SUMMARY: FRA is amending the railroad accident reporting regulations in 
several ways. First, railroads are required to adopt internal control 
procedures to ensure accurate reporting of accidents, casualties, 
injuries, illnesses and highway-rail grade crossing accidents. Second, 
railroads are allowed the option to submit, update, and amend accident, 
casualty, and highway-rail accident reports through transfer of 
information on computer diskettes, magnetic tapes, or electronically 
over telephone lines. Third, the accident and injury reporting forms, 
including definitions, are amended to allow for the collection of 
additional safety information. Fourth, injury and illness, as well as 
derailment and collision, recordkeeping requirements are amended to 
require the recordation of reportable and accountable, i.e., 
nonreportable, illnesses and injuries as well as the recordation of 
reportable and accountable rail equipment accidents and incidents. 
Finally, the method for calculation of the accident reporting monetary 
threshold is amended to allow for use of publicly available data and 
statistics. The purpose of the rule is to enhance the quality of 
information FRA collects pertaining to rail equipment accidents and 
incidents, as well as illnesses, injuries and casualties to railroad 
employees, passengers and other persons on railroad property.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective January 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration should be submitted to the 
Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Finkelstein, Staff Director, 
Office of Safety Analysis, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-501-4863 or 202-366-0543); 
or Marina C. Appleton, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-
0628).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Purpose and Structure of the Accident Reporting Regulations

    FRA's primary function is to promote safety within the railroad 
industry. To carry out its safety mission, FRA requires information 
about the conditions of the nation's railroads to set safety standards, 
to enforce those standards, and to develop railroad injury and accident 
prevention programs. The injury and accident reports submitted by the 
railroads form a principal basis for FRA's railroad safety program. FRA 
uses injury and accident data for, among other things, establishing its 
inspection strategy, determining comparative trends of railroad safety, 
and calculating the costs and benefits of proposed safety rules. FRA 
also uses railroad accident, injury and illness data to determine if 
new regulations are needed or if current regulations are in need of 
revision. Because FRA uses the data in all aspects of its operations, 
it is important that the data it receives be as accurate and consistent 
as possible.
    The railroad accident reporting regulations set forth in 49 CFR 
Part 225 require railroads to submit monthly reports to FRA summarizing 
collisions, derailments, and certain other accidents/incidents 
involving damages above a periodically revised dollar threshold, as 
well as certain injuries to passengers, employees, and other persons on 
railroad property.
    Section 225.19 of the regulations divides railroad accidents/
incidents into three categories: (1) highway-rail grade crossing 
accidents/incidents; (2) rail equipment accidents/incidents; and (3) 
death, injury, or occupational illness accidents/incidents. Every 
railroad accident/incident that meets the stated criteria for each 
category must be reported to FRA as required under 49 CFR 225.11. 
Because the reporting requirements and the information needed regarding 
each category of accident/incident are unique, a different reporting 
form is used for each category. If the circumstances of an accident/
incident are such that it falls within two or even all three 
categories, then a separate reporting form for each category must be 
completed by the railroad.

B. General Accounting Office Study on Accident Reporting to FRA

    During the late 1980s, Congress, increasingly concerned with 
railroad safety, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine 
whether FRA's safety programs were adequate to protect railroad 
employees and the general public from injuries associated with train 
accidents. GAO studied FRA's railroad injury and accident reporting 
data and issued a report in April 1989 (GAO/RCED-89-109) that raised 
important questions about the quality of railroad compliance with FRA's 
accident reporting regulations. GAO found that there were 
underreporting and inaccurate reporting of injury and accident data for 
1987 by the railroads it audited.
    GAO recommended that FRA (a) require railroads to establish injury 
and accident reporting internal control procedures; (b) include an 
analysis of railroads' internal control procedures for reporting in 
FRA's safety records inspections; (c) provide inspectors with the 
authority to take enforcement actions against railroads with deficient 
internal control procedures; (d) require railroads to update reports on 
workdays lost due to injuries; and (e) clarify FRA's requirement for 
railroads to update accident reports when significant changes occur.

C. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accident Reporting

    In response to the GAO audit, FRA published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 14, 1990 (55 FR 9469) soliciting 
comments and suggestions from the public regarding methods for 
improving FRA's injury and accident reporting system and its governing 
regulations. Interested parties were invited to participate in a public 
hearing held on May 17, 1990, and to file written comments prior to May 
25, 1990. The responses to that public notice provided additional 
information and identified further issues and subissues related to the 
matters in the ANPRM. In order to further explore matters related to 
the accident/incident reporting system, FRA held informal, open 
meetings on June 13, 1991, August 22, 1991, and August 18, 1992, in 
Washington, D.C., with members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR) Committee for Uniformity in Reporting. At the request of rail 
labor representatives, FRA also held an informal, open meeting on 
October 21, 1991, in Washington, D.C., to discuss the same issues with 
representatives of various rail unions.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accident Reporting

    FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on accident 
reporting on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42880), and conducted a series of public hearings to obtain the 
industry's views and comments on specific issues addressed in the NPRM. 
Public hearings were held in Washington, D.C. on October 5-6, 1994; in 
Kansas City, Missouri on October 19, 1994; and in Portland, Oregon on 
November 3, 1994. FRA examined the issues and interests involved and 
made a preliminary inquiry among the hearing participants to determine 
whether additional hearings or regulatory meetings could be successful 
in narrowing areas of disagreement and exploring possible 
accommodations. Most participants expressed interest in continuing the 
rulemaking process by holding additional or supplementary regulatory 
meetings, roundtables or workshops. After further deliberation, FRA 
decided that an informal public regulatory conference would prove 
advantageous in the development of the accident reporting regulations.

E. Public Regulatory Conference

    In accordance with a notice published on December 27, 1994 (59 FR 
66501), FRA held an informal public regulatory conference on January 
30-February 2, 1995, in Washington, D.C. to further discuss issues 
related to its NPRM on railroad accident reporting. In accordance with 
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et 
seq.), the public regulatory conference was a continuation of the 
accident reporting rulemaking proceeding. The format of the discussions 
was informal and employed a topical, interactive approach. Conference 
participants offered various alternative approaches in response to the 
specific proposals set forth in the NPRM. The AAR and The American 
Short Line Railroad Association (ASLRA) requested that they be allowed 
to address specific topics by the existing comment deadline of March 
10, 1995, and that such comments be incorporated into a second or 
supplemental NPRM. FRA believed that a decision as to whether or not to 
issue a supplemental NPRM was premature at this point in the rulemaking 
proceeding. FRA therefore requested, through publication in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 9001), that written comments addressing all issues in 
the NPRM be filed no later than March 10, 1995, as specified in FRA's 
December 27, 1994, notice. After thorough review and analysis of the 
submitted comments, FRA stated that it would decide whether a 
supplemental NPRM was warranted for this rulemaking and would issue a 
decision in the Federal Register. FRA also stated that the decision 
whether or not to issue a supplemental NPRM would be based primarily on 
the extent that written comments addressed constructive, creative 
solutions to the subjects and issues involved in the NPRM.

F. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    FRA published a notice on July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34498), which stated 
that a second or supplemental NPRM would be issued for the rulemaking 
to revise the railroad accident reporting regulations. The decision to 
issue a supplemental NPRM was made pursuant to requests advanced by 
some participants at the public regulatory conference held on January 
30-February 2, 1995, in Washington, D.C., during which specific topics 
were discussed related to the accident reporting NPRM. It was 
anticipated that the supplemental NPRM would address whether or not a 
meaningful performance standard for accident reporting could be devised 
for use by the railroads. It was also anticipated that the supplemental 
NPRM would discuss revised documentation requirements for the proposed 
Internal Control Plan; calculation of damage costs for rail equipment 
accidents and incidents for the determination of whether the threshold 
is met for FRA reporting purposes; and the proposed definition for the 
classification ``Worker on Duty'' as it pertains to ``Contractors'' and 
``Volunteers'' performing safety-sensitive functions.
    FRA reviewed thoroughly the written comments received in response 
to the NPRM, the transcripts of the public hearings, as well as the 
transcripts of the public regulatory conference. This review revealed 
that a supplemental NPRM was not warranted. By notice published in the 
Federal Register on January 24, 1996 (61 FR 1892), FRA announced that 
it would not issue a supplemental NPRM in the rulemaking; instead, the 
final rule would deal fully with major alternative resolutions for the 
issues in the rulemaking, explaining clearly why they were endorsed or 
rejected in favor of the option selected.

Summary of Public Comments

    FRA received comments from the AAR, ASLRA, the Brotherhood of 
Railway Carmen (BRC), the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes 
(BMWE), the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), the Brotherhood 
of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), individual members of some of these 
associations, the State of California's Public Utilities Commission, 
the Contra Costa County Health Services Department of the State of 
California, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Tourist 
Railroad Association, the Association of Railway Museums, Inc. (ARM), 
the Illinois Railway Museum, the American Public Transit Association 
(APTA), the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, 
Inc. (NRC), and individual members of the public.

Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Section 225.33  Internal Control Plan

Proposed Rule
    FRA proposed that each railroad must prepare and maintain an 
Internal Control Plan (ICP) that required institution of proper 
internal control procedures for reporting. FRA believed that requiring 
an ICP would ensure the reconciliation and incorporation of accident/
incident and injury/illness data from the various departments within 
the railroad for submission to the railroad's reporting officer. The 
proposed rule required that the reporting office have access to all 
pertinent claims records, including medical records and payroll 
records, and be notified by claims and medical departments of each new 
case/claim opened by a railroad worker. The proposal also stated that 
identification of offices and responsible railroad officers would aid 
FRA in identification of procedural weaknesses in reporting. FRA 
proposed periodical review of the ICP by FRA in order to detect 
procedural deficiencies. If FRA should find the railroad to be in 
noncompliance, the proposed regulation allowed FRA to cite that 
railroad for violating procedural requirements of the ICP when 
inaccurate reporting was found and the cause could be attributed to 
internal control weakness.
Comments
    This proposal created significant controversy among the railroad 
representatives who participated in the proceeding. Most railroad 
commenters did not support mandated internal control procedures. 
Railroad representatives stated that they did not want to change or 
modify any internal control plan, if such a plan was already in place, 
to fit the ICP as proposed by FRA. Railroad members also believed that 
the plan was too detailed and, as such, would require constant updating 
in order to accommodate normal changes such as personnel changes and 
reorganizations. These members also perceived that the ICP would result 
in additional, unjust monetary penalties for steps missed in the ICP 
that led to inaccurate accident reporting. As proposed, if a reporting violation 
was found, then the railroad might be fined for both the reporting 
violation and any departure from the ICP which resulted in the 
reporting violation. Instead of an ICP mandated by FRA, AAR and its 
constituent members suggested that FRA adopt a performance standard for 
determining and measuring a railroad's compliance with reporting 
requirements.
    ASLRA and its members stated that the performance standard proposed 
by AAR should be adopted for Class I railroads, but that such a 
standard would be impracticable for the short line industry since each 
short line's sample size would be too small to make such an approach 
meaningful. ASLRA supported the concept of development and maintenance 
of an ICP by other than Class I railroads. However, ASLRA believed that 
elements of the ICP should be determined by each railroad to suit its 
unique needs and circumstances and that such elements should not be 
mandated by FRA.
    Rail labor associations and other commenters opposed adoption of 
the performance standard proposed by AAR in lieu of specific ICP's 
because they believed that such a standard could not ensure reliable, 
accurate and uniform reporting data on an industry-wide basis. These 
commenters proposed adoption of uniform, formalized ICP's with some 
minor modifications to FRA's proposed ICP to allow for more flexibility 
in its actual requirements.
    Most railroads did not support FRA's provision authorizing civil 
penalties for inaccurate reporting due to internal control weakness. 
Most other commenters favored an enforcement system in which monetary 
penalties might be issued against the railroad for inaccurate reporting 
resulting from noncompliance with procedures outlined in the ICP.
AAR's Proposed Performance Standard
    AAR proposed that FRA adopt a performance standard for determining 
whether a railroad complied with reporting requirements. The 
performance standard proposed by AAR was based on methods selected from 
a set of statistical procedures developed for use by the U.S. Military 
(MIL-STD-105E, 1989) as means of statistically controlling process 
quality in a stable environment. Specifically, AAR proposed that:
    (a) Each railroad would maintain a written ICP which would achieve 
a compliance rate of 99 percent for the accident and incident reports 
required under Sec. 225.11. This written ICP would be developed 
internally by each reporting railroad.
    (b) The compliance rate would be based on a reporting period 
covering a closed twelve-month calendar year.
    (c) The compliance rate would be determined by comparing accident 
and incident reports filed with FRA against the railroad-maintained 
data base which contains information about employee injuries, employee 
illnesses, as well as property damage, so that determinations about 
reportability may be reasonably made.
    (d) Audits conducted to determine the compliance rate would conform 
to the following procedures:
    (1) Each railroad would provide FRA a list of both reportable and 
nonreportable accidents/incidents and illnesses/injuries for a 
specified calendar year and would make accident/incident and injury/
illness reports available for inspection by FRA;
    (2) FRA would take a random sample from the list of these reports. 
Sampling procedures would conform to the military performance standard. 
Railroads would have to achieve a compliance rate of 99 percent; for 
example, one rejection out of a random sample of 100 cases. A rejection 
would be defined as a railroad's failure to report a reportable 
occurrence; and
    (3) Audits would be conducted by FRA personnel, and audit results 
would be provided in writing to the railroad.
    (e) If a railroad failed to achieve a compliance rate of 99 
percent, then the railroad would be subject to a monetary penalty and 
would have to submit an action plan within 30 days to FRA explaining 
what corrective action had been taken to achieve 99-percent compliance.
    (f) If a railroad failed to achieve a compliance rate of 99 percent 
in two consecutive audits, then the railroad would be subject to 
another monetary penalty; would be required to submit an action plan 
within 30 days to FRA explaining what corrective action had been taken 
to achieve 99-percent compliance; and would be subject to a follow-up 
audit after 30 days from submission of the action plan to FRA. Further, 
the railroad might be directed to file with FRA an ICP detailing 
internal reporting processes and procedures.
    FRA had an independent statistical firm examine and review the 
military performance standard to determine whether it was feasible to 
apply the standard to measure compliance with accident/incident 
reporting requirements. A summary of this report has been included as 
Attachment 1. This firm concluded that the military performance 
standard invoked by AAR (MIL-STD-105E, 1989) was based on sound 
statistical methods; however, several problems existed with the 
standard's application to accident reporting. A brief description of 
the deficiencies follows:
    (a) Reporting by a railroad is not a stable process. AAR's 
reporting process has not been fully defined or tested in the real 
world; and its stability has not been demonstrated. AAR assumed that 
reporting would be a stable process and applied procedures appropriate 
only for stable processes.
    (b) AAR's sample-inclusion criterion is flawed. The denominator for 
nonreportable accidents and incidents can be inflated to ensure that 
the 99-percent compliance rate is achieved. The AAR formula for 
determining a railroad's compliance rate is:
    compliance rate = 1.00 - (number of failures to report reportable 
cases/(total number of reportable cases + total number of nonreportable 
cases)).
    For determining sample size, AAR's sampling plan combines 
reportable and nonreportable accidents and incidents. For counting 
failures or rejections, AAR's sampling plan recognizes only the 
reporting errors in nonreportable accidents and incidents, but not the 
reporting errors related to reportable accidents and incidents. In this 
scenario, therefore, increasing the number of nonreportable cases would 
improve the compliance rate for that reporting railroad.
    (c) AAR overstated the compliance rate. Using any reasonable 
definition of ``compliance rate,'' the AAR sampling plan, at best, 
achieves only a 97-percent compliance rate. See Attachment 1 for 
further discussion.
    (d) AAR's performance standard lacks requirements for maintaining 
written ICPs. The Military Standard includes a general requirement for 
developing written procedures (such as an ICP), which FRA could require 
to be made available to its inspectors for review. AAR's performance 
standard does not permit FRA to direct a railroad to develop an ICP 
until after the railroad fails to demonstrate 99-percent compliance in 
two consecutive audits. Without written procedures, i.e., an ICP, it is 
not possible to guarantee full implementation of management decisions 
by line employees.
    (e) AAR's performance standard does not implement the full set of 
procedures prescribed in the Military Standard. Specifically, AAR's 
performance standard fails to implement ``switching procedures,'' which 
are needed when consecutive lots or batches are rejected. ``Switching 
procedures'' are a set of rules that tell users when to adopt ``normal,'' ``tightened,'' or 
``reduced'' inspection. AAR's performance standard lacks switching 
procedures and rules, and AAR has not determined the compliance rate 
bias resulting from this lack.
    Even if the AAR's performance standard were revised to deal with 
some of these problems, it would still fail to meet the main objective 
of the ICP, which is to improve the accuracy of the submitted accident 
and injury reports. Hypothetically, a railroad could meet an improved 
version of the AAR's performance standard by reporting all of the 
reportable accidents and incidents, but the submitted reports could be 
riddled with inaccuracies that the ICP would have prevented. For 
example, in the case where an employee is injured, the submitted 
``Railroad Injury and Illness (Continuation Sheet)'' (Form FRA F 
6180.55a) may state that the employee missed five days from work 
because the employee's initial medical report indicated that he or she 
missed five work days. However, in actuality, the employee missed 20 
work days for his or her injury. In this example, the failure to 
provide the reporting officer with the correct payroll ``time and 
attendance'' information resulted in an inaccurate filed report, with 
no harm to the railroad's compliance rate under even a modified AAR 
performance standard.

Final Rule

Section 225.33  Internal Control Plan

    FRA believes that an Internal Control Plan (ICP) best provides the 
procedures necessary to ensure that complete, reliable, and accurate 
data is obtained, maintained, and disclosed by the railroads. FRA 
investigations have repeatedly found instances in which departments 
within the same railroad failed to provide to the railroad reporting 
officer information critical to determining reportability or 
information necessary for filing an accurate and complete report. Thus, 
the final rule adopts the proposed ICP with modifications recommended 
by various parties in this proceeding.
    The ICP is not a ``command and control'' system; it is a type of 
performance standard which ensures the accuracy of a process and, in 
this case, the process is accident/incident reporting. This ICP 
requirement does not tell the railroad how to develop the internal 
control procedures; how the lines of communication should be 
established; the type of correspondence to be used; the forms that 
should be used; which executives in the company are responsible for 
reportability decisions; nor the periods of time necessary for 
information exchange. The ICP is a performance standard that dictates 
the necessity for communication within each railroad to ensure that 
proper reporting will be accomplished. The changes to the proposed ICP 
allow each railroad, including the short lines, the flexibility to 
design an ICP suitable to the needs and circumstances of the particular 
railroad. The ICP, therefore, may vary in size from one that is a few 
pages for smaller railroads and short lines, to one of considerable 
size for the major carriers.
    In general, the ICP challenges the railroads to develop a Total 
Quality Management (TQM) system to ensure that there are no errors in 
reporting. ``No errors'' means that all reportable accidents and 
incidents are reported to the FRA and that each report is accurately 
completed prior to submission to FRA, in other words, a ``zero 
tolerance'' policy with respect to inaccurate reporting. TQM focuses on 
continuous and incremental improvements of process performance. In 
contrast, acceptance testing, as in AAR's proposed performance 
standard, judges acceptability of process output by applying predefined 
criteria. AAR's proposed performance standard suggests, therefore, that 
some defects in reporting are permissible.
    The ICP also addresses intimidation and harassment of any person 
calculated to prevent or discourage such person from either receiving 
proper medical treatment for an injury or illness or from reporting an 
accident, incident, illness or injury. FRA has become increasingly 
aware that many railroad employees fail to disclose their injuries to 
the railroad or fail to accept reportable treatment from a physician 
because they wish to avoid potential harassment from management or 
possible discipline that is sometimes associated with the reporting of 
such injuries. FRA is also aware that in some instances supervisory 
personnel and mid-level managers are urged to engage in practices which 
may undermine or circumvent the reporting of injuries and illnesses. 
Railroads must remain proactive in accurate reporting of all reportable 
accidents, injuries and illnesses, and must not engage in practices 
that could manipulate reportability of these incidents. In some 
instances, railroads report an injury or illness to FRA only after FRA 
inspectors make management aware that a particular injury or illness 
was not reported. Many times FRA inspectors conduct an investigation 
pursuant to a complaint from an employee alleging that his or her 
injury/illness was not properly reported or was not reported at all. 
Again, the railroad usually reports this injury/illness to FRA only 
after FRA informs management of the situation.
    FRA remains committed to improving the accuracy of the accident 
reporting data base and can do so only with the full cooperation of 
both rail workers and management. In order to address this widespread 
problem, the ICP mandates that each railroad adopt a policy statement 
which affirms that intimidation or harassment by any officer, manager, 
supervisor, or employee of the railroad that aims to undermine or 
negatively influence the treatment of persons with an injury or illness 
or that adversely affects the reporting of such injuries and illnesses 
will not be tolerated nor permitted and that appropriate prescribed 
disciplinary action may be taken by the railroad against such person 
committing the harassment or intimidation. The policy statement 
addressing intimidation and harassment must be disseminated to all 
employees, supervisors and to all levels of railroad management. 
Further, the railroad must have procedures in place to process 
complaints when the railroad's intimidation and harassment policy has 
been violated, and such procedures must also be disseminated to all 
employees and management/supervisory personnel.
    Consequently, the final rule states in Sec. 225.33(a) that each 
railroad shall adopt and comply with a written Internal Control Plan 
that must be maintained at the office where the railroad's reporting 
officer conducts his or her official business or duties. The ICP must 
be amended, as necessary, to reflect any significant changes to the 
railroad's internal reporting procedures. The ICP is to include, at a 
minimum, each of the following ten components:
    (1) A policy statement indicating the railroad's commitment to 
complete and accurate reporting of all accidents, incidents, injuries, 
and occupational illnesses arising from the operation of the railroad. 
This statement should include, in absolute terms, that harassment or 
intimidation of any person that is calculated to discourage or prevent 
such person from receiving proper medical treatment or from reporting 
an accident, incident, injury or illness will not be permitted or 
tolerated and will result in some stated disciplinary action against 
such person committing the harassment or intimidation.
    (2) The dissemination of the policy statement; complaint 
procedures. Each railroad must provide to all employees, supervisory personnel, and management the policy statement described in 
paragraph (a)(1). Each railroad must have procedures to process 
complaints from any person when the policy stated in paragraph (a)(1) 
is violated, and to impose the appropriate prescribed disciplinary 
actions on each person found to have violated the policy. These 
procedures must be disclosed to railroad employees, supervisors and 
management. The railroad must provide ``whistle blower'' protection to 
any person subject to this policy, and such policy must be disclosed to 
all railroad employees, supervisors and management.
    (3) Copies of internal forms and/or a description of the internal 
computer reporting system used for the collection and internal 
recording of accident and incident information.
    (4) A description of the internal procedures used by the railroad 
for the processing of forms and/or computerized data regarding accident 
and incident information.
    (5) A description of the internal review procedures applicable to 
accident and incident information collected, and reports prepared by, 
the railroad's safety, claims, medical and/or other departments engaged 
in collecting and reporting accident and incident information.
    (6) A description of the internal procedures used for collecting 
cost data and compiling costs with respect to accident and incident 
information.
    (7) A description of applicable internal procedures for ensuring 
adequate communication between the railroad department responsible for 
submitting accident and incident reports to FRA and any other 
department within the railroad responsible for collecting, receiving, 
processing and reporting accidents and incidents.
    (8) A statement of applicable procedures providing for the updating 
of accident and incident information prior to reporting to FRA and a 
statement of applicable procedures providing for the amendment of 
accident and incident information as specified in the FRA Guide for 
Preparing Accidents/Incidents Reports.
    (9) A statement that specifies the name and title of the railroad 
officer responsible for auditing the performance of the reporting 
function; a statement of the frequency (not less than once per calendar 
year) with which audits are conducted; and identification of the site 
where the most recent audit report may be found for inspection and 
photocopying.
    (10) A brief description of the railroad organization, including 
identification of (i) all components that regularly come into 
possession of information pertinent to the preparation of reports under 
this part (e.g., medical, claims, and legal departments; operating, 
mechanical, and track and structures departments; payroll, accounting, 
and personnel departments); (ii) the title of each railroad reporting 
officer; (iii) the title of each manager of such components, by 
component; and (iv) all officers to whom managers of such components 
are responsible, by component. A current organization chart would 
satisfy items (iii) and (iv).
    The penalty schedule is amended so that if the railroad fails to 
adopt the ICP, then that railroad is subject to the assessment of a 
civil monetary penalty in the amount of $2,500 or, if willful, $5,000. 
Also each railroad's reporting error arising from noncompliance with 
the ICP subjects that railroad to the assessment of a civil monetary 
penalty in the amount of $2,500 or, if willful, $5,000. Consequently, 
if a reporting violation is found, then the railroad may be fined for 
both the reporting violation and any departure from the ICP which 
resulted in the reporting violation. FRA may require the railroad to 
make modifications to its ICP to prevent such reporting errors in the 
future. However, if there is a reporting violation, but FRA determines 
that the ICP was followed by the railroad, then just one violation may 
be written. FRA believes that availability of a monetary civil penalty 
is necessary in order to compel the railroads to correct procedural 
deficiencies and weaknesses in their ICPs. However, in some instances 
FRA may employ use of a compliance order or other remedy in lieu of 
civil penalties where appropriate in order to promote future 
compliance.
    Additionally, FRA may assess a civil monetary penalty against any 
railroad employee, manager, or supervisor who willfully causes a 
violation or noncompliance with any requirement of Part 225, including 
Secs. 225.33(a) and (b), requiring adherence to the railroad's 
intimidation and harassment policy and noninterference with that 
policy. FRA may issue these civil penalties pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
21301, 21302, and 21304. Also see Appendix A to Part 209 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations for other sanctions. Criminal penalties and/or 
imprisonment provided for in 49 U.S.C. 21311 may also be imposed on any 
individual who knowingly and willfully makes a false entry in a record 
or report required by the accident reporting regulations or other 
regulations issued under 49 U.S.C. chapter 201; destroys, mutilates, 
changes, or falsifies such a record or report; does not enter required 
specified facts in a such record or report; makes or preserves such a 
record or report in violation of such a regulation or order; or who 
files a false record or report with FRA. FRA wants to make it clear to 
all railroads that it will be diligent in its efforts to ensure that 
all parties adhere to and comply with the intimidation and harassment 
policy in the ICP. It should be noted that FRA will be aggressive in 
pursuing enforcement sanctions against any person found to be in 
violation of the railroad's harassment and intimidation policy.
    FRA's proposal in Sec. 225.33(b) which stated that railroads must 
make ``a reasonable and conscientious effort to adhere to the Plan'' is 
too vague and would undoubtedly create considerable variability in 
perceptions of compliance. Thus, FRA has eliminated this requirement. 
FRA believes that imposition of a monetary penalty and other 
enforcement sanctions on the reporting railroad and against individuals 
as discussed above provides an incentive for the reporting railroad and 
all parties to observe and follow its internal control procedures.

B. Section 225.37  Computer Magnetic Media Transfer and Electronic 
Submission

Proposed Rule
    FRA proposed, in Sec. 225.37, to amend the current reporting 
requirements to provide railroads the option of using magnetic media 
(computer diskettes and magnetic tape) in lieu of the paper (``hard 
copy'') forms currently submitted to transmit both the initial and 
updated versions of the following reports: (a) the ``Rail Equipment 
Accident/ Incident Report'' (Form FRA F 6180.54); (b) the ``Railroad 
Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet)'' (Form FRA F 
6180.55a); and (c) the ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 
Report'' (Form FRA F 6180.57). FRA proposed that reports submitted via 
magnetic media would be due within 30 days after expiration of the 
month in which the accident/incident occurred.
    In particular, the proposed rule allowed railroads, in 
Sec. 225.37(a), subject to various conditions, the option to submit 
magnetic media that would contain: (a) initial accident/incident 
reports, (b) updates or amendments to all reports previously submitted 
in hard copy, and (c) updates or amendments to reports initially 
transmitted on magnetic media.
    The proposed rule allowed railroads to continue to submit hard copy 
reports, as the current regulations require, but to update the data contained on 
the hard copy by way of magnetic media. Alternatively, the proposal 
allowed railroads the option of utilizing magnetic media exclusively 
for all initial reports and all updates and amendments to those 
reports. FRA proposed that all transmissions of updated or amended 
reports by means of magnetic media would be added to a year-to-date 
file created exclusively for each reporting railroad. This year-to-date 
file would include all updates and amendments on reported accidents and 
incidents and would be maintained by FRA.
    FRA also proposed, in Sec. 225.37(b), to require that when a 
railroad utilizes the magnetic media option, whether to submit an 
initial report, or an updated or amended report, it was to submit along 
with the magnetic media: (a) a sworn report, as required by 49 U.S.C. 
20901 (formerly contained at Sec. 1 of the Accident Reports Act, 45 
U.S.C. 38), in the form of a notarized ``Railroad Injury and Illness 
Summary'' (Form FRA F 6180.55), and (b) a signed ``Batch Control Form'' 
for magnetic media. The requirement to submit a notarized Form FRA F 
6180.55 is necessary to ensure that railroad reporting officials attest 
to the validity of the information reported to FRA in the magnetic 
media. It also provides FRA with evidence necessary to hold those 
officials accountable for false reporting.
    Since the magnetic media option is a fairly new concept, FRA 
proposed, in Sec. 225.37(c), to require the railroads that utilize this 
medium to initially include the hard copy of the particular accident/
incident report with the magnetic media. During this assimilation 
period, FRA would compare the data on hard copy reports to the data 
contained in the magnetic media to determine if the information 
reported via magnetic media was consistent and reliable. This 
requirement would ensure quality control and would provide FRA a 
measure by which to gauge accurate reporting. After a three-month 
period of 100-percent accuracy verification, FRA would notify the 
railroad in writing that the hard copy was no longer necessary.
Comments
    Nearly all commenters expressed an interest in implementing some 
kind of electronic transmission and exchange of data from the railroads 
to FRA. Several commenters expressed the desire to have a standard, 
consistent format that would assure the credibility of the original 
report while others expressed the desire to submit data utilizing a 
variety of different reporting formats designed by the individual 
railroads. Some commenters recommended that FRA should design and make 
available to all railroads a software package of the formats required 
for transmission of all types of data in order to ensure uniformity in 
reporting. Several commenters suggested that FRA should examine another 
option for the transfer of data to FRA, i.e., electronic submission of 
data over telephone lines.

Final Rule

Section 225.37  Magnetic Media Transfer and Electronic Submission

    Section 225.37 of the final rule allows for the submission of 
accident reporting data to FRA by two alternate means: (1) magnetic 
media (computer diskette or magnetic tape), or (2) electronically, over 
telephonic lines. Submission of this data through either means remains 
optional for the reporting railroad.
    Section 225.37(a) states that railroads utilizing either option may 
submit the following reports, updates to reports, and amendments to 
reports to FRA:
    (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 ``Batch Control Form'' (Form FRA F 6180.99). Section 
225.37(d) states that each railroad that employs either option must 
submit its monthly reporting data to FRA in a year-to-date file format. 
For example, the railroad's April submission must contain the reporting 
data for the months of January through April, including any amendments 
or updates for the months of January through March.
    Section 225.37(b) states that each railroad utilizing the magnetic 
media option must submit the following:
    (1) the computer diskette or magnetic tape;
    (2) the ``Batch Control Form'' (Form FRA F 6180.99); and
    (3) the notarized hard copy of the ``Railroad Injury and Illness 
Summary'' (Form FRA F 6180.55), signed by the railroad's reporting 
officer.
    Also note that each railroad need submit only one ``Batch Control 
Form'' (Form FRA F 6180.99) with its monthly submission since the 
``Batch Control Form'' contains the sum totals for the four reports 
that appear on the form.
    As previously stated, the notarization of Form FRA F 6180.55 is 
required by 49 U.S.C. 20901 and this form must continue to be submitted 
to FRA in hard copy format. Also note that the proposal requiring the 
railroad reporting officer's signature on the Batch Control Form is not 
adopted in the final rule. The format for the Batch Control Form is set 
forth in Attachment 2 to this final rule.
    Legislation before Congress (the ``Department of Transportation 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1996'') would amend 49 U.S.C. 20901(a) to 
eliminate the requirement that railroads file notarized monthly reports 
with FRA regarding accidents and incidents on their properties. The 
amendment would allow the Secretary to specify the frequency with which 
reports must be filed; provide discretion to set different reporting 
requirements for different classes of railroads; and facilitate 
electronic filing and a corresponding reduction in paper filings. It is 
believed these amendments would reduce unnecessary expense and delay 
associated with filing monthly reports, particularly for small 
railroads and those railroads which may have no events to report for a 
particular month.
    Section 225.37(c) outlines the requirements for submission of data 
electronically, through telephonic means. The requirements for 
electronic submission parallel those for magnetic media submissions. 
The only difference is that a railroad utilizing the electronic 
submission option must transmit its year-to-date file reporting data to 
an FRA-designated computer. Note, however, that each railroad must 
continue to submit the notarized hard copy of the ``Railroad Injury and 
Illness Summary'' (Form FRA F 6180.55).
    Section 225.37(e) states that, initially, each railroad utilizing 
either the magnetic media or electronic submission option must submit 
the hard copy report(s) for each accident/incident it reports by such 
means. FRA will continually review the hard copy reports against the 
data submitted electronically or by means of magnetic media for that 
reporting railroad. Once the magnetic media or electronic submission is 
in total agreement with the submitted hard copies of the reports for 
three consecutive reporting months, FRA will notify the railroad, in 
writing, that submission of the hard copy reports is no longer 
required. However, note that each railroad must continue to submit the 
notarized hard copy of the ``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary'' 
(Form FRA F 6180.55) with its magnetic media or electronic submissions 
until such time that legislation is passed eliminating this 
requirement.
    The next revised FRA Guide will contain more detail concerning the 
submission of data via magnetic media or, electronically, over telephone lines or other means.

C. Section 225.27  Retention of Records

Proposed Rule
    FRA proposed that railroads that chose to submit their data via 
magnetic media or electronically, over telephone lines, as discussed in 
the previous section, would remain responsible for having on file hard 
copies of the reports identified in the current regulations at 
Sec. 225.21. Therefore, FRA proposed, in Sec. 225.27(c), that each 
railroad must maintain on file, at one or more central locations 
designated by the railroad, a signed copy of both the ``Rail Equipment 
Accident/Incident Report'' (Form FRA F 6180.54) and the ``Highway-Rail 
Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report'' (Form FRA F 6180.57), as well 
as a copy of all other reports pursuant to Part 225. This requirement 
was also meant to include a hard copy of any record submitted via 
magnetic media or, electronically, over telephone lines, so as to 
enable both federal and State inspectors, as well as other authorized 
representatives, a means by which to verify whether the railroad 
reported a specific accident/incident or injury/illness to FRA.
Comments
    Most railroads expressed concern that the requirement for records 
to be maintained at one or more central locations was far too stringent 
and impracticable. In contrast, rail labor representatives agreed with 
the FRA proposal that railroads should have a hard copy of all records 
on file at a central location designated by that railroad. With new 
moves by railroads to centralize functions of their operations, the 
State of California suggested that railroads should be required to 
provide a central location for retention of records within the 
boundaries of each State in which it operates.

Final Rule

Section 225.27  Retention of Records

    Section 225.27(a) states that each railroad must retain the 
``Railroad Employee Injury and/or Illness Record'' (Form FRA F 6180.98) 
and the Monthly List of Injuries and Illnesses (both discussed in 
detail later in this preamble), as required by Sec. 225.25, for at 
least five years after the end of the calendar year to which they 
relate. The ``Initial Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Record'' (Form 
FRA F 6180.97), as required by Sec. 225.25, must be retained for at 
least two years after the end of the calendar year to which they 
relate. The ``Initial Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Record'' is 
discussed in detail later in this preamble.
    Please note that maintenance and access to any record and report 
required under this part are discussed in this preamble in the section 
entitled ``Access to Records and Reports'' (Sec. 225.35).

D. Reporting Definitions and Forms

1. Form FRA F 6180.45--``Annual Summary Report of Railroad Injury and 
Illness''
    Form FRA F 6180.45 has been used by the rail industry to report all 
deaths, injuries, and occupational illnesses of on-duty railroad 
employees that occurred during the calendar year.
Proposal
    FRA proposed to eliminate the requirement for submission of the 
``Annual Summary Report of Railroad Injury and Illness'' (Form FRA F 
6180.45). However, certain blocks of information on this form were 
deemed important for accurate injury and illness data analysis. 
Information regarding ``Terminations or Permanent Transfers'' found in 
column ``8'' on the annual summary report lists the number of cases in 
column ``3'' (Total Lost Workday Cases) and column ``7'' (Non-Fatal 
Cases without Lost Workdays) that resulted in either the termination or 
the permanent transfer of the employee for reasons related to the 
sustained injury or occupational illness. FRA proposed to move the 
block designated ``Terminations or Permanent Transfers'' to the 
``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet)'' (Form FRA 
F 6180.55a). Similarly, FRA proposed to move the blocks that solicit 
information on ``Establishments Included in this Report'' and ``Average 
Employment in Reporting Year'' on the annual summary report to the 
``Annual Railroad Report of Employee Hours and Casualties, by State'' 
(Form FRA F 6180.56).
Comments
    Commenters agreed with FRA's proposal to eliminate Form FRA F 
6180.45 and to transfer the information blocks pertaining to 
``Terminations or Permanent Transfers,'' ``Establishments Included in 
this Report, and ``Average Employment in Reporting Year'' to other 
existing reporting forms.
Final Rule and Decision
    The final rule eliminates the requirement for railroads to submit 
the ``Annual Summary Report of Railroad Injury and Illness'' (Form FRA 
F 6180.45). Blocks that solicit information on ``Establishments 
Included in this Report'' and ``Average Employment in Report Year'' are 
transferred to the ``Annual Railroad Report of Employee Hours and 
Casualties, by State'' (Form FRA F 6180.56) as blocks ``4'' and ``5,'' 
respectively. The block designated ``Termination or Permanent 
Transfer'' is transferred to the ``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 
(Continuation Sheet)'' (Form FRA F 6180.55a) as block ``5r.''
2. Form FRA F 6180.54--``Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report''
    Collisions, derailments, explosions, fires, acts of God, and other 
events involving the operation of standing or moving on-track equipment 
resulting in more than $6,300 of reportable damage (the current 
reporting threshold) must be reported using Form FRA F 6180.54. FRA 
proposed to make limited changes to the ``Rail Equipment Accident/
Incident Report.'' The format for the revised ``Rail Equipment 
Accident/Incident Report'' (Form FRA F 6180.54) is set forth in 
Attachment 3 to this final rule.

a. Special Study Blocks

Proposal
    FRA proposed establishment of three new blocks on Form FRA F 
6180.54, each designated as a ``Special Study Block'' (SSB), to collect 
information on specific accident issues over a specified time period in 
response to particular hazards or associated railroad risks that are of 
safety concern.
Comments
    AAR and its constituent members opposed the addition of the special 
study blocks to the ``Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report'' (Form 
FRA F 6180.54). AAR stated that gathering information, as the need may 
arise, would be somewhat expensive due to the computer programming 
necessary to complete the SSB information. These same members stated 
that collection of SSB information would be time consuming for the rail 
industry since instructions would have to be issued to the field as to 
what type of information is actually needed.
    Several union representatives felt that the addition of the SSBs to 
Form FRA F 6180.54 was necessary to collect pertinent data but that FRA 
should be very specific in its information request.
    Other parties stated that if FRA decided not to add the SSBs as 
proposed, then the block allowing for a narrative description of the 
special event should be completed by the reporting railroad only when 
other blocks did not define the special circumstances surrounding the 
accident. Final Decision
    The ``Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report'' (Form FRA F 
6180.54) contains two SSBs in block ``49.'' As the need arises, FRA 
will notify the railroads in writing or, if appropriate, through 
publication in the Federal Register, of the purpose and the type of 
information that is to be collected. FRA will be as specific as 
possible in order to minimize both costs and the amount of time 
associated with the collection of this new information. Each SSB has 20 
characters in order to standardize the data structure for computer 
files. FRA believes the SSBs will prove extremely valuable in 
collecting information to help FRA identify and evaluate issues of 
safety concern as well as other nonsafety issues as the need arises.
    FRA anticipates that use of one or more SSBs will be occasional, 
rather than continuous. As appropriate, FRA will consult with the 
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) before formulating the 
respective information collections.

b. Reporting Definitions

Proposal
    First, FRA proposed to make it clear that when estimating damage 
costs, the labor costs to be reported are only the direct labor costs 
to the railroad, e.g., hourly wages, transportation costs, and hotel 
expenses. The cost of fringe benefits would be excluded when 
calculating direct labor costs. Second, for services performed by a 
contractor, FRA proposed that the railroad would estimate a direct 
hourly labor cost by multiplying the contractor's total labor hours 
charged to the railroad by the applicable direct hourly wage rate for a 
railroad worker in that particular craft. Third, FRA proposed to make 
it clear that overhead is to be excluded from damage costs due to the 
unacceptable non-uniform treatment of overhead under the current 
process. Lastly, FRA proposed that material costs would be calculated 
based upon the costs of acquiring new material, even if the railroad 
chose to use refurbished or used material in its actual repairs.
Comments
    Most commenters favored the proposal to include only direct labor 
costs when estimating damage costs for labor, and to exclude overhead 
costs from reporting. On the other hand, most railroads did not support 
the proposal that material/equipment costs should be calculated based 
upon the costs of newly acquired material, even if the railroad chose 
to use refurbished or used material in its actual repairs. Railroad 
representatives stated that if the railroad has available, or is able 
to obtain, used material to repair or replace ``in kind'' the damaged 
material, charging the material at an artificial cost would 
inaccurately assess the real economic impact of the incident. Further, 
these commenters stated that to charge material ``incorrectly'' would 
require railroads to set up expensive duplicate recordkeeping. Most 
railroad representatives also stated that it would be difficult to 
derive the equivalent direct labor hours and rates from contractual 
services involved in railroad accident and repair costs.
    Most rail labor associations stated that the costs of all materials 
utilized to effectuate repair (whether to new, used or refurbished 
equipment) should be based upon a uniform cost for new material and 
that such costs should be determined by FRA using a uniform scale. 
These commenters stated that such standardized costs based on a uniform 
scale would eliminate any advantage or disadvantage relative to the 
volume of materials purchased, the vendor or manufacturer used, or the 
age of equipment or materials involved in the incident. Further, rail 
labor representatives favored standardized person-hour costs to assure 
a uniform mechanism for accurate comparison of identical or similar 
accidents. Using this approach, these commenters stated that accident 
reporting would be reduced to a ``level playing field'' from one 
railroad to the next.
Final Decision
    When estimating damage costs, the labor costs to be reported are 
only the direct labor costs to the railroad, e.g., hourly wages, 
transportation costs, and hotel expenses. The cost of fringe benefits 
is excluded when calculating direct labor costs. Overhead is also 
excluded when calculating damage costs due to the unacceptable non- 
uniform treatment of overhead under the current process.
    For services performed by a contractor, a direct hourly labor cost 
is calculated by multiplying the contractor's total labor hours charged 
to the railroad by the applicable direct hourly wage rate for a 
railroad worker in that particular craft. However, if a railroad cannot 
match the equivalent craft to the labor hours spent by a contractor, 
then the railroad must use the loaded rate, i.e., the cost by hour for 
labor, fringe benefits, and other costs and fees for services charged 
by the contractor for the tasks associated with the repair of the 
track, equipment, and structures due to the train accident.
    Due to the controversy surrounding FRA's proposal to calculate 
material costs based upon the costs of acquiring new material, even if 
the railroad chose to use refurbished or used material in its actual 
repairs, FRA has decided to reexamine this issue in a subsequent 
rulemaking for the accident reporting regulations in consultation with 
the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. Therefore, the current 
methodology used to calculate material costs, i.e., depreciated value 
estimates, will continue to be used by all railroads.

c. Filing of an Amended Form FRA F 6180.54

    As stated in the proposed rule, the FRA Guide was changed to 
specifically provide that amended reports are filed only if 
subsequently acquired information showed the damage to be at least a 
ten-percent variance from the amount originally reported to FRA (see 
page V-2 of the FRA Guide). This change became effective January 1, 
1993.
3. Form FRA F 6180.55a--``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 
(Continuation Sheet)''
    The ``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet)'' 
(Form FRA F 6180.55a) collects information about injuries, fatalities, 
and illnesses of railroad workers, trespassers, contractors, and 
passengers and about highway-rail grade crossing injuries and 
fatalities. FRA proposed numerous changes to this form in order to 
collect data that would aid in development of railroad injury and 
accident prevention programs. The format for the revised ``Railroad 
Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet)'' (Form FRA F 6180.55a) 
is set forth in Attachment 4 to this final rule.

a. Exposure to Hazardous Materials

Proposal
    FRA proposed to add an additional block to Form FRA F 6180.55a to 
collect data on the number of persons injured, as well as the type of 
injury (e.g., burn, inhalation, rash), due to release and exposure to 
hazardous materials.
Comments
    Some commenters supported the proposal to add this block of 
information while others stated that this type of information would be 
better collected by expanding the existing injury/illness codes 
currently used to complete Form FRA F 6180.55a. Several commenters 
expressed concern with this proposal since they believed it would be 
difficult to obtain this information, especially in the case where the individual does not tell the railroad that he or she was 
exposed to hazardous materials.
Final Decision
    Form FRA F 6180.55a contains block ``5q'' entitled ``Exposure to 
Hazmat,'' which is used to collect data on the number of persons 
injured and the type of injury resulting from exposure to hazardous 
materials.
    The Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) collects 
injury and fatality data associated with the release of hazmat. RSPA 
Form DOT 5800.1 counts the number of fatalities, hospitalized injuries 
and non-hospitalized injuries associated with a hazmat release. 
However, RSPA's data cannot provide FRA with the type of person injured 
or the type of exposure. FRA believes that collection of this 
information is critical to its data base. The next revised FRA Guide 
will contain the codes used to complete this block.
    FRA does not agree with the comments that obtaining information on 
hazardous materials exposure would be very difficult for a railroad to 
obtain. For employees of the railroad, most would inform their employer 
of such exposure and, for those employees who did not inform their 
employer, the railroad would not have knowledge of the exposure and 
therefore would not be able to report it on the Form. Further, for 
members of the general public, the reporting railroad usually can 
gather information on their exposure to release of a hazardous material 
from the claims filed by such persons.

b. County/Day of Month/Time of Day

Proposal
    FRA proposed the addition of blocks to collect information on the 
county where the incident occurred, as well as the day of the month and 
the time of day when the incident occurred.
Comments
    Most commenters believed that information that would help pinpoint 
and identify an accident site was useful and would help identify 
problem areas and regional patterns. A few commenters stated that 
present requirements for location information provide sufficient 
information to identify accident sites.
Final Decision
    Form FRA F 6180.55a contains blocks ``5b'' (day of the month); 
``5c'' (time of day); and ``5d'' (county) in order for FRA safety 
inspectors to determine which sites or railroad shops have more 
injuries or illnesses and to assist FRA inspectors in records 
inspections.
    c. Gender/Ethnicity.
Proposal
    FRA proposed requiring the gender and ethnicity of the person 
injured or ill in an effort to help identify whether particular groups 
of individuals, particularly trespassers, are more susceptible than 
others to certain injuries and illnesses.
Comments
    Almost all commenters opposed the addition of blocks to gather 
information on the ethnicity and gender of the injured or ill person. 
These commenters stated that reporting of gender and ethnicity would 
lead to misunderstandings between employees and supervisors as to why 
this information was necessary and, that for trespassers, verification 
of ethnicity would be difficult, if not impossible.
Final Decision
    FRA agrees that collection of information, particularly with 
respect to ethnicity, would be difficult to collect and may be 
perceived as violating privacy rights of the employee, trespasser, 
passenger or any other individual injured in a train related accident/
incident. Therefore, the proposed blocks to collect gender and 
ethnicity information on the ``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary 
(Continuation Sheet)'' are not adopted in the final rule.

d. Circumstance Codes

Proposal
    FRA proposed to develop new codes, in addition to those currently 
used, to describe the cause and/or circumstance of injuries and 
illnesses not currently covered by the regulations. Specifically, these 
circumstance codes would be used to complete the following blocks of 
information on Form FRA F 6180.55a: ``Physical Act,'' ``Location,'' 
``Event,'' ``Result,'' and ``Cause.''
Comments
    Most commenters agreed that the existing occurrence codes were 
outdated and in need of revision; however, they stated that there was 
no need to add an entire set of new circumstance codes. These 
commenters stated that some of the circumstance codes, as proposed, 
were redundant and lacked objectivity and thus recommended revision of 
the existing occurrence codes through the AAR's Uniformity in Reporting 
Committee. Other commenters believed that the addition of the proposed 
codes was necessary and desirable because such data would help identify 
particular hazards.
    These commenters also suggested that FRA should expand the codes to 
include special non-employee cause codes.
Final Decision
    The occurrence codes used to best describe the event or activity 
that caused the casualty (found in Appendix F of the FRA Guide) will 
become obsolete as of December 31, 1996. A set of codes will be 
developed to complete the information in blocks ``5j--Physical Act,'' 
``5k--Location,'' ``5l--Event,'' ``5m--Result,'' and ``5n--Cause'' for 
Form FRA F 6180.55a. FRA will shortly issue a letter requesting one or 
more special meetings with an advisory committee or, with the AAR 
Committee for Uniformity in Reporting, members of ASLRA, rail labor 
associations, and other interested groups, to assist in the development 
of the new circumstance codes for reporting accidents/incidents.

e. Termination or Permanent Transfer

    Since FRA eliminated the requirement for submission of the ``Annual 
Summary Report of Railroad Injury and Illness'' (Form FRA F 6180.45), 
data on ``Termination or Permanent Transfer'' is now collected in block 
``5r'' on the ``Railroad Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation 
Sheet)'' (Form FRA F 6180.55a).
    f. Narrative on Unusual Circumstances.
Proposal
    FRA proposed the addition of a narrative block on