Retiring Form FRA F 6180.107 and Form FRA F 6180.150

Issuing agencies

Abstract

This rule retires Form FRA F 6180.107, "Alternative Record for Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related" (Form 6180.107), and Form FRA F 6180.150, "Highway User Injury Inquiry Form" (Form 6180.150). This rule also changes the record retention period required under FRA's accident reporting regulations and makes other technical corrections.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55771-55775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 225

[Docket No. FRA-2025-0124]
RIN 2130-AD59


Retiring Form FRA F 6180.107 and Form FRA F 6180.150

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule retires Form FRA F 6180.107, ``Alternative Record 
for Illnesses Claimed to be Work-Related'' (Form 6180.107), and Form 
FRA F 6180.150, ``Highway User Injury Inquiry Form'' (Form 6180.150). 
This rule also changes the record retention period required under FRA's 
accident reporting regulations and makes other technical corrections.

DATES: This rule is effective September 30, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Wissman, Railroad Safety 
Specialist, Part 225, FRA, telephone: 610-314-5729, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cca1a5afa4ada9a0e2bba5bfbfa1ada28ca8a3b8e2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee83878d868f8b82c099879d9d838f80ae8a819ac0898198">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney Adviser, 
FRA, telephone: 202-713-7671, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea3a7ada6afaba2e0bdbea7a0a0a7adada6a7af8eaaa1bae0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0964606a61686c65277a79606767606a6a616068496d667d276e667f">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity 
Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, 
Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 
``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 
10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 
49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are 
outdated and redundant.
    On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed retiring Form 6180.107 and Form 6180.150 and 
changed the record retention period for most accident reporting forms 
to three years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 90 FR 28651 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA received four comments. The Association of American Railroads 
(AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA) (in a joint comment) \2\ and Fort Worth & Western Railroad 
(FWWR) in a separate comment \3\ wrote in support of this NPRM. They 
contended that these forms are rarely used and that this rule would 
eliminate an unnecessary administrative burden that did not produce any 
safety benefit. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 
(BLET) \4\ and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, 
and Transportation Workers--Transportation Division (SMART-TD) \5\ 
(collectively, ``the labor organizations'') both submitted a comment 
opposing the NPRM. The labor organizations asserted that even if these 
forms are rarely used, they can

[[Page 55772]]

still provide important data, and the elimination of these forms could 
reduce the accuracy of the safety data FRA receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0005</a>.
    \3\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0003</a>.
    \4\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0002</a>.
    \5\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it 
proposed in the NPRM. FRA discusses these comments further in the 
Section-by-Section Analysis.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 225.21 Forms; Section 225.25 Recordkeeping

    In the NPRM, FRA proposed retiring Form 6180.107 which is an 
alternate form railroads can use to record illnesses that are claimed 
by an employee to be work-related, but where there is insufficient 
information for the railroad to determine work-relatedness. AAR, 
ASLRRA, and FWWR supported FRA retiring this form. They all commented 
that retiring this form would reduce redundancy and they agreed with 
FRA that the form had not achieved its desired goals as it is rarely 
used.\6\ They also noted that under 49 CFR 225.21(h), railroads are 
allowed to use alternative designed forms from the Form FRA F 6180.98, 
``Railroad Employee Injury and/or Illness Record'' (Form 6180.98). 
Therefore, if a railroad wanted to use Form 6180.107 after the form is 
retired, it could create a form that is designed like the Form 
6180.107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0003</a>; 
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0005</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, both BLET and SMART-TD opposed retiring this form. 
BLET asserted that even if the form is rarely used, there is no 
rationale for removing an option for workers to document injuries and 
illnesses, and in doing so, this proposed change would reduce the 
accuracy and reliability of FRA safety data.\7\ BLET also contended 
that if FRA intends to permit the use of railroad-designed forms in 
lieu of Form 6180.107, it should maintain the regulatory text found in 
49 CFR 225.21(j) and 225.25(i) and (j) to facilitate such reporting. 
SMART-TD asserted that the low use of this form does not equate to a 
lack of value and is more likely due to railroad resistance or a lack 
of training about this form.\8\ In addition, SMART-TD lauded Form 
6180.107 as a neutral way to record illnesses where work-relatedness is 
undetermined and to preserve an auditable trail for FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0002</a>.
    \8\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0124-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA finds the labor organizations' arguments unconvincing. As FRA 
noted in the NPRM and AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR mentioned in their 
comments, if railroads find Form 6180.107 helpful with their accident 
reporting, they are welcome to continue using a variation of this form 
even after it is retired. Although some railroads may continue to use a 
variation of Form 6180.107 after this final rule goes into effect, the 
fact that one railroad and two associations representing railroads 
commented in support of retiring this form is illustrative. Further, 
after this final rule goes into effect, if railroads wish to refer to 
the regulatory text addressing Form 6180.107 (49 CFR 225.21(j) and 
225.25(i) and (j)), as BLET suggested, they can find this language in 
previous versions of the CFR. FRA sees no reason to maintain regulatory 
text for a form the agency is retiring.
    Next, BLET's contention that this change reduces the accuracy and 
reliability of FRA safety data is not supported by any evidence. With 
respect to SMART-TD's comment that this form preserves an auditable 
trail for FRA, FRA's part 225 audit team has found that because this 
form has more onerous requirements (as described in 49 CFR 225.25(i)) 
than the Form 6180.98, it is rarely used by railroads. Thus, the Form 
6180.107 has minimal value during part 225 audits and retirement of the 
form is warranted. Although SMART-TD's comment that the low use of this 
form is more likely due to railroad resistance or lack of training, 
unless FRA were to mandate the use of this form, any railroad 
resistance to this form would be difficult to overcome. As FRA has 
found very limited benefits to this form, the agency sees no reason to 
mandate its use or to apply resources towards training railroads about 
this form.
    FRA also proposed retiring Form 6180.150, which railroads are 
required to send to highway users that are potentially injured in 
highway-rail grade crossing accidents. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR supported 
retiring this form. They agreed with FRA that the purported goals of 
this form (making it easier for railroads to determine whether a 
highway user incurred a reportable injury) have not been attained. AAR 
and ASLRRA noted that their member railroads advised them that they 
very rarely, if ever, receive a response from the highway user. AAR, 
ASLRRA, and FWWR stated that this form does not provide any safety 
benefit and retiring the form will reduce paperwork and administrative 
burdens for railroads.
    Both BLET and SMART-TD opposed retiring this form. BLET asserted 
that even if only one percent of highway users return the form, that 
one percent is providing valuable safety information. BLET also alleged 
that FRA has not provided any evidence that these forms are overly 
burdensome or provide inaccurate data, and the labor organization would 
discuss with FRA additional ways to capture more data. SMART-TD 
commented that Form 6180.150 ensures railroads make diligent efforts 
when making reportability determinations and that FRA should modernize 
how highway users can access and submit the form. Specifically, SMART-
TD asserted that FRA should allow highway users to access the form 
through a Quick Response code, have fillable web forms, and submit the 
form electronically. In addition, the form should be multilingual and 
railroads should have to document their outreach attempts and report 
them to FRA. SMART-TD alleged that eliminating this form will make it 
more difficult to hold railroads accountable for highway-rail grade 
crossing accidents.
    After reviewing the comments on FRA's proposal to retire Form 
6180.150, FRA determined retiring this form is warranted. AAR, ASLRRA, 
and FWWR all supported FRA's argument in the NPRM that this form is 
rarely returned by highway users and the labor organizations did not 
dispute this contention. BLET asserted that despite a low response 
rate, such forms provide valuable safety information, but FRA must be 
mindful of the burden it places on railroads and the safety benefit 
that results from such burden. Currently, railroads must hand deliver, 
or send by first class mail, this form to every potentially injured 
highway user, or their representative, involved in a highway-rail grade 
crossing accident. Railroads must also maintain records of their 
efforts to contact highway users. This represents a significant burden 
for railroads with very little safety benefit. During part 225 audits, 
FRA representatives have reviewed some of the forms that highway users 
returned and based on that review, FRA has determined that even when 
these forms are returned, they do not provide a substantial enough 
safety benefit to warrant the continued burden on the railroads.
    SMART-TD suggested that instead of eliminating this form, FRA 
should modernize the form by allowing highway users to complete the 
form electronically and making the form multilingual. FRA is unaware of 
any evidence that such changes would lead to a significant increase in 
returned forms. FRA would also have to expend substantial resources 
towards

[[Page 55773]]

modernizing this form and making it multilingual. Without any 
confidence that such efforts would provide a tangible safety benefit, 
the agency declines to proceed in this manner. FRA is also unpersuaded 
by SMART-TD's argument that eliminating this form will make it more 
difficult to hold railroads accountable for highway-rail grade crossing 
accidents. Even after the Form 6180.150 is retired, railroads will 
still be required to report any highway-rail grade crossing accident on 
Form FRA F 6180.57, ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 
Report.'' Therefore, it is unclear how this change will harm railroad 
accountability.
    FRA also received general comments both in support of and in 
opposition to retiring these forms. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR stated that 
retiring these forms is consistent with the President's deregulatory 
agenda as it reduces unnecessary administrative burdens that do not 
produce any safety benefits. FRA agrees and is proceeding with retiring 
these forms.
    SMART-TD expressed concern that these proposed changes will give 
railroads more control over the content and format of their forms which 
may lead to the suppression of information that FRA and workers rely 
upon. The labor organization also stated that this will degrade the 
ability to compare part 225 data across railroads which will adversely 
affect trend analysis, research, rulemaking efforts, and worker safety. 
SMART-TD contended that while the NPRM overstated the cost savings of 
these proposed changes, it also failed to consider the costs that will 
accrue from eliminating these forms due to underreporting of accidents, 
litigation exposure, and delays to hazard abatement.
    FRA disagrees that these changes will give railroads more control 
over the content and format of their forms because this rule is simply 
eliminating two forms; it is not providing railroads greater discretion 
with respect to the forms they use. Since most railroads were not using 
Form 6180.107, the only change for most railroads will be not having to 
send Form 6180.150 to highway users, but this will have no bearing on 
the ``content and format'' of the other forms the railroads still use. 
FRA also finds SMART-TD's argument that this will degrade the ability 
to compare part 225 data across railroads unavailing for two reasons. 
First, railroads were not required to submit these two forms to FRA; 
thus, FRA was typically only privy to the data in these forms during 
audits where FRA's main purpose in reviewing the forms was to ensure 
compliance with part 225, not to use the data for research purposes or 
trend analysis. Second, since Form 6180.107 was rarely used and Form 
6180.150 was rarely returned by highway users, these forms provided 
minimal data. Thus, retiring these forms will have minimal costs, and 
SMART-TD's claim that there will be an adverse effect on safety is 
unsupported. Even though SMART-TD argued that FRA overstated the cost 
savings, AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR all agreed with FRA that these forms 
impose administrative burdens on railroads and their elimination will 
lower costs for railroads.
    Lastly, SMART-TD argued that retiring these forms will shift a 
railroad's burden from completing these forms to performing ad hoc 
correspondence and follow-up. Instead of retiring these forms, SMART-TD 
seemed to suggest FRA should impose more stringent requirements if a 
railroad chooses to use an alternative-designed form. In particular, 
SMART-TD stated FRA should only allow alternative-designed forms if the 
railroad could demonstrate equal or better response rates and data 
completeness compared to the FRA forms. FRA does not agree that 
retiring these forms will lead to railroads spending more time 
performing ad hoc correspondence and follow-up, but even if that was 
true, this additional time spent would pale in comparison to the time 
railroads will save by not filling out these forms and not mailing the 
Form 6180.150 to highway users. If this rule was likely to increase the 
paperwork and administrative burden on railroads, it is unlikely AAR, 
ASLRRA, and FWWR would have submitted comments in support of this rule. 
Since FRA is proceeding with retiring these forms, it is not adopting 
SMART-TD's suggestion of imposing more stringent requirements on 
alternative versions of these forms. Thus, FRA amends Sec. Sec.  225.21 
and 225.25 as proposed.

Section 225.27 Retention of Records

    In the NPRM, FRA proposed creating a three-year retention period 
for all forms listed in paragraph (a) of this section. SMART-TD 
asserted that shortening the retention period will increase the burden 
on small contractors and short line railroads who must navigate non-
uniform carrier demands while still satisfying FRA audits. SMART-TD 
requested that FRA keep the retention period at five years for illness/
injury and human factor records. FRA is unclear how this change will 
increase the burden on small contractors and short line railroads as 
SMART-TD did not elaborate on this claim. ASLRRA, who represents short 
line railroads, did not raise this concern in its comment, and if any 
railroad finds a shorter record retention period will somehow increase 
its administrative burden, that railroad can always choose to retain 
its records longer than the FRA-imposed minimum requirement. In 
response to SMART-TD's request that FRA keep the retention period at 
five years for certain forms, FRA notes that this final rule increases 
the retention period for human factor forms from two years to three 
years.\9\ As for illness/injury forms, SMART-TD did not provide any 
explanation for why these forms should be retained for five years. FRA 
finds this burden unnecessary as a retention period of three years is 
sufficient to meet FRA's audit needs. Thus, FRA amends Sec.  225.27 as 
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 49 CFR 225.27(a)(2)(ii)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 225.33 Internal Control Plans

    Since FRA proposed retiring Form 6180.107, and paragraph (a)(11) of 
this section pertains to that form, FRA proposed removing this 
paragraph. SMART-TD commented that FRA should keep this paragraph to 
maintain clear accountability for contested illness records and it 
should update the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports 
``to reinforce the neutral status and required content for contested-
illness documentation.'' Because FRA is proceeding with retiring Form 
6180.107, there is no need to adopt these suggestions from SMART-TD. 
Thus, FRA amends Sec.  225.33 as proposed.
    Lastly, FRA will revise the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/
Incident Reports in accordance with the changes to part 225 finalized 
in this rulemaking.

III. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.\10\ The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
determined that this final rule is not a

[[Page 55774]]

significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 CFR part 5; see also DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and 
Procedures for Rulemakings, available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-order-21006b-policies-and-procedures-rulemakings">https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-order-21006b-policies-and-procedures-rulemakings</a>; DOT Order 2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon 
Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, 
Programs, and Activities, available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs">https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this rule and 
considered comments from the public. FRA concluded that this rule may 
impart minimal additional burden on regulated entities, but overall 
would provide greater relief to railroads. Regulated entities may see a 
minimal increased burden to retain certain forms for an additional year 
under the final rule. However, those same entities would also see a 
decreased burden by other forms that have a shorter retention period 
(three years instead of five years). FRA expects any potential 
additional burden to be outweighed by the benefits of this final rule, 
and therefore estimates the rule to be overall cost beneficial. Because 
this rule would retire two FRA forms and change the retention period 
under Sec.  225.27(a), this rule would provide qualitative benefits by 
requiring regulated entities to complete fewer forms and require less 
storage and retention. This rule will also provide flexibility by 
clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of part 225.

B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

    E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires 
that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten 
prior regulations be identified for elimination.'' \11\ Implementation 
guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 
2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 
deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of 
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
    \12\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, 
Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' Memorandum M-
25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that 
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This 
rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and 
therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon 
issuance of this rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\13\ 
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory 
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any 
significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and 
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these 
businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and 
are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the 
head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. This rule may impart minimal additional burden under 
part 225 to some railroads, but overall would provide greater relief to 
railroads. This rule offers flexibilities that would result in cost 
savings. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, 
including small entities, will experience a cost savings.
    A commenter mentioned that Form 6180.107 provides a neutral way to 
record illnesses claimed as work-related when work-relatedness is 
undetermined, especially for the short line railroads (which may be 
considered small entities). FRA restates that this rule reduces 
redundancy because under Sec.  225.21(h), railroads are allowed to use 
alternative designed forms from the Form 6180.98. Therefore, if a 
railroad wanted to use Form 6180.107 after the form is retired, it 
could create a form that is designed like the Form 6180.107.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble and elsewhere in this rule, 
while some small entities may be impacted by this final rule, FRA does 
not anticipate any of the impacts to be significant. Consequently, FRA 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq., FRA is seeking approval from OMB to revise the 
information collection estimates in previously approved OMB Control 
Number 2130-0500, corresponding to part 225. On December 5, 2023, OMB 
approved FRA's last information collection request (ICR) corresponding 
to part 225, containing 30,284 burden hours.
    With this final rule, the paperwork burden in 49 CFR part 225, by 
retiring Form 6180.107 and Form 6180.150, will reduce the currently 
approved total burden of 30,284 by 877 hours for a revised estimate of 
29,407 hours.
    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 Ms. Joanne Swafford, 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b41444a45454e05585c4a4d4d44594f6b4f445f054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f9fcf2fdfdf6bde0e4f2f5f5fce1f7d3f7fce7bdf4fce5">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or telephone: 757-897-9908.
    OMB is required to notify the agency involved of its decision on 
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 of 
this document. FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for 
violating information collection requirements that do not display a 
current OMB control number, if required.

E. Environmental Assessment

    FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is 
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This 
rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, 
and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in 
connection with this rulemaking.

F. Federalism Implications

    This final rule will not have a substantial effect 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism 
(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is 
not warranted.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the 
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one 
year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private 
sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2

[[Page 55775]]

U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement 
detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

H. Energy Impact

    E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for 
any ``significant energy action.'' \14\ FRA has evaluated this final 
rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule 
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of E.O. 
13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. E.O. 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final 
rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian 
Tribal Governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the 
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a 
tribal summary impact statement is not required.

J. 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 final rule 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.

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--RAILROAD ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS: REPORTS CLASSIFICATION AND 
INVESTIGATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901-20902, 
21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.


0
2. Revise Sec.  225.3(b) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  225.3   Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) The Internal Control Plan requirements in Sec.  225.33(a)(3) 
through (a)(10) do not apply to:
* * * * *


Sec.  225.21  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  225.21 by removing paragraphs (j) and (k).


Sec.  225.25  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  225.25 by removing paragraphs (i) and (j).

0
5. Revise Sec.  225.27(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  225.27   Retention of records.

    (a) Each railroad shall retain all of the following records for at 
least three years after the end of the calendar year to which they 
relate:
    (1) Form FRA F 6180.98, ``Railroad Employee Injury and/or Illness 
Record.''
    (2) Monthly List of Injuries and Illnesses required by Sec.  
225.25.
    (3) Form FRA F 6180.97, ``Initial Rail Equipment Accident/Incident 
Record'' required by Sec.  225.25.
    (4) The Employee Human Factor Attachments (Form FRA F 6180.81, 
``Employee Human Factor Attachment'') required by Sec.  225.12, that 
have been received by the railroad.
    (5) The written notices to employees required by Sec.  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.
    (6) The employee statements supplementing railroad accident reports 
described in Sec.  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.
* * * * *


Sec.  225.33  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  225.33 by removing paragraph (a)(11).

0
7. Revise Sec.  225.35(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  225.35   Access to records and reports.

* * * * *
    (b) Each railroad subject to this part shall also provide to any 
representative of the Federal Railroad Administration or of a State 
agency participating in investigative and surveillance activities under 
part 212 of this chapter or any other authorized representative access 
to relevant medical and claims records for examination and photocopying 
in a reasonable manner during normal business hours. Such 
representatives shall display proper credentials when requested. Each 
railroad shall identify the locations where a copy of any record and 
report required under this part is accessible for inspection and 
photocopying by maintaining a list of such establishment locations at 
the office where the railroad's reporting officer conducts his or her 
official business. A copy of any record and report required under this 
part shall be accessible within four business hours after the request. 
FRA will not assess a monetary penalty against the railroad for its 
failure to provide the requested documentation when circumstances 
outside the railroad's control preclude it from fulfilling the four-
business-hour time limit and the railroad has made a reasonable effort 
to correct the problem. Should a railroad assert a legal privilege with 
respect to certain claims and medical records, failure to provide FRA 
access to such records would not constitute a violation of this 
section. FRA retains the right to issue a subpoena to obtain such 
records under 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  20107 and 20902 and Sec. Sec.  
209.7(a) and 225.31(a)(2) of this title, and the railroad may contest 
that subpoena.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-17790 Filed 8-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>