Rule2026-17791
Miscellaneous Amendments to FRA's Accident Reporting Regulations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 31, 2026
Effective
September 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration
Abstract
This rule makes miscellaneous amendments to FRA's accident reporting regulations. Specifically, these amendments promote submitting documents to FRA electronically, eliminate redundant regulations, and allow railroads with additional time to complete certain forms.
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 55767-55771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17791]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 225
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0123]
RIN 2130-AD58
Miscellaneous Amendments to FRA's Accident Reporting Regulations
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes miscellaneous amendments to FRA's accident
reporting regulations. Specifically, these amendments promote
submitting documents to FRA electronically, eliminate redundant
regulations, and allow railroads with additional time to complete
certain forms.
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#a5c8ccc6cdc4c0c98bd2ccd6d6c8c4cbe5c1cad18bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf1f5fff4fdf9f0b2ebf5efeff1fdf2dcf8f3e8b2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney Adviser,
FRA, telephone: 202-713-7671, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98f5f1fbf0f9fdf4b6ebe8f1f6f6f1fbfbf0f1f9d8fcf7ecb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e33373d363f3b32702d2e373030373d3d36373f1e3a312a70393128">[email 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 updating requirements that are
outdated.
On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed miscellaneous amendments to FRA's accident
reporting regulations which included promoting the submission of
documents to FRA electronically, eliminating redundant regulations, and
allowing railroads additional time to complete certain forms.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 28654 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA received four comments. An individual commenter commended FRA
for promoting the electronic submission of documents, removing
redundant regulations, and providing railroads with more time to
complete certain forms to ensure comprehensive accident reporting.\2\
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET),\3\ the
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation
Workers--Transportation Division (SMART-TD),\4\ and the Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) \5\ (collectively, ``the labor
organizations'') each submitted a comment opposing the NPRM. The labor
organizations expressed concerns that the changes proffered in the NPRM
would reduce transparency and cause confusion without providing a
safety benefit. They also alleged that giving railroads additional time
to complete certain accident reporting forms would lead to the forms
being less accurate which would harm safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0002</a>.
\3\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0003</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0005</a>.
\5\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0004</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
Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as
proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section
Analysis for extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.
Section 225.5 Definitions
In the NPRM, FRA stated that the definitions of ``railroad'' and
``railroad carrier'' are duplicative and proposed revising the
definition of ``railroad'' and removing the definition of ``railroad
carrier.'' All three labor organizations opposed this change stating
that it would create confusion by providing a definition that conflicts
with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). SMART-TD argued that removing the
word ``carrier'' from part 225 would allow railroads to exploit gray
areas and decide when they wanted to be subject to the RLA's
protections and when they wanted to be immune from the RLA. SMART-TD
described this change as ``deregulation by stealth'' and said it would
allow railroads to ``chip away at worker rights'' and undermine labor
protections in the rail industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0005</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA is unconvinced that this change would cause confusion or
adversely affect labor protections in any meaningful way. This change
maintains the status quo as this section currently states that
``[r]ailroad means a railroad carrier.'' The logical conclusion from
that statement is that the two terms are interchangeable for purposes
of part 225. Thus, FRA is eliminating confusion by removing a term
(``railroad carrier'') that has the same meaning as another term in
part 225 (``railroad''). Furthermore, since FRA is not making any
substantive change to the definition of ``railroad,'' it is not
creating any new conflict with the RLA.
FRA also notes that SMART-TD did not offer any specific explanation
for how removing the word ``carrier'' from this part would adversely
affect worker rights and would allow railroads to exploit gray areas in
the law. Instead, SMART-TD only provided vague assertions. However,
there are several other parts in FRA's regulations that contain a
definition of ``railroad,'' but not a definition of ``railroad
carrier.'' For example, 49 CFR part 240 has included a definition of
``railroad,'' but not ``railroad carrier,'' since 1991. As the labor
organizations have not provided any specific evidence that the change
[[Page 55768]]
will result in harmful effects, FRA amends Sec. 225.5, as proposed.
Section 225.6 Consolidated Reporting
FRA proposed reducing FRA's review period for consolidated
reporting requests from 90 day to 60 days. BLET opposed this change
stating that it created unnecessarily tight deadlines for the agency,
especially if those deadlines do not accommodate the need to request
additional information. BLET also alleged that no safety justification
had been provided for expediting this review process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0003</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, FRA notes that BLET's comment is, in part, based on
the false premise that FRA's deadline for deciding such requests will
not be delayed if FRA requests additional information from the
railroad. However, proposed paragraph (d) of this section in the NPRM
states this 60-day period ``will be tolled pending any FRA requests to
the parent corporation or subsidiary railroads for missing or
additional information needed for the agency to reach a decision.''
Further, FRA, through its experience in reviewing these requests, has
concluded that 60 days is sufficient time for the agency to perform a
thorough review of the request and to issue a decision without being
rushed.
FRA, however, is making a minor change to the proposed language in
the NPRM for paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. FRA is changing
``and/or'' in the NPRM to ``or'' in this final rule.
Section 225.7 Use of Reports
The NPRM proposed removing paragraph (a) of this section which
explains how to obtain accident/incident reports by making a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. BLET objected to removing this
paragraph as it claimed this change reduces transparency while not
meaningfully reducing any burden. BLET argued this change would make
the public less aware of how to request copies of these reports.
FRA finds BLET's argument unconvincing. Existing paragraph (a) is
duplicative as its main purpose is to direct readers to DOT's FOIA
regulations in 49 CFR part 7. FRA does not find that removing this
paragraph reduces transparency as the information in this paragraph is
readily available in part 7. Further, if individuals or organizations
are seeking information about making a FOIA request, they are more
likely to search for such information on FRA's website as opposed to in
the CFR. Thus, removing this information from this section should
eliminate redundancy in FRA's regulations without harming transparency.
In addition, current paragraph (a) contains a mailing address and a web
address which are subject to change. By removing this paragraph, FRA is
reducing the likelihood of having outdated information in its
regulations and reducing the potential future burden of having to amend
this section if these addresses change. Therefore, FRA amends Sec.
225.7, as proposed.
Section 225.12 Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports Alleging
Employee Human Factor as Cause; Employee Human Factor Attachment;
Notice to Employee; Employee Supplement
FRA proposed revising paragraph (h)(2) of this section to remove
the fixed $5,000 fine amount and instead state that such persons be
subject to a fine under title 18 of the U.S. Code. BLET expressed its
opposition to this change as it would increase the potential penalty
for employees without any justification. BLET contended that title 18
provides for up to five years in prison and does not provide a maximum
fine amount which is a significant departure from the current practice
of limiting the fine amount for false statements. In addition, BLET
claimed that FRA has not provided evidence that employees making false
statements is such a considerable issue that stronger penalties are
needed. In summary, BLET is concerned that ``FRA is relying on [t]itle
18 of the U.S. Code for enforcement of civil and criminal penalties
when these infractions are inherently transportation related and
[t]itle 49 of the U.S. Code already contains adequate remedies and
methods for addressing civil and criminal actions.'' BLET predicted
that this change could lead FRA to shift the enforcement of other
sections to title 18 as well.
As an initial matter, BLET is incorrect that this change would
increase the maximum prison sentence as the proposed text in the NPRM
maintains two years as the maximum period of imprisonment for knowingly
and willfully filing a false supplemental statement. Next, BLET's
concern that this revision will lead FRA to rely on title 18 instead of
title 49 is misguided as FRA already relies on title 18. The current
text of paragraph (h)(2) cites 49 U.S.C. 21311 as authority for
assessing a fine, imprisonment, or both, and 49 U.S.C. 21311 states
such fines shall be assessed under title 18. In 1994, Congress amended
49 U.S.C. 21311(a) to state that a person shall be ``fined under title
18'' instead of ``fined not more than $5,000.'' The proposed change in
the NPRM simply makes paragraph (h)(2) of this section consistent with
the statute it references. FRA also notes that the $5,000 fine amount
has been in this paragraph since 1990, and finalizing this paragraph as
proposed allows for inflationary adjustments to this figure without
having to amend the regulation.
In conclusion, BLET's claim about the overall impact of this
proposed change is overstated as title 18 already serves as the basis
for issuing fines in accordance with this paragraph. Thus, FRA amends
Sec. 225.12, as proposed.
Section 225.13 Late Reports
FRA proposed revising this section to instruct railroads to submit
their late reports via email. An individual commenter commended FRA for
this proposed change stating that promoting electronic submissions
improves efficiency and data accuracy.\8\ FRA amends Sec. 225.13, as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0002</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 225.25 Recordkeeping
Paragraph (f) of this section states that railroads must enter each
accountable injury and illness and each accountable rail equipment
accident/incident on the appropriate record no later than ``seven
working days'' after receiving information or acquiring knowledge that
such accident/incident occurred. The NPRM proposed extending this
deadline to ``15 calendar days.''
An individual commenter supported this proposed change noting that
allowing railroads additional time to complete certain forms will help
ensure comprehensive reporting, which will improve safety. However, the
labor organizations uniformly opposed this change. BLET, SMART-TD, and
TTD all argued that completing these forms as soon as possible after an
accident/incident will ensure accuracy. SMART-TD noted that giving
railroads more time to complete these forms will give more time for
memories to fade, facts to become muddled, and paperwork to be lost.
The labor organizations also contended that providing additional time
for the railroads to complete these forms will delay FRA's receipt of
important safety information, which will harm railroad worker safety
and weaken the public's ability to remedy concerning data trends.
In addition, BLET argued that FRA did not provide evidence that
these reports had declined in accuracy, and if
[[Page 55769]]
the reports have declined in accuracy, the labor organization would
like to work with FRA to determine the root cause and a solution.
SMART-TD stated its concerns that this proposed change would give
railroads more time to pressure injured workers into not reporting
their injuries. In support of this argument, it asserted that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has put railroads under
heightened scrutiny for what SMART-TD called a long record of
whistleblower retaliation and intimidation. SMART-TD also said giving
railroads more time to complete these forms would be hypocritical
because railroad workers live under threat that if they do not report
their injury on the same day it occurs, their credibility will be
challenged. Lastly, TTD objected to this change because it said there
was no recent evidence that railroads needed more time to complete
these forms.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0123-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overriding concern from the labor organizations is that this
change would delay FRA's receipt of important safety information in
these forms. However, this concern is misguided. This proposed
extension of time only applies to a railroad's completion of Form FRA F
6180.97 (Form 6180.97) and Form FRA F 6180.98 (Form 6180.98) (or the
alternative railroad-designed records for these forms). Railroads are
not required to submit these forms to FRA. While an FRA representative
may ultimately view these forms, such as during an audit, this viewing
does not happen typically until months, or even years, after an
accident or incident occurred. Therefore, providing railroads with a
short amount of additional time to complete these forms will not result
in any delay of FRA receiving safety information.
Regarding the labor organizations' concerns that this change would
diminish the accuracy of these forms, FRA is unpersuaded. This change
would only give railroads approximately an additional week to complete
these forms, which should not significantly impact the memories of
those persons involved in an accident or incident. However, this
additional time should be helpful to railroads in obtaining relevant
medical records and cost estimates, which will lead to these forms
containing more accurate data. Although SMART-TD contended this will
give railroads additional time to pressure workers into not reporting
injuries, this is incorrect because the timeline to complete these
forms, whether it is ``seven working days'' or ``15 calendar days,''
does not begin to run until after the railroad receives information or
acquires knowledge that an injury or illness occurred. Therefore, this
change does not give railroads additional time to pressure workers into
not reporting an injury, because the injury has already been reported.
FRA also concludes this change is beneficial because it removes
ambiguity over how to calculate ``seven working days'' properly.
Different railroad workers have different work schedules and paragraph
(f) of this section does not specify whether ``working days'' refers to
the work schedule of the injured worker, the reporting officer, or
someone else. By amending this deadline to ``15 calendar days,'' FRA
establishes a clear standard that is easy for the railroads to apply.
Thus, FRA amends Sec. 225.25, 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 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 final rule.
This final rule makes administrative changes such as revising
definitions, allowing railroads to submit information to FRA
electronically, and removing redundant regulations. Therefore, this
final rule will impose no additional burdens on regulated entities.
Moreover, this final rule will provide some qualitative benefits to
regulated entities and the U.S. government by clarifying, simplifying,
and updating the language of part 225. This final rule will also
provide flexibility to regulated entities by increasing the time given
to railroads for completing certain forms from seven working days to 15
calendar days, and remove ambiguity over how to calculate working days.
In addition, this final rule will expedite the speed at which documents
are delivered while reducing costs that would otherwise exist from
having to print, mail, and process documents.
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 the 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 final
rule will 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 businesses 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
[[Page 55770]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings
for many regulated entities, including small entities. This rule
clarifies and simplifies regulations, as well as reduces the need to
print or mail documents. FRA does not expect that this impact to small
entities will be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not
impose any new information collection requirements. Therefore, an
information collection submission to OMB is not required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 225
were approved by OMB on December 5, 2023. The information collection
requirements thereby became effective when they were approved by OMB.
The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0005, and OMB approval expires
on December 31, 2026.
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 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 U.S.
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. Amend Sec. 225.5 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``carrier'' from paragraph (2) of the definition
of ``Highway-rail grade crossing'';
0
b. Putting the definition for ``Privacy concern case'' after the
definition of ``Person'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Railroad''; and
0
d. Removing the definition for ``Railroad carrier''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 225.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Railroad means a person providing railroad transportation.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 225.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 225.6 Consolidated reporting.
(a) A parent corporation may request in writing that FRA treat its
commonly controlled railroads, which operate as a single, seamless,
integrated United States rail system, as a single railroad for purposes
of this part.
(b) The written request must include all of the following:
(1) A list of the subsidiary railroads controlled by the parent
corporation.
(2) An explanation as to how the subsidiary railroads operate as a
single, seamless, integrated United States railroad system as opposed
to separate and independent entities. This explanation should address
factors such as:
(i) Whether all of the properties are physically connected, and by
what means (i.e., is the track contiguous, are the properties connected
by track rights);
(ii) Whether the parent and its subsidiaries are held out to the
public as a single entity;
(iii) Whether the parent is involved in the decision-making of its
subsidiaries, and to what extent;
(iv) Whether the parent or subsidiaries share officers, equipment,
or other personnel;
(v) Whether the operation of trains and crews are seamless, as
trains and crews move over various properties with most employees
unaware that they have changed property owners;
(vi) Whether there is a single set of operating rules over all of
the properties
[[Page 55771]]
(there may be different signal and train control systems);
(vii) Whether there is a single Internal Control Plan or a single
reporting or claims officer; and
(viii) Whether there is a single dispatching center.
(3) Supporting evidence or documentation, to the extent reasonably
practicable, to support the parent corporation's assertion that the
subsidiary railroads operate as a single, seamless, integrated railroad
system. If it is not practical to submit documentation for certain
factors, the parent corporation should identify the location of the
supporting evidence.
(4) A point of contact at the parent corporation and all subsidiary
railroads to address agency questions related to the consolidated
reporting petition.
(c) The request must be sent via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d7f5e445e6c447f485d425f595e6d494259034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="792b0a100a38102b1c09160b0d0a391d160d571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.
Each request received shall be acknowledged in writing via email and
shall contain the docket number assigned to the request.
(d) FRA will notify the applicant parent corporation of the
agency's decision within 60 days of receipt of the application. This
deadline will be tolled pending any FRA requests to the parent
corporation or subsidiary railroads for missing or additional
information needed for the agency to reach a decision.
(e) 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 for the petition.
0
4. Revise and republish Sec. 225.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 225.7 Use of reports.
49 U.S.C. 20903 provides that monthly reports filed by railroads
under Sec. 225.11 may not be admitted as evidence or used for any
purpose in any action for damages growing out of any matters mentioned
in these monthly reports. The Employee Human Factor Attachment, Notice,
and Employee Supplement under Sec. 225.12 are part of the reporting
railroad's accident report to FRA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20901 and, as
such, shall not ``be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in
any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in
said report * * *.'' 49 U.S.C. 20903.
0
5. In Sec. 225.12, revise paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 225.12 Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Reports alleging
employee human factor as cause; Employee Human Factor Attachment;
notice to employee; employee supplement.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) Any person who knowingly and willfully files a false Supplement
is subject to a fine under title 18 of the U.S. Code, imprisonment for
up to two years, or both, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 21311(a).
0
6. In Sec. 225.13, revise the first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 225.13 Late reports.
Whenever a railroad discovers that a report of an accident/
incident, through mistake or otherwise, has been improperly omitted
from or improperly reported on its regular monthly accident/incident
report, a report covering this accident/incident together with a letter
of explanation must be submitted immediately by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6537160c16240c3700150a17111625010a114b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3567465c46745c6750455a47414675515a411b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>. * * *
Sec. 225.25 [Amended]
0
7. In Sec. 225.25, in paragraph (f), remove ``seven working days'' and
add in its place ``15 calendar days''.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-17791 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>Indexed from Federal Register on August 31, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.