list ............................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

(3) Posting Prohibited Information ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000 

(4) Missing fields ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

225.27: 

(1) Failure to retain records ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

(2) Failure to retain electronic receipt ...................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

(3) Failure to comply with electronic recordkeeping requirements .......................................................................... 1,000 2,000 

(4) Failure to provide access to records .................................................................................................................. 1,000 2,000 

225.33: 

(1) Failure to adopt Internal Control Plan or more than two missing/outdated/incorrect components .................... 2,500 5,000 

(2) Internal Control Plan with less than three missing/outdated/incorrect components .......................................... 1,000 2,000 

(3) Failure to comply with Internal Control Plan ...................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

(4) Failure to comply with the intimidation/harassment policy in Internal Control Plan ........................................... 2,500 5,000 

(5) Failure to comply with requirements associated with Form FRA F 6180.150 ................................................... 2,500 5,000 

225.35: Access to records and reports ........................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

1A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to 

$100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. A failure to comply with § 225.23 constitutes a violation of § 225.11. For purposes of §§ 225.25 and 225.27 of this part, each of the following constitutes a single act of noncompliance: (1) A missing 

or incomplete log entry for a particular employee’s injury or illness; or (2) a missing or incomplete log record for a particular rail equipment accident or incident. Each day a violation continues is a separate offense. 2The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR part 225. If more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given section, 

each item is also designated by a ‘‘penalty code,’’ which is used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may not correspond 

to any subsection designation(s). For convenience, penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if any. FRA reserves the 

right, should litigation become necessary, to substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined CFR and penalty code citation, 

should they differ. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 

2010. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27641 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES-PART 2