
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70722-70766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21291]



[[Page 70721]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 196

October 12, 2023

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Railroad Administration





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





49 CFR Parts 217, 218, 229, et al.





Locomotive Image and Audio Recording Devices for Passenger Trains; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 70722]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 217, 218, 229, and 299

[Docket No. FRA-2016-0036, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC51


Locomotive Image and Audio Recording Devices for Passenger Trains

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is requiring the installation of inward- and outward-
facing locomotive image recording devices on all lead locomotives in 
passenger trains, as required by the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST Act). In general, the final rule requires that 
these devices record while a lead locomotive is in motion and retain 
the data in a crashworthy memory module. The rule also treats 
locomotive-mounted recording devices on passenger locomotives as 
``safety devices'' under existing Federal railroad safety regulations 
to prohibit tampering with or disabling them. Further, this rule 
governs the use of passenger locomotive recordings to conduct 
operational tests to determine passenger railroad operating employees' 
compliance with applicable railroad rules and Federal regulations. 
Finally, this rule requires Texas Central Railroad (TCRR) to install 
and maintain trainset image recording systems appropriate to TCRR's 
operation.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background 
documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at 
any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Roberts, Attorney Adviser, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, at email: [email protected] or 
telephone: (202) 306-4333; or John Mayser, Specialist, Office of 
Railroad Safety, at email: [email protected] or telephone: (202) 493-
8008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions
    A. Inward- and Outward-Facing Recording Devices on Freight 
Locomotives
    1. Requiring Inward- and Outward-Facing Locomotive Recording 
Devices on Freight Locomotives
    2. Application of Requirements to Freight Railroads That 
Voluntarily Install Inward- or Outward-Facing Locomotive Recording 
Devices
    3. Application of Requirements to Freight Locomotives Performing 
Rescue Operations
    B. Audio Recording Devices
    1. Requiring Audio Recorders on Passenger or Freight Locomotives
    2. Referencing Audio in the Definition of ``Recording Device'' 
in Part 229
    C. Recording Device Run-Time/Shutoff When Trains Stop Moving
    D. Exclusion of Existing Installed or Ordered Equipment
    E. Certified Crashworthy Event Recorder Memory Modules
    1. Necessity of Crashworthy Memory Modules
    2. Potential Exemptions From the Crashworthy Memory Module 
Requirements
    3. Need for Stronger Memory Module Requirements
    4. Storing Audio Recordings on the Crashworthy Memory Module
    F. Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording System and Devices
    1. Placement of Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording 
Devices
    2. Requirements for Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recorders 
Are Too Prescriptive
    G. Inward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording Systems and Devices
    1. Inward-Facing Recording Devices as a Tool To Detect Fatigue
    2. Locomotive Recording Devices and Real-Time Monitoring
    3. Inward-Facing Recording Device Coverage of the Locomotive Cab
    4. Recording in Low-Light Conditions
    5. Frame Rate for Inward-Facing Recording Devices
    6. Prohibition on Recording Activities Within a Locomotive's 
Sanitation Compartment
    H. Notice Provided When Locomotive Recording Devices Are Present
    I. Repairing, Replacing, or Removing Locomotive Image Recording 
Devices From Service
    1. Practicableness of the Standard
    2. Standard's Consistency With Locomotive Recording Devices' 
Designation as Safety Devices
    3. Documenting When a Locomotive Image Recording Device Has Been 
Removed From Service
    J. FRA Approval Process for Locomotive Image Recording Systems 
and Devices
    1. Necessity of the Approval Process
    2. Clarifying the Approval Process
    3. Application of the Approval Process to Freight Locomotives
    K. Implementation Period of the Rule
    1. Four-Year Implementation Period
    2. Application of the Final Rule to Image Recording Systems in 
New, Remanufactured, or Existing Locomotives
    L. Operational (Efficiency) Testing
    1. Application of the Rule's Part 217 Amendments to Freight 
Railroads
    2. Burden of the Rule's Part 217 Requirements
    3. Appropriateness of Using Locomotive Recordings for 
Operational Testing
    4. FRA's Authority To Regulate the Use of Locomotive Audio 
Recordings in Operational Testing
    5. Effect on FRA's Confidential Close Call Recording System 
(C3RS)
    6. Rules or Regulations Locomotive Recording Devices Should 
Address as Part of a Passenger Railroad's Operational Testing 
Program
    M. Locomotive Recording Devices as Safety Devices Under Part 218
    N. Twelve-Hour Recording Period for Locomotive Image Recording 
Devices
    1. Appropriateness of the 12-Hour Recording Period
    2. Feasibility of 24 Hours of Continuous Recording Capability
    O. Privacy Considerations
    P. Abuse of Locomotive Recording Devices
    Q. Recording Devices' Effect on Railroad Employees
    R. Download and Security Features of Locomotive Recording 
Systems
    1. Federally Mandated or Industry-Adopted Standard
    2. Standard or Crashworthy Memory Modules
    S. Self-Monitoring and Self-Reporting Systems or Devices on 
Locomotive Image Recording Systems
    1. Whether Cost of These Systems or Devices Was Adequately 
Considered
    2. Taking a Sample Download During a Periodic Inspection
    T. Preservation and Handling Requirements for Locomotive 
Recording Devices and Recordings
    1. Chain-of-Custody Requirements
    2. Prohibitions on the Public Release of Locomotive Recordings
    3. Application to Audio Recording Devices and Their Recordings
    4. Preservation Requirements Between Different Public Agency 
Rail Owners and Operators
    5. Providing Image and Audio Data in a Usable Format
    6. Permissible Uses for Locomotive Recording Devices
    i. FRA Should Only Set Minimum Safety Requirements
    ii. Application to Freight Locomotive Recording Devices
    U. Factual Determinations When There Are Discrepancies Between 
Locomotive Image and Event Recorder Data
    V. Personal Electronic Device Use and Locomotive Recording 
Devices
    W. Positive Train Control
    X. Locomotive Image Recorder Analytics
    Y. Procurement of Locomotive Recording Devices
    Z. Application of the Rule to GP-Style Long-Hood Locomotives
    AA. Inclusion of Passenger Railroad Cab Cars in the Rule's 
Requirements
III. Civil Penalties
IV. Discussion of Amendments to Part 299 Pertaining to Texas Central 
Railroad Trainset Image Recording Systems
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

[[Page 70723]]

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; 
Certification
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. Environmental Impact
    F. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Energy Impact
    J. Trade Impact
    K. Congressional Review Act

Table of Abbreviations

    The following abbreviations are used in this document's preamble:

AAR--Association of American Railroads
Amtrak--National Railroad Passenger Corporation
APTA--American Public Transportation Association
BLET--Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
C3RS--Confidential Close Call Reporting System
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOT--Department of Transportation
FAST Act--Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
FRA--Federal Railroad Administration
Metra--Commuter Rail Division of the Illinois Regional 
Transportation Authority
Metrolink--Southern California Regional Rail Authority
NCTD--North Country Transit District
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OEM--Original equipment manufacturer
PTC--Positive Train Control
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
SMART--International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and 
Transportation Workers
TCRR--Texas Central Railroad
TTD--Transportation Trades Department, American Federation of Labor 
and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)

I. Executive Summary

    FRA is publishing this final rule as mandated by section 11411 of 
the FAST Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 20168 (the Statute), and under the 
agency's general railroad safety rulemaking authority at 49 U.S.C. 
20103.\1\ The Statute requires FRA (as the Secretary of 
Transportation's delegate) \2\ to promulgate regulations requiring each 
railroad carrier that provides regularly scheduled intercity rail 
passenger or commuter rail passenger transportation to the public to 
install inward- and outward-facing image recording devices in all 
controlling locomotives of passenger trains.\3\ This final rule 
implements the Statute's requirements regarding such recording devices 
on ``controlling'' locomotives, which will normally be ``lead'' 
locomotives consistent with FRA's existing regulations on locomotive 
event recorders. Before the Statute was enacted, the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC) accepted a task from FRA in 2014 to address 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations R-
10-01 & -02 \4\ concerning locomotive-mounted recording devices (RSAC 
Task No. 14-01). The RSAC established the Recording Devices Working 
Group (Working Group) to recommend specific actions regarding the 
installation and use of locomotive-mounted recording devices, such as 
inward- and outward-facing video and audio recorders.\5\ The RSAC did 
not vote, or reach consensus, on any recommendations to FRA regarding 
the adoption of regulatory text addressing locomotive-mounted video or 
audio recording devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as codified 
at 49 U.S.C. 20103, provides that ``[t]he Secretary of 
Transportation, as necessary, shall prescribe regulations and issue 
orders for every area of railroad safety supplementing laws and 
regulations in effect on October 16, 1970.''
    \2\ The Secretary's responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20168, 
and the balance of the railroad safety laws, is delegated to the 
Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89.
    \3\ A detailed discussion of the Statute's requirements is 
provided in the NPRM (84 FR 35712, 35714-35715).
    \4\ A detailed analysis of the NTSB Recommendations is provided 
in the NPRM (84 FR 35712, 35715-35723).
    \5\ https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/radcms.rsac/task/GetDocument/10. A 
detailed discussion of the RSAC proceedings is provided in the NPRM 
(84 FR 35712, 35723).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the Statute's mandate, relevant NTSB recommendations, 
the RSAC Working Group's discussions, accident history, and railroad 
safety violations that FRA had investigated,\6\ FRA issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 24, 2019, proposing inward- and 
outward-facing image recording devices be required on all lead 
passenger train locomotives.\7\ FRA received comments from fifteen 
different individuals or organizations in response to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A detailed discussion of accidents investigated by FRA is 
provided in the NPRM (84 FR 35715-35723).
    \7\ 84 FR 35712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having carefully considered the public comments in response to the 
NPRM, FRA issues this final rule amending the regulatory requirements 
of Railroad Operating Rules (49 CFR part 217), Railroad Operating 
Practices (49 CFR part 218), Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards (49 
CFR part 229), and Texas Central High-Speed Rail Safety Standards (49 
CFR part 299). This final rule requires intercity passenger and 
commuter railroads \8\ to install compliant image recording systems on 
the lead locomotives of all their passenger trains by October 12, 2027, 
except for TCRR, which is required to have compliant image recording 
systems installed on its trainsets prior to commencing revenue service, 
as specified under part 299. Further, beginning October 12, 2024, any 
locomotive image recording system installed on new, remanufactured,\9\ 
or existing passenger train lead locomotives must meet the specified 
requirements of this final rule, including the requirement that the 
last twelve hours of data recorded be stored in a memory module that 
meets the existing crashworthiness requirements in part 229. In 
addition, this final rule requires that all locomotive-mounted 
recording devices in passenger locomotives be treated as ``safety 
devices'' under part 218, subpart D, thereby making it a violation of 
applicable Federal regulations to tamper with or disable any 
locomotive-mounted recording system or device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As proposed in the NPRM, railroad carriers providing 
``intercity rail passenger transportation'' and ``commuter rail 
passenger transportation'' are subject to this final rule and are 
the same as those covered by 49 U.S.C. 24102 (passenger railroads 
required to install positive train control (PTC) systems under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(a)).
    \9\ See 49 CFR 229.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA notes that the image recording device requirements for 
passenger train locomotives in this final rule supplement FRA's 
existing locomotive event recorder regulation in part 229. Locomotive 
event recorders are required on the lead locomotives of trains 
traveling over 30 mph and already record numerous operational 
parameters that assist in accident/incident investigation and 
prevention (see 49 CFR 229.135).
    FRA used a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the impact of the 
final rule on passenger railroads required to install and maintain 
locomotive image recording devices. FRA estimated the low and high 
costs of this final rule over a 10-year period, using discount rates of 
3 and 7 percent, with the results shown in the tables below.

[[Page 70724]]



          Table E.1--Total 10-Year Costs and Benefits of Locomotive Image Recording Devices, Low Range
                                   [Costs are in 2018 dollars, $ in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Discounted at 7%   Discounted at 3%   Annualized at 7%   Annualized at 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...............................              $42.2              $46.2               $6.0               $5.4
Cost Savings........................                2.0                2.4                0.3                0.3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.......................               40.2               43.9                5.7                5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Benefit: Potential reduction in safety risk resulting from deterrence of unsafe behaviors, increase
  to safety culture, and information for accident investigation and future accident prevention.


          Table E.2--Total 10-Year Costs and Benefits of Locomotive Image Recording Devices, High Range
                                                 [$ In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Discounted at 7%   Discounted at 3%   Annualized at 7%   Annualized at 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...............................              $87.3              $94.0              $12.4              $11.0
Cost Savings........................                2.0                2.4                0.3                0.3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.......................               85.3               91.6               12.1               10.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Benefit: Potential reduction in safety risk resulting from deterrence of unsafe behaviors, increase
  to safety culture, and information for accident investigation and future accident prevention.

    The primary source of expected benefits is the potential reduction 
in safety risk. FRA conducted a literature review to determine the 
effectiveness rate of inward- and outward-facing recording devices, but 
was unable to determine an appropriate rate. The benefits for the final 
rule are qualitatively discussed. The reduction in safety risk is 
expected to come primarily from the change in crew behavior. Railroads 
can deter unsafe behavior if crewmembers realize their actions may be 
observed on a frequent, but random, basis by railroad supervisors. 
Locomotive image recorders cannot directly prevent an accident from 
occurring, but rather can provide investigators with information after 
an accident occurs that can help to prevent future accidents of that 
type from occurring.

II. Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions

    In the NPRM, FRA specifically requested information from the public 
as well as comments on its proposals. Commenters provided valuable 
information and comments on issues where FRA asked for comments as well 
as on various other issues. In total, FRA received comments from 
fifteen different individuals or organizations in response to the NPRM.
    An FRA employee also received an email from New York's Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority providing information about the economic cost 
of the requirements proposed in the NPRM. FRA is treating that email as 
a comment and it is addressed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
of this final rule. The full email has also been placed into the 
rulemaking docket along with a memorandum from FRA explaining the 
context for the email. Further, in its submitted comments, the 
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation 
Workers (SMART) disagreed with FRA's characterization in the NPRM that 
a public hearing would be provided only if a party was unable to 
adequately present his or her position by written statement; however, 
neither SMART, nor any other party, requested a public hearing on this 
rulemaking. Accordingly, a public hearing was not provided.
    Most of the comments in response to the NPRM are discussed below or 
in the Regulatory Impact and Notices portion of this final rule. The 
order in which the comments are discussed in this final rule, whether 
by issue or by commenter, is not intended to reflect the significance 
of the comment raised or the standing of the commenter.

A. Inward- and Outward-Facing Recording Devices on Freight Locomotives

    In the NPRM, FRA did not propose to require the installation and 
use of inward- and outward-facing recording devices in freight 
locomotives, nor did FRA propose that any of the NPRM's requirements 
apply to inward- and outward-facing locomotive recording devices that 
have been voluntarily installed by freight railroads. While FRA 
discussed the issue of inward- and outward-facing recording devices on 
freight locomotives at various points in the NPRM, FRA specifically 
addressed the issue under the heading ``Mandatory Installment of 
Inward- and Outward-Facing Recording Devices on Freight Locomotives.'' 
In that section, FRA discussed its decision not to propose such a 
requirement because: (1) the Statute did not require recording devices 
be installed on freight locomotives; (2) the cost of installing such 
devices could outweigh the safety benefits; and (3) many freight 
railroads, including all Class I railroads, had already installed or 
were in the process of installing such recording devices.
    In addition, FRA specifically asked for public comment on whether 
some or all freight railroads should be required to equip their 
locomotives with recording devices and, if FRA did not require freight 
railroads to install these devices on their locomotives, the extent to 
which the requirements proposed in the NPRM should apply to inward- and 
outward-facing locomotive recording devices on freight railroads that 
have already installed such devices or install such devices in the 
future.
    As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is declining to adopt any requirements 
that freight locomotives install or use inward- or outward-facing 
recording devices in freight locomotives, nor will any requirements of 
this rule apply to inward- or outward-facing locomotive recording 
devices that have been voluntarily installed by freight railroads. The 
Statute requires inward- and outward-facing image recording devices in 
controlling passenger locomotives as well as gives the Secretary 
discretion to require in-cab audio recording devices. 49 U.S.C. 
20168(a), (e)(1)(A). There is no statutory requirement to create 
standards for, or apply any of the requirements of this final rule to, 
freight locomotive image or audio recordings.

[[Page 70725]]

Furthermore, FRA is not creating a requirement that audio devices be 
installed on freight locomotives.
    FRA did not receive comments showing that benefits would outweigh 
costs for freight railroads. Accordingly, FRA declines to require 
freight railroads to install recording devices at this time. However, 
freight locomotives that are used in commuter or intercity passenger 
service, other than for rescue purposes, are passenger locomotives and 
are subject to all the final rule's requirements. In other words, 
freight locomotives that do not perform any passenger railroad related 
service, or are used only for rescue purposes, are not subject to the 
requirements of this final rule. Additional discussion on this topic is 
provided below.
1. Requiring Inward- and Outward-Facing Locomotive Recording Devices on 
Freight Locomotives
    The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commented that 
requiring freight railroads to install locomotive recording devices was 
not necessary, as many freight railroads had already installed, or were 
in the process of installing, recording devices voluntarily. AAR stated 
that a survey of AAR's Class I member railroads showed that these 
railroads ``will have installed approximately 20,500 inward-facing 
cameras and 22,000 outward-facing cameras in the near future.''
    The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the 
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), and SMART also 
expressed opposition to FRA requiring freight railroads to install 
inward- and outward-facing locomotive recording devices. SMART agreed 
with FRA's statement in the NPRM that the cost for freight railroads to 
implement similar procedures as those proposed in the NPRM for 
passenger trains may outweigh the potential safety benefits.
    The NTSB and Wi-Tronix, LLC (Wi-Tronix), a company that provides 
connected solutions for locomotive fleets, commented that FRA should 
require inward- and outward-facing locomotive recording devices in 
freight locomotives. The NTSB contended that inward- and outward-facing 
audio and image recorders are needed in freight railroad operations, 
referencing NTSB Safety Recommendations R-10-01 and R-10-02, which were 
issued following four separate NTSB accident investigations involving 
freight rail operations. The NTSB asserted that the need for recording 
devices in freight railroad investigations is exactly the same as in 
passenger railroad investigations given that: (1) freight and passenger 
trains operate on the same tracks and both pose risks of accidents that 
have the potential to significantly affect the public; and (2) recorded 
information about safety issues identified in freight railroad 
accidents and incidents could inform, mitigate, or prevent similar 
safety issues in passenger railroad operations. Therefore, the NTSB 
believed it would be ``shortsighted'' for FRA to limit the rule to 
apply only to lead passenger locomotives.
    Like the NTSB, Wi-Tronix also commented that the rail network is 
integrated and that commuter and intercity passenger trains often share 
the same track and dispatch system, among other things, with freight 
trains. Acknowledging the increase in video system use for safety and 
operating rule compliance, Wi-Tronix stated that there ``are roughly 20 
times the number of freight locomotives compared with passenger 
locomotives,'' and the full safety benefits of the technology would not 
be realized without the requirement covering all locomotive types.
    FRA recognizes the potential safety benefits of locomotive 
recording devices in freight locomotives as noted in the NTSB's and Wi-
Tronix's comments. However, FRA disagrees that the full safety benefits 
of this technology can only be achieved with a specific regulatory 
requirement that freight railroads install inward- and outward-facing 
image and/or audio recorders.
    As stated in the NPRM, many freight railroads, including all Class 
I railroads, have either already installed or are in the process of 
installing recording devices in their locomotives. As noted by AAR in 
its comment, ``approximately 20,500 inward-facing cameras and 22,000 
outward-facing cameras'' will be installed on AAR Class I member 
railroads ``in the near future.'' In addition, AAR points out in its 
comments that recordings from these voluntarily installed systems are 
already subject to the accident data preservation requirements in 49 
CFR 229.135(e).\10\ Therefore, the data from these voluntarily 
installed devices in freight locomotives will be available for FRA's 
and the NTSB's accident investigation purposes, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ If a locomotive is equipped with an event recorder or ``any 
other locomotive mounted recording device or devices designed to 
record information concerning the functioning of a locomotive'' and 
is involved in a 49 CFR part 225 reportable accident, Sec.  
229.135(e) requires the railroad to preserve the data recorded for 
one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, requiring freight railroads to comply with the final 
rule's requirements would be expensive with questionable benefit. FRA 
has investigated few, if any, freight railroad accidents where freight 
locomotive image data should have been present but was not because it 
was destroyed in the accident. Furthermore, while the vast majority of 
Class I railroads have or are installing inward- and outward-facing 
cameras, very few short line railroads (Class II or Class III railroad) 
have either inward- or outward-facing cameras installed on their 
locomotives. In fact, for these much smaller railroads, FRA estimates 
that only 1% have inward-facing locomotive cameras and 25% have 
outward-facing cameras installed on their locomotives. This is not 
necessarily surprising as Class II and Class III railroads are less 
likely to need locomotive cameras given the lower speeds, shorter 
distances, and the less regular nature of the services that these 
railroads operate. These definitionally smaller operations would be 
significantly affected economically if FRA imposed the requirements of 
this final rule to freight railroads and would have difficulty 
absorbing the cost without much safety benefit.
    Therefore, for the reasons explained above, FRA is declining to 
require freight railroads to install recording devices at this time. 
FRA will continue to monitor the freight industry's voluntary 
installation of the devices and the effectiveness of those devices in 
freight rail operations. Based on this continued monitoring, FRA may 
take additional action in a separate proceeding to address the use of 
locomotive recording devices on freight railroads.
    In addition to its opposition to FRA requiring inward- and outward-
facing recording devices on freight locomotives, AAR also suggested 
that FRA add language to part 229 mirroring the preemptive effect 
language in Sec. Sec.  217.2 (preemptive effect of railroad operating 
rules) and 218.4 (preemptive effect of railroad operating practices). 
AAR asserted that both these provisions clarify FRA's intent to create 
a national standard and this final rule should include this preemption 
language for national uniformity. AAR added that, to preclude the 
creation of a patchwork of conflicting state and local requirements 
applying to freight railroads, FRA should state that its decision to 
not propose a locomotive recording device requirement for freight 
railroads reflects the agency's position that it is unnecessary to 
issue such a regulation.
    In issuing this final rule, FRA has sought to stay within the 
Statute's mandate, 49 U.S.C. 20168, and not undertake a broader 
revision of part 229. Accordingly, FRA declines to add

[[Page 70726]]

specific preemption language to part 229.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, parts and 
appurtenances of locomotives have been held subject to field 
preemption. See Napier v. Atlantic Coastline RR. Co., 272 U.S. 605 
(1926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Application of Requirements to Freight Railroads That Voluntarily 
Install Inward- or Outward-Facing Locomotive Recording Devices
    In addition to FRA inviting comments on whether the agency should 
require the installation of inward- and outward-facing recording 
devices on freight locomotives, FRA also sought comment on whether the 
proposed requirements should apply to recording devices that have 
already been installed on freight locomotives. Except for AAR, which 
supported FRA's proposal to exclude freight trains from this proposed 
rule, all the commenters generally favored applying the requirements of 
this final rule to freight locomotives that have voluntarily installed 
inward- or outward-facing recording devices.
    Based on the same reasoning provided above, the NTSB commented that 
FRA should ensure the same level of safety for both passenger and 
freight railroads and that any recording device that either a passenger 
or freight railroad has voluntarily installed should be required to 
meet the minimum standards in this final rule. While BLET, SMART, and 
TTD all opposed requiring freight railroads to equip their locomotives 
with recording devices, they all agreed that freight railroads that 
voluntarily install such devices should nonetheless have to comply with 
the final rule's railroad employee protections and adhere to a uniform 
national standard created by FRA and applicable to both freight and 
passenger locomotive recording devices, regardless of whether they were 
installed before or after the rule's issuance. TTD specifically urged 
FRA to apply the final rule's requirements to protect against employee 
retaliation under part 217 operational testing, regardless of whether 
FRA requires the installation of the locomotive recording device(s).
    After considering the comments, FRA is declining to impose any of 
the requirements in this final rule on freight railroads that have 
voluntarily installed recording devices on their locomotives. However, 
it is FRA's expectation that all railroads that voluntarily install 
recording devices on their locomotives, including freight railroads, 
will adhere to practices that are consistent with those in this final 
rule, such as those provided under new part 217 requirements that serve 
to protect employees from targeted testing as a form of retaliation 
when railroads conduct operational testing using recording devices or 
their recordings.
    FRA has independent authority to disapprove a freight railroad's 
operating rules testing program, required under Part 217.\12\ 
Therefore, if FRA finds that a freight railroad is not using its 
locomotive recording devices in good faith to fulfill the railroad's 
operational testing requirements, but is instead using locomotive 
cameras and/or audio recording devices to pursue retaliation against 
its employees, FRA could disapprove the railroad's operational testing 
program. FRA therefore expects freight railroads will adhere to the 
same, or similar, principles as being codified for passenger railroads, 
based on FRA's authority under the existing provision. Application of 
the new part 217 operational testing requirements in this final rule 
are discussed in Section II.L and the Section-by-Section Analysis 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 49 CFR 217.9(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Application of Requirement to Freight Locomotives Performing Rescue 
Operations
    Finally, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 
submitted a comment asking FRA whether freight locomotives that do not 
have inward-facing locomotive cameras compliant with this final rule 
would be allowed to ``rescue'' passenger trains that fail en route. In 
such situations, a freight locomotive ``rescues'' the failed passenger 
train by operating as the lead locomotive of the passenger train and 
hauling the train to its destination or repair point. Having considered 
APTA's comment, this final rule includes a new provision, Sec.  
229.139(l), that excludes freight locomotives from compliance with the 
requirements of new Sec.  229.136 when they are performing rescue 
operations for intercity or commuter passenger trains. However, this 
exception applies only for the limited purposes of rescuing an 
intercity or commuter passenger train; a freight locomotive used in 
regular passenger service will not be covered by the exception. The 
exclusion is based on identical language in the definition of 
``locomotive'' for purposes of FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards in Sec.  238.5 of this chapter.\13\ As FRA originally stated 
in establishing the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, FRA 
``believes that a limited exception is warranted for a freight 
locomotive used to haul a passenger train due to the failure of the 
passenger train's own motive power; FRA does not wish for the passenger 
train to be stranded.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under Sec.  238.5, neither the term ``locomotive'' nor 
``passenger equipment'' ``include[s] a freight locomotive when used 
to haul a passenger train due to failure of a passenger 
locomotive.''
    \14\ 64 FR 25540, 25578 (May 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Audio Recording Devices

1. Requiring Audio Recorders on Passenger or Freight Locomotives
    While the Statute gives FRA discretion to require the installation 
of audio-recording devices on passenger train lead locomotives and to 
establish corresponding technical details for such devices, FRA did not 
propose specific rule text in the NPRM that would require audio 
recording devices. Rather, FRA requested comment on numerous specific 
issues related to audio recorders, to evaluate whether to require audio 
recorders in passenger or freight locomotives in this final rule. 
Specifically, FRA asked about: (1) the usefulness of audio recordings 
in certain accident investigations; (2) what benefits they provide in 
addition to the benefits of image recordings; and (3) whether any 
benefits outweigh the installation cost for these devices, the cost of 
crashworthy memory for these devices, the loss of personal privacy for 
occupants inside the locomotive cab, or the potential that recordings 
from these devices could be abused by railroad supervisors.
    FRA also asked for comments on whether FRA should require audio 
recorders to stop recording after the locomotive has stopped, if FRA 
were to adopt a requirement for the installation of locomotive audio 
recorders in the final rule. In addition, FRA asked whether FRA should 
require exterior recording devices that would be capable of recording 
sounds such as the locomotive horn/bell, audible grade crossing warning 
devices, engine noises, and other sounds relevant during post-accident 
investigations, and what the utility of these recordings would be when 
weighed against the potential cost. In responding to these questions, 
FRA asked commenters to provide specific information on the costs of 
installing audio recorders.
    In response to these requests for comments, most parties agreed 
with FRA's proposal not to require the installation of locomotive audio 
recording devices in either passenger or freight locomotives. 
Commenters who advocated for the installation of such devices pointed 
to their usefulness in post-accident investigations. Although FRA did 
not receive responses to all its requests for comments related to audio 
recording devices, commenters did

[[Page 70727]]

respond to the question of when to stop audio recordings in the same 
manner as they responded to the question of when passenger railroads 
should stop their locomotive image recordings. FRA is addressing those 
comments together in the next section.
    As for the question whether FRA should require locomotive audio 
recordings at all, BLET, TTD, and SMART asserted that audio recorders 
should not be required. Moreover, BLET and SMART specifically asked FRA 
to prohibit audio recordings within the locomotive cab. BLET stated 
that, although audio and image recordings could be used to aid in 
accident investigations, the recording devices would also add another 
level of distraction and discomfort for train crews (e.g., audio 
headsets) and, for the safety purposes of the system to be achieved, 
the devices would at a minimum have to be operative on each lead 
locomotive while the train is in motion, require crashworthy data 
storage modules, and require the availability of an extra headset in 
the case of an en route failure.
    In response to FRA's request for comments on whether to require 
exterior recording devices, BLET stated that all key locomotive 
operations, including throttle, braking, locomotive horn/bell, are 
already captured on the locomotive's event recorder. Further, BLET 
noted that because grade crossing warning devices are intended to warn 
motorists, not the train crew, it would be more helpful instead to 
mount audio recorders at highway-grade crossing signal control boxes. 
Accordingly, BLET saw no value in requiring exterior locomotive 
recording devices; however, if FRA were to consider requiring such 
devices anyway, BLET commented that FRA should consider exterior audio 
devices that could be engaged or disengaged by selecting from the 
locomotive's software preferences for the camera. BLET stated the cost 
to do so would be nominal as it is already an included feature on some 
locomotives. BLET further indicated that this feature was discussed at 
RSAC Working Group meetings.
    TTD asserted that audio recording devices would have a negative 
impact on train crews' morale and the labor-management relationship, 
and could possibly record and lead to the release of private 
conversations unrelated to safety-sensitive tasks. TTD noted that a 
substantial amount of information is already recorded or transmitted, 
or both, via on-board equipment and radio communications, and 
eventually will be through image recorders. Thus, TTD did not see how 
audio recording devices would improve safety and asserted that FRA 
should not mandate audio recorders in the final rule.
    SMART commented that during RSAC Working Group meetings, both 
railroads and labor organizations expressed unanimous opposition to a 
locomotive audio recorder requirement. SMART believed employees deserve 
some privacy protections and concurred with FRA's reasoning in the NPRM 
that audio recorders should not be required.
    In addition to labor organizations, APTA commented that it also 
opposed requiring locomotive audio recorders. APTA stated that the 
railroad industry supports most of FRA's NPRM analysis regarding audio 
recordings, and that the industry believes that locomotive audio 
recordings are redundant and secondary to both locomotive image 
recorders and pre-existing communication systems, such as radio. APTA 
also stated that audio recordings, like video recordings, are not 
monitored by the railroads in real time, and therefore, have minimal 
value in preventing accidents.
    Notwithstanding APTA's assertion that the industry opposed a 
locomotive audio recorder requirement, the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation (Amtrak) commented that FRA should create an exterior 
recording device requirement to aid in post-accident investigations 
because these devices are extremely beneficial in private litigation. 
Amtrak provided figures on the cost of installing image recording 
devices for their fleet to be $10,080 as well as the cost per 
locomotive of new audio equipment to be $23,349, as FRA requested. 
Additionally, in the RIA, FRA estimates a range that starts at $6,000 
for each audio recording device up to a cost of $23,349. This lower 
estimate was based on discussions with FRA's subject matter experts and 
online research.
    Amtrak also commented that the benefits provided by locomotive 
audio recordings would outweigh concerns about the potential loss of 
personal privacy for locomotive cab occupants, because while operating 
a locomotive, the use of audio-visual recordings would be a condition 
of employment applicable under the railroad's enforcement of rules. In 
addition, Amtrak asserted that the benefits of locomotive audio devices 
would outweigh the potential for abuse by railroad management because 
Amtrak has an established company program and process in place 
providing that the use of audio and visual recordings is for compliance 
means only.
    The NTSB also urged FRA to require both internal and external 
locomotive audio recorders as part of this final rule. As noted in the 
NPRM, the NTSB has conveyed to FRA that to satisfy NTSB Recommendations 
R-10-01 & -02, FRA would need to include both audio and image recording 
provisions in this rulemaking.\15\ Further, in its submitted comments, 
the NTSB stated that for more than 10 years, voluntarily-installed 
image and audio recorders have assisted the NTSB with its 
investigations. According to the NTSB, the technology is fully 
developed and mature, and the devices are readily available and are 
already being manufactured, installed, and used. The NTSB also 
commented on what it believed to be sufficient technical specifications 
for locomotive audio recording devices and cited the recording 
capabilities of locomotive audio recording devices used by Amtrak as a 
model. The NTSB also stated that because memory storage requirements 
for audio recordings are significantly less than those for image 
recordings, additional memory for audio recordings should not be 
needed. Finally, while recognizing the high levels of background noise 
inside locomotive cabs from its experience investigating railroad 
accidents, the NTSB stated it did not believe that headsets or other 
specialized audio recording equipment, beyond what is currently being 
used by railroads that have voluntarily installed such devices, will be 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety 
Recommendations R-10-01 and R-10-02 (Feb. 23, 2010); available 
online at: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/R-10-001-002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTSB cited how important both inward-facing locomotive image 
and audio recordings were in its investigation of the December 18. 
2017, derailment of Amtrak passenger train 501 in DuPont, Washington. 
According to the NTSB, these internal locomotive audio and visual 
recordings helped the agency determine that neither personal electronic 
device use nor brief conversations between the engineer and conductor 
were causes of the derailment.
    While internal locomotive audio recordings were useful in the 
NTSB's investigation of the Amtrak passenger train 501 accident, NTSB's 
comment states that it was audio recording devices inside the 
locomotive along with inward-facing locomotive video recording devices 
that helped the NTSB make determinations as to what could be excluded 
as the cause of the 2017 Amtrak accident in Dupont, Washington. 
Furthermore, the NTSB investigation into this accident is just one 
specific investigation into one specific railroad accident. FRA did not

[[Page 70728]]

find any specific evidence that would lead the agency to believe that 
internal audio recorders would be useful in all accident 
investigations.
    Wi-Tronix also commented on FRA's decision to not include an audio 
recorder proposal in the NPRM and agreed with the NTSB that, based upon 
its incident investigation experience over the years, the availability 
of audio locomotive recordings has played a critical role in 
determining the chain of events during an accident investigation and 
the implementation of the technology is essential in getting the 
``step-change improvement'' in human factor safety that FRA desires. 
Wi-Tronix also commented on the potential for privacy concerns with 
audio recordings that were raised by TTD and SMART. Wi-Tronix believes 
that with current technology, recorded audio information could be 
sequestered and be made available only to regulators and other 
officials on a limited basis after an emergency incident. Further, Wi-
Tronix stated that artificial intelligence and machine learning could 
use the audio information for analytics anonymously without personal 
information included. Wi-Tronix said that the implementation of audio 
recordings, in conjunction with video recordings, is not a major cost 
driver for system implementation.
    Finally, an anonymous commenter stated that installing inward and 
outward-facing recording devices could be beneficial when investigating 
railroad accidents. The commenter expressed hope that these recording 
devices will decrease the number of railroad related accidents.
    After considering all the comments received on whether audio 
recording devices should be required on lead passenger locomotives, FRA 
has determined that a requirement for such devices on lead passenger 
locomotives is not justified. Accordingly, in this final rule, FRA is 
not adopting a requirement for the installation of audio recording 
devices on passenger or freight locomotives. FRA does not believe that 
the potential added utility of audio recordings, in addition to image 
recordings as well as the data provided by a locomotive's event 
recorder, outweighs the cost that would result. Indeed, while audio 
recording devices may provide some additional useful information in 
certain accident investigation scenarios, the overall usefulness of 
locomotive audio recordings is diminished by the statutorily mandated 
requirement of inward- and outward-facing locomotive cameras as well as 
existing requirements for event recorders on all lead passenger 
locomotives. Further, as previously stated, there is no requirement in 
the FAST Act that passenger or freight locomotives be equipped with 
either internal or external audio recording devices. Therefore, FRA is 
allowing railroads to decide whether to equip their locomotives with 
external and/or internal audio devices.
    Passenger locomotive cabs, unlike freight locomotive cabs or even 
commercial airliner cockpits, are typically occupied by only one 
crewmember, while additional crewmembers are located in the passenger 
train consist assisting passengers. As there is usually only one 
crewmember in the locomotive cab while a passenger train is in motion, 
it is unclear what information internal locomotive audio recorders 
would provide that inward-facing locomotive cameras could not. For 
example, as cited in the NPRM, in both the 2008 Chatsworth Southern 
California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) accident,\16\ and the 
2015 Philadelphia Amtrak accident,\17\ the locomotive engineers 
operating the trains were the sole occupants of the locomotive cab 
while the other crewmembers were in the passenger consist. Also, as TTD 
commented, a substantial amount of information is already recorded via 
onboard equipment and radio communications. Therefore, other than radio 
communications with other train crewmembers or the train dispatcher, 
which are often already recorded, there may not be any other voice 
communications inside the cab to record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 84 FR 35712, 35716-35717.
    \17\ Id. at 35717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    External locomotive audio recorders are unlikely to provide much 
additional information in post-accident investigations. As stated by 
BLET, all key locomotive operations, including throttle, braking, and 
locomotive horn/bell, are already required to be captured on the 
locomotive's event recorder. If an accident occurs, this data can be 
retrieved from the event recorder. Combining the event recorder data 
with information gained from external locomotive cameras diminishes the 
need for external audio recording devices. Accordingly, given the 
information already available to FRA and other investigators from event 
recorders and locomotive cameras, FRA cannot justify mandating the 
installation of an external audio recording device at this time.
    Moreover, locomotive audio recorders will not greatly increase a 
passenger railroad's ability to deter railroad safety violations, such 
as the use of prohibited personal electronic devices, beyond the 
deterrence already provided by inward-facing image recorders. Because 
the locomotive engineer is typically alone in the locomotive cab, it is 
unlikely that audio recordings will pick up audio information useful to 
prove that a rail safety violation occurred that could not be 
determined from video footage. In fact, audio recordings might not pick 
up anything at all.
    Further, FRA shares SMART's and TTD's concern that because train 
crews might be more likely to congregate in the locomotive cab when not 
performing their safety-related duties (e.g., sitting in a siding), 
locomotive audio recorders might be more likely to pick up private 
conversations between crewmembers than the audio proof of a railroad 
safety violation. As stated in the NPRM, FRA has concerns that these 
time periods would likely include personal conversations between 
employees and might have much more potential for abuse than do inward-
facing image recordings. While a commenter suggested that audio 
recordings might be sequestered in a way that they would only be 
accessible by regulators and other government officials, like FRA and 
the NTSB, audio recordings would share the same memory module as image 
recordings, and FRA anticipates that passenger railroads would want to 
review them as part of their part 217 operational testing plans.
    Finally, based on information provided by the railroad industry, 
FRA subject matter experts, and online research, FRA estimates that the 
inclusion of audio recording devices would cost passenger railroads 
between $25.2 and $98.1 million dollars within the first four years of 
implementation to install on over 4,200 passenger locomotives. Although 
FRA recognizes that Wi-Tronix commented that the cost of locomotive 
audio recorders in conjunction with image recording device would be 
nominal, there may be only a small number of accidents where audio 
recordings might be beneficial and Wi-Tronix did not provide any data 
to support its cost assertion.
    FRA understands from RSAC Working Group discussions and its own 
research that the audio recording devices and microphones contained 
within a locomotive's image recorders have some costs, but railroads 
indicate a crash-hardened memory module for audio recordings might 
increase costs of compliance. FRA is also concerned about the 
background noise levels inside the cabs of certain locomotives and has 
previously conveyed that concern to the NTSB. Because of the noise, 
additional equipment may be

[[Page 70729]]

needed to record crew voice communications so the recordings can 
accurately be deciphered by railroad managers and accident 
investigators. This would also be expected to add to the cost of 
installing such equipment.
    However, FRA also disagrees with BLET and SMART, and nothing in 
this final rule precludes passenger or freight railroads from 
voluntarily installing and using either internal or external locomotive 
audio recording devices as part of their operation, if they so choose. 
The FAST Act provided FRA with discretion whether to include a 
regulatory requirement for inside-locomotive audio recording 
devices,\18\ and while this rule will not require the installation of 
inside- or outside-audio recording devices, it will also not preclude 
the devices. However, if a passenger railroad chooses to install 
locomotive audio recording devices in their locomotives, then certain 
requirements from this rule do apply to those devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 49 U.S.C. 20168(e)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Referencing Audio in the Definition of ``Recording Device'' in Part 
229
    FRA also received a comment from APTA suggesting that FRA remove 
any reference to audible sounds from the definition of ``recording 
device'' as proposed in the NPRM. For the reasons discussed in Section 
II.T below, FRA disagrees and intends that audio recordings be subject 
to the preservation requirements and other relevant requirements of 
Sec.  229.136.

C. Recording Device Run-Time/Shutoff When Trains Stop Moving

    In the NPRM, FRA requested comments on a number of questions 
regarding whether FRA should set a specific run-time or shutoff 
requirement for locomotive recording devices. Specifically, FRA 
requested comment on its proposal to provide passenger railroads the 
discretion to decide whether locomotive recording devices would 
continue to record when a locomotive is not in motion, if the railroad 
retains a recording of the last 12 hours of operation of the locomotive 
on a memory module compliant with the requirements proposed in Sec.  
229.136. FRA also asked for comments on: what safety benefits would 
result from recordings made when a locomotive is occupied, but not 
moving; whether a specific run-time or shutoff requirement would 
present any technical hurdles for the railroads, and if so, the cost of 
those hurdles (in dollars); the privacy implications of recordings 
being made during down times when the crew is not performing safety-
related duties; the potential risk of data being overwritten if an 
accident occurs in a remote location and the device continues to 
record; and finally, whether passenger railroads should be exempt from 
any requirement to stop locomotive recording devices from recording 
when the locomotive is stopped.
    FRA received numerous responses to these requests for comments. 
Most of the comments focused on what the run-time/shutoff standard 
should be, if any. Both Amtrak and APTA expressed views consistent with 
FRA's proposed standard that passenger railroads have the discretion to 
determine their own run-time/shutoff standard for locomotive recording 
devices. APTA noted that locomotive cabs are workplaces, whether 
occupied or not, and therefore they should be able to run their 
locomotive cameras continually. APTA asserted that allowing cameras to 
run continually would serve as a deterrent against locomotive safety 
device tampering, assist with potential criminal investigations (such 
as vandalism), and provide a valuable tool for railroad security. 
However, APTA stated while its members support the position that 
railroads should be able to record using their locomotive image 
recorders when the locomotive is stopped, the decision whether to 
record while the locomotive is stopped should be left to the individual 
railroad.
    Amtrak's comments were similar to APTA's. Amtrak opposed FRA 
adopting a stricter standard than that proposed in the NPRM. Amtrak 
also contended that railroads should be allowed to record after the 
train has stopped moving (e.g., for security purposes when a locomotive 
cab is unoccupied, to record mechanical tests such as brake tests and 
calendar day inspections).
    The NTSB commented that FRA should require inward-facing cameras to 
record whenever a locomotive is powered on, regardless if the 
locomotive is moving or stationary, and that railroads should not have 
the discretion to decide to stop recording when a locomotive is not 
moving. The NTSB stated that safety-sensitive duties frequently occur 
when locomotives are stationary, and there is no way to limit 
recordings to only capture safety-related activities. According to the 
NTSB, by recording anytime the locomotive is powered on, key pre-
accident events would be recorded, such as pre-job briefings, and 
critical post-accident events, such as calling emergency services, 
would be recorded and available in post-accident analysis. The NTSB 
also asserted that requiring continuous recording while a locomotive is 
powered on would help identify those occasions when an employee tampers 
with or disables a safety device.
    In contrast, BLET, SMART, and TTD disagreed with the aforementioned 
comments as well as FRA's proposal in the NPRM to provide passenger 
railroads maximum flexibility in determining the run-time/shutoff time 
for their recording devices. BLET commented that, regardless of whether 
the recorders are image or audio recorders, they should be shut off and 
no longer recording when the train's motion has stopped and the brakes 
are applied. According to BLET, it would be unacceptable if the cameras 
can still run when a locomotive is stopped and everything over the 
course of a crew's duty tour would be under analysis by the railroad.
    Further, BLET stated that the time when a train has stopped moving 
is the only time that a crew has available to eat, use the bathroom 
facilities, or just relax, noting some railroads permit and even 
encourage napping to mitigate employee fatigue. BLET claimed there are 
numerous studies that prove if an individual is recorded on camera 
continually it will increase the individual's stress level, which 
thereby increases the individual's fatigue. BLET also pointed out that 
on many occasions, a train crew may have expired under the hours of 
service laws and simply be waiting to be relieved. BLET asserted that 
no safety benefits would result from filming and recording these types 
of non-operational activities.
    BLET also expressed concern for train crewmembers' privacy if 
inward-facing cameras record when no safety-related duties are being 
performed. BLET commented that cameras could record employees changing 
their clothing or needing to express breast milk, which BLET believed 
cannot be safely and perhaps lawfully done in the sanitary compartment.
    Finally, BLET asserted that FRA should not only consider a 
regulatory restriction on the run-time/shutoff for locomotive recording 
devices but should also address use of the cameras for monitoring 
employees. Specifically, BLET commented that some railroads have 
claimed the technological capacity to view the inside of a locomotive 
cab regardless of whether the camera's output is being recorded. 
Therefore, according to BLET, not only should railroads be prohibited 
from recording when a locomotive is stopped, but railroads should also 
be prohibited from surveilling their employees when a locomotive is 
stopped and the cameras

[[Page 70730]]

should be deactivated when a locomotive is stopped.
    SMART and TTD suggested a slightly different standard than that 
proposed by BLET in that FRA should require railroads to shut off their 
inward-facing cameras five minutes after a train has stopped. TTD 
asserted that a five-minute window of additional recording after the 
train has stopped moving would allow FRA the necessary time to gather 
post-accident or -incident investigation information, without 
infringing on the crew's privacy. TTD stated that, in contrast, the 
standard proposed in the NPRM would allow the railroads to record at 
all times, even when the train is stopped and the crew is not 
performing any safety-sensitive duties. TTD asserted that there is no 
value to recording when trains are stopped, such as at sidings, which 
occurs with some frequency. Further, TTD agreed with BLET that 
operating a train is a fatiguing job and that constant filming of train 
crews will increase tension, and according to SMART, likely also result 
in ``unsafe practices.''
    SMART echoed TTD's position that inward-facing cameras should not 
record when trains are stopped and crews are not performing safety-
sensitive activities. Like TTD, SMART pointed out that crews often sit 
in a siding or at a signal for hours with no safety-related duties 
being performed. SMART also stated that requiring inward-facing 
locomotive cameras to stop recording five minutes after a train stops 
would protect against any personal harassment from the unnecessary 
recording of personal, but not safety-sensitive information.
    However, while both TTD and SMART believed a strict five-minute 
shutoff standard after a train has stopped moving is necessary for 
inward-facing image recorders, both organizations specifically stated 
they did not object to a less prescriptive run-off/shutdown requirement 
for outward-facing cameras. In fact, they stated that the outward-
facing cameras would provide the security benefits cited by APTA and 
Amtrak, and protect the railroad by helping deter vandalism, theft, and 
other criminal activities.
    After consideration of all comments received on this issue, in this 
final rule, FRA is adopting the standard it proposed in the NPRM. FRA 
will not prescribe a mandated run-time/shutoff requirement for 
passenger locomotive recording devices. As will be discussed in greater 
detail below in Section II.C, as long as the locomotive's required 
inward- and outward-facing cameras are recording anytime the locomotive 
is in motion and the passenger railroad is complying with all other 
requirements of the final rule described below (e.g., no video 
recording in the locomotive's sanitation compartment), the railroad has 
the discretion to continue recording images, and audio if installed. 
FRA concluded that, as APTA and Amtrak pointed out in their comments, 
allowing railroads to record both inside and outside of the locomotive 
cab when the locomotive is not in motion can serve legitimate safety 
functions, such as preventing tampering, assisting with criminal 
investigations (such as vandalism and trespassing), and be an overall 
useful tool for railroad security. In addition, FRA agrees with NTSB's 
point that recording when a locomotive is powered on may have potential 
informational value in post-accident investigations.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the railroad industry is highly 
regulated, and there are already a large number of Federal statutes and 
regulations governing railroad employees' performance of safety-related 
duties when they occupy the cab of a lead locomotive.\19\ In fact, the 
Supreme Court has recognized that ``the expectations of privacy of 
covered employees [here, train crewmembers] are diminished by reason of 
their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to 
ensure safety. . . .'' \20\ A locomotive is a shared work space between 
various railroad employees. During one railroad employee's tour of 
duty, railroad supervisors, FRA inspectors, and other authorized 
individuals may access the cab of the locomotive and observe the 
employee's actions and communications in the cab, at any time, without 
providing any notice. In fact, the general public is often able to view 
train crewmembers occupying the locomotive cab and certain of their 
actions through the passenger locomotive's windows when the locomotive 
is located near a railroad right-of-way or a highway-rail grade 
crossing and also in certain cab control car configurations or at 
certain station platforms. Therefore, as passenger train crews can be 
monitored or frequently observed in locomotive cabs even without 
recording devices, they have no expectation of privacy in the 
locomotive cab, whether or not the locomotive is moving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, railroad employees who operate trains within 
the United States are subject to drug and alcohol testing (both 
random and for cause) (49 CFR part 219), operational testing (e.g., 
49 CFR parts 217, 218, 220, 240, 242), hours of service laws (see 49 
U.S.C. ch. 211, 49 CFR part 228), and regulations governing the use 
of personal electronic devices (49 CFR part 220), among many other 
requirements.
    \20\ Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 
602, 627 (Mar. 21, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA also requested and received comments on the potential risk of 
overwriting valuable recorded data if an accident occurs in a remote 
location and a locomotive's recording device(s) continue to record 
after the accident has occurred and the recordings before and during 
the accident are recorded over. Both the NTSB and APTA submitted 
comments on this issue.
    The NTSB indicated it has found that, in most major accidents, the 
locomotive loses power, which stops all recording devices and negates 
the risk of overwriting accident data. However, the NTSB commented that 
railroads should put procedures in place to preserve recordings in the 
event of a less severe accident in a remote location where the 
locomotive does not lose power and the footage could be overwritten.
    APTA commented that concerns about passenger trains might be 
misplaced and pointed out that instead of passenger trains, freight 
trains are more likely to pass through or stop in remote areas or areas 
that are potentially harder to access, and have longer one-direction 
trip-duty times than commuter and, in some cases, intercity passenger 
trains. APTA stated that commuter trains trip lengths are shorter, and 
it is not uncommon for a train to travel in one direction leading with 
a conventional locomotive and then do a reverse trip in the other 
direction leading with the train's cab car. APTA also maintained that 
crew on-duty times for commuter and intercity passenger routes are 
generally shorter and scheduled to minimize any jobs approaching 12 
hours on duty so that crews have additional rest before their next 
trip, and that crews may even change train consists. APTA believed 
these elements contribute towards reducing the potential for critical 
video being overwritten in an accident.
    In addition, the NTSB commented that FRA should address the issue 
of buffering in this final rule to ensure that all critical events 
occurring before an accident occurs are recorded. The NTSB stated that 
frequently saving data to permanent storage from temporary memory--that 
is, buffering--will help prevent the loss of audio and images due to 
accidents and power disruptions, as it has experienced varied success 
with recording devices capturing the time period before an accident. 
The NTSB noted that, in the February 8, 2018, CSX Transportation 
accident in Cayce, South Carolina, the outward-facing image and audio 
recorder did not record critical events before the accident; instead, 
the audio stopped

[[Page 70731]]

recording a few minutes before the accident, and the image recording 
stopped about a minute before the accident, without recording the 
misaligned switch that derailed the train. Conversely, the NTSB cited 
the December 18, 2017, Amtrak accident near DuPont, Washington, where 
the inward- and outward-facing image and audio recordings did capture 
critical events up to the time of derailment.
    After carefully considering both NTSB's and APTA's comments, FRA 
has determined it would be premature to create a regulatory requirement 
for passenger railroads addressing the potential for data being 
overwritten if an accident occurs in a remote location where there is 
no loss of power to the recording device, but the memory module is not 
immediately available. Although FRA agrees that passenger railroads 
should consider the possibility that commuter or intercity passenger 
trains could have an accident in a location where the locomotive does 
not lose power, the footage in the memory module may not be readily 
retrieved, and the footage could be overwritten, FRA has found no 
evidence of such a passenger train accident occurring. FRA also agrees 
with APTA's comment that, overall, passenger trains are far less likely 
to pass through or stop in remote areas when compared to freight 
trains. Therefore, lacking evidence of such a passenger train accident 
or incident occurring, and considering the limited likelihood of such a 
situation occurring in the future, FRA declines to adopt a regulatory 
provision specific to the risk of data being overwritten in such a 
scenario.

D. Exclusion of Existing Installed or Ordered Equipment

    FRA received numerous comments stating that locomotive image 
recording devices previously installed or ordered before the 
publication date of the final rule should be excluded from complying 
with the final rule's requirements. For reasons discussed below, FRA 
disagrees with the comments and will not allow previously installed or 
ordered locomotive image recording devices or voluntarily installed 
audio recording devices to be excluded from this final rule's coverage. 
Instead, as proposed in the NPRM, this final rule provides passenger 
railroads with a four-year implementation period within which all of 
their lead locomotives must be brought into compliance with the rule's 
requirements.
    APTA commented that FRA should allow exclusions for recording 
devices that have been installed or are in the process of being 
installed prior to the issuance of the final rule. APTA asserted that 
if FRA does not exclude these devices, there is a strong possibility 
that railroads that were early adopters of locomotive recording device 
technology will be financially penalized because the proposed 
requirements for image recorders would be too prescriptive and older 
locomotive recording devices could not comply. APTA also maintained 
that the cost to retrofit existing lead locomotives would be 
significant and could delay the availability of data for use by the 
passenger railroads as well as FRA and the NTSB for post-accident 
investigations. APTA stated that 76 percent of passenger locomotives 
already have image recording devices installed and that 93 percent of 
passenger railroads have installed image recording devices in all of 
their vehicles, or are in the process of doing so, and that ``a few 
large railroads'' equipped, or partially equipped, their fleets with 
recording devices within the last year. Given APTA's assumption that 
locomotive image recording systems have a life span of eight years, 
APTA believed that these railroads will lose most of the full life-
cycle of the recording devices if FRA does not include an exclusion 
clause in this final rule.
    AAR also agreed that FRA should include an exclusion provision to 
protect early adopters of this technology. According to AAR, during the 
2014 RSAC Working Group meetings FRA proposed that recording systems 
installed on locomotives prior to the rule's effective date would be 
considered compliant for ten years from the final rule's publication 
date, with the exception that memory modules would be required to meet 
the crashworthiness requirements within three years of publication. AAR 
therefore suggested that recording systems installed prior to the final 
rule's publication date be considered compliant until ten years from 
that date, whether or not all of the functional requirements of the 
rule were met by the already-installed system.
    The North Country Transit District (NCTD), which operates the 
COASTER commuter rail service in Northern San Diego County, California, 
suggested that the final rule should exclude locomotive recording 
devices that were installed prior to the effective date of the final 
rule and do not meet the crashworthy memory module requirements. NCTD 
stated it began installing inward- and outward-facing cameras with 
audio recorders in 2012 and had just completed a global replacement of 
cameras and recording devices on its entire locomotive and cab car 
fleet.
    Finally, the Commuter Rail Division of the Illinois Regional 
Transportation Authority (Metra) also agreed with many of the same 
comments that passenger railroads have already begun to utilize 
recording equipment and, therefore, FRA should allow existing equipment 
to continue to be used to avoid punishing early adopters of the 
technology.
    Although FRA appreciates the concerns raised by the commenters, FRA 
does not believe it in the public's interest or the interest of rail 
safety to provide an exception from the final rule's requirements for 
locomotive image recorders installed prior to the rule's publication 
date. Older cameras that do not meet the final rule's requirements 
would likely not provide the benefits (deterrence and accident 
investigation) that the rule seeks to provide. As discussed above, the 
Cayce accident is a prime example of how accident investigations could 
be adversely affected by use of older camera systems, because external 
locomotive image (and audio) data was lost in the accident. Under the 
requirements of this final rule, locomotive recordings must now be 
stored on a certified crashworthy memory module as required by the FAST 
Act, or an alternative remote storage system approved by FRA. If FRA 
were to exempt older image recording systems from the requirements of 
this final rule, it would increase the likelihood of more vital 
accident data being lost by use of non-compliant systems. Four years is 
an adequate time for passenger railroads with installed or currently 
ordered locomotive recording systems to get remaining value out of the 
recording systems without unduly putting value maximization of current 
locomotive recording systems above passenger rail safety. In addition, 
the NTSB has supported FRA's four-year implementation period as 
encouraging prompt implementation of the final rule's requirements. As 
stated above and in the NTSB's comment, the NTSB's report from the 
DuPont accident showed there is a clear investigative benefit to the 
information obtained from locomotive recording devices. According to 
the NTSB, ``any further delays beyond the proposed 4-year deadline 
would be unacceptable,'' given NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R-10-
01 in 2010.
    Passenger locomotive image recorders that do not meet the final 
rule's requirements might not be sufficient to identify railroad safety 
violations as well as provide adequate data for post-

[[Page 70732]]

accident/incident analysis. Moreover, even if FRA were to allow 
previously installed or ordered equipment to be excluded from this 
final rule's requirements, retrofitting the vast majority of, if not 
all, passenger locomotives would still be necessary as the Statute 
requires locomotive recorder data to be stored on crashworthy memory 
modules and very few, if any, passenger railroads currently store their 
image recordings on such modules. As discussed in the Section II.K 
below, a four-year implementation period is an adequate timeframe for 
passenger railroads to comply with the final rule. Passenger railroads 
will have four years to stagger any modifications or retrofits that are 
necessary to bring their locomotives' recording systems into compliance 
with the final rule.

E. Certified Crashworthy Event Recorder Memory Modules

1. Necessity of Crashworthy Memory Modules
    FRA received numerous comments about the proposed requirement to 
store locomotive recorder data on a certified crashworthy event 
recorder memory module and potential alternatives to meet an 
appropriate crashworthiness level to protect stored locomotive image 
recording system data. APTA stated that a crashworthy memory module is 
unnecessary due to the installation of positive train control (PTC) on 
passenger railroads, which will eliminate most of the accidents that 
FRA cited in the NPRM, and that passenger railroads believe crashworthy 
memory retention could be achieved by simply positioning the recording 
devices in an area to minimize impact forces. However, APTA supported 
FRA's suggestion to provide waivers for the memory module's 
crashworthiness when the recording is transmitted to a remote location, 
stating the technology surrounding image recordings is advancing more 
quickly than the rulemaking process, and encouraged FRA to consider 
waivers for remote storage options in lieu of crashworthiness 
standards.
    Wi-Tronix raised concerns that some of the proposed requirements 
for inward- and outward-facing cameras, such as the 12 hours of 
required storage together with the crashworthy memory module 
requirement, added unnecessary costs to railroads without a 
justification. Understanding the final rule's need for data 
preservation, Wi-Tronix asserted there are other technical approaches 
that could accomplish the same goals on a more cost-effective basis, 
stating that cloud solutions accomplish the same data retention and 
have the potential to be more economical while creating other value in 
the process.
    Conversely, both the NTSB and SMART supported the proposed 
crashworthy memory module requirement. In addition, BLET commented that 
the paramount consideration and goal of the final rule should be a 
uniformity of standards throughout the whole railroad industry, whether 
locomotive recording devices be required by the Statute or voluntarily 
installed. Therefore, BLET believed it makes logical and economic sense 
to store all forms of recorder operational data (e.g., event recorder 
data, safety-critical PTC data, and audio/visual recording data) in a 
single storage unit that meets the appropriate crashworthiness 
standards in appendix D to part 229. BLET also stated that FRA should 
be focused on the performance and survivability of crashworthiness 
options, and not necessarily the cost.
2. Potential Exemptions From the Crashworthy Memory Module Requirements
    FRA also received comments about exempting from the crashworthy 
memory module requirement those systems that can store locomotive 
recorder data safely and remotely. As previously stated, APTA commented 
that FRA should avoid mandating onboard locomotive storage of data in 
favor of more flexible storage options for passenger railroads, 
including cloud or remote storage. Hitachi, Ltd. (Hitachi) agreed with 
APTA that remote storage should be allowed and recommended that the 
rule avoid mandating onboard crashworthy memory storage for locomotive 
recording data. Hitachi stated that image processing and data 
communications technology has matured in transmitting real-time images 
to be stored and analyzed remotely at centralized locations, and thus 
the final rule should avoid mandating onboard locomotive storage in 
favor of remote storage options that make more economic sense for the 
railroad.
    The NTSB, however, disagreed with exempting locomotive recorders 
from crashworthiness requirements even when the recording system is 
designed to immediately transmit and store data at a remote location. 
The NTSB asserted the exemption would risk the loss of data when an 
accident occurs in an area where data cannot be reliably transmitted, 
such as in tunnels or remote regions. BLET also commented that wireless 
transmission and storage of locomotive audio or image data should be 
prohibited to prevent private, personal data from being hacked.
    In response to these comments, FRA emphasizes that the requirements 
for crash and fire protection of in-cab recordings--i.e., that each 
inward- and outward-facing image recording device have crash and fire 
protections for any in-cab image recordings that are stored only within 
a lead locomotive--are mandated by the Statute.\21\ To implement this 
statutory requirement, in Sec.  229.136(a)(5), FRA is requiring that 
any locomotive recording device data (including any audio recorder 
data) stored only within the lead locomotive be recorded on a memory 
module that meets the established requirements for a certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module described in appendix D to 
part 229, which includes protection against fire. If a passenger 
railroad chooses to install a locomotive image recording device that 
does not store the recorded data only within the lead locomotive, but 
instead stores the data remotely using cloud storage or other remote 
storage alternative, the railroad must state so in its written 
description of the technical aspects of the locomotive image recording 
system submitted to FRA as part of the system's approval process 
required by Sec.  229.136(g) of this final rule. FRA makes clear that 
use of a recording device system relying exclusively on cloud storage 
or other remote storage alternative would not require a waiver under 49 
CFR part 211, as indicated in the NPRM, but instead may be authorized 
through the approval process under Sec.  229.136(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FRA to approve use of a locomotive recording device system that 
only uses remote storage for its recorded data, the passenger railroad 
must show conclusively how the remote storage system provides at least 
equivalent data protections to those provided by use of a certified 
crashworthy memory module under appendix D to part 229. Specifically, 
the railroad must describe how all of the data will be reliably and 
securely transferred to the cloud or other remote storage location and 
how that data will be reliably and securely stored and retrievable. The 
railroad must also show how the reliable and secure transfer of all 
locomotive image recording device data to a remote storage location 
will occur under a variety of situations, including situations 
involving accidents and/or incidents (especially in outlying or remote 
areas), system failures, or other similar contingencies. FRA will not 
approve the use of any locomotive

[[Page 70733]]

image recording system if the railroad does not clearly demonstrate 
both that the data cannot be lost due to its transfer from the 
locomotive image recording device to the remote storage location and 
cannot be lost or corrupted during storage and therefore irretrievable. 
This allows passenger railroads to enjoy the benefits of remote storage 
of data for these recording devices while preventing the potential for 
lost data, which could prove critical in a post-accident investigation, 
and ensuring that the transfer of data to the remote storage location 
is secure.
    Freight railroads that have voluntarily installed or are planning 
to voluntarily install inward- or outward-facing recording devices on 
their locomotives are not required to store the data on a certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module. However, FRA recommends that 
if a freight railroad chooses to use a memory module, it should mount 
and position the module in such a way as to provide the module with 
maximum protection.
3. Need for Stronger Memory Module Requirements
    FRA understands the NTSB's preference for stricter recorder 
survivability standards. The NTSB has recommended FRA require event 
recorder data to be also recorded in another location remote from the 
lead locomotive(s) to minimize the likelihood of data destruction in an 
accident, as has occurred in certain accidents (NTSB Safety 
Recommendation R-13-22).\22\ However, the standards in appendix D to 
part 229 require a crashworthy memory module, which is designated to 
withstand the conditions an event recorder may encounter, including 
accident conditions. A new, more stringent standard that would prevent 
the destruction of data in every passenger railroad accident scenario 
is likely not cost-beneficial, and is also likely unnecessary given the 
implementation of PTC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation 
R-13-22 (Aug. 14, 2013); available online at: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/R-13-018-023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM, the railroad accidents that led NTSB to 
issue recommendations related to locomotive image and audio recording 
devices were caused by human factors--and nearly all were PTC-
preventable. Thus, given the full implementation of PTC systems on 
intercity passenger and commuter railroad main lines, the likelihood of 
similar accidents occurring should be greatly reduced, if not 
eliminated. In turn, the need should diminish for more stringent 
crashworthy memory module requirements to preserve image and audio 
recordings for use to investigate accidents resulting from human factor 
causes on main track.
    Memory modules are acceptable that meet the specified performance 
criteria in either Table 1 or Table 2 of section C, appendix D to part 
229. As FRA discussed in the rulemaking promulgating the crashworthy 
memory module standards, each set of criteria in Tables 1 and 2 is a 
performance standard, and FRA has not included any specific test 
procedures to achieve the required level of performance. FRA did not 
believe it necessary to include specific testing criteria in the 
regulation, as the rail industry and equipment manufacturers are in the 
best position to determine the exact way they will test for the 
specified performance parameters.\23\ FRA's position remains the same 
today and notes that not requiring specific test procedures also 
accommodates adoption of any future testing methods that are developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 69 FR 39785 (June 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Storing Audio Recordings on the Crashworthy Memory Module
    APTA commented that it was opposed to requiring recordings from 
voluntarily installed recording devices to be stored on a certified 
crashworthy memory module under part 229, appendix D. FRA does not 
agree. Although this final rule does not require passenger railroads to 
install locomotive audio recorders, because installing such devices is 
not required by the FAST Act, if passenger railroads voluntarily 
install audio recording devices, the data recorded must be maintained 
on a crashworthy memory module to ensure the data is available for use 
by FRA as well as other Federal agencies (and railroads themselves) to 
conduct effective post-accident/incident investigations and more 
accurately determine the causes of accidents/incidents. Accordingly, 
Sec.  229.136(a)(5) requires any passenger locomotive recording device 
data, whether image or audio data, to be recorded on a certified 
crashworthy memory module as described in part 229, appendix D, or on 
an alternative, remote storage system, as approved by FRA. For further 
discussion on this final rule's accident/incident preservation 
requirements for locomotive recording devices, please see the 
discussion under Sec.  229.136(f) in this rule's Section-by-Section 
Analysis.

F. Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording Systems and Devices

1. Placement of Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording Devices
    APTA expressed concern about the proposal to require aligning an 
outward-facing locomotive image recording device to point parallel to 
the centerline of tangent track on which the lead locomotive is 
traveling. APTA believed the proposal would require mounting the camera 
within the gauge of the track and stated that, because many locomotive 
designs have center collision posts or center doors, the cameras may 
need to be mounted on the side of the locomotive and be aimed towards 
the center of the track. APTA therefore requested the rule be clarified 
accordingly to permit such camera placement.
    However, the rule text needs no such clarification because this 
rule does not require outward-facing image recording devices to be 
mounted on the centerline of a passenger locomotive. FRA recognizes 
that cab car and multiple-unit (MU) passenger locomotives have features 
that may inhibit the placement of cameras on the centerline, and FRA 
never intended to require cameras to be mounted on the centerline. The 
rule requires cameras to be aimed ``parallel'' to the centerline of 
tangent track, wherever the cameras may be placed on the leading end of 
the locomotive, and FRA is adopting the proposed rule text without 
change.
2. Requirements for Outward-Facing Locomotive Image Recorders Are Too 
Prescriptive
    APTA commented that requiring outward-facing locomotive image 
recorders to be able to distinguish the signal aspects displayed by 
wayside signals, as proposed in the NPRM, would be too prescriptive and 
overcomplicate the outward-facing camera system. APTA preferred a more 
performance-based standard, and added there are multiple environmental 
factors that affect the image quality of outward-facing camera footage 
that are not within the railroad's control. APTA also stated that the 
proposed standard to record at 15 frames per second (fps) and the 
proposed resolution requirement are vague and would make design 
compliance subject to many factors that would increase costs. APTA 
therefore offered alternative language allowing the railroads to 
determine the frame rate and resolution for their locomotives' outward-
facing cameras. Similarly, Wi-Tronix asserted that basing the 
resolution requirement for outward-facing cameras upon whether a system

[[Page 70734]]

could determine switch points from a 50-foot distance is too 
subjective, and instead suggested that an objective, technical 
resolution specification should be used and implemented. AAR also 
stated that FRA should remove prescriptive provisions, such as the 
NPRM's proposed requirements for outward-facing recording devices.
    TTD commented that it did not object to less prescriptive 
requirements on outward-facing cameras for the purposes of preventing 
vandalism, theft, or other criminal activity. However, BLET supported 
more prescriptive requirements for outward-facing locomotive image 
recording devices, commenting that it favored requiring locomotive 
recordings to have an accurate date/time stamp calibrated to coincide 
with the date/time stamp on the lead locomotive's event recorder. BLET 
stated that investigative efforts would be hampered, instead of 
facilitated, if such a requirement were not adopted.
    Finally, Metra commented that FRA should permit flexibility in the 
selection and implementing of railroads' locomotive image and audio 
recording systems. Specifically, Metra stated that if the systems meet 
the technical requirements, railroads should have leeway to determine 
the type and model of recording system used and what sound audio 
recording systems will capture (e.g., cab versus exterior bell and 
horn).
    After consideration of all comments received, FRA is adopting the 
requirements for outward-facing locomotive image recording devices in 
Sec.  229.136(b)(1) as proposed in the NPRM. FRA understands concerns 
that certain requirements for outward-facing cameras are prescriptive; 
however, this was FRA's intention. As compared to the defined space 
inside a locomotive cab, the area outside and ahead of a locomotive is 
vast and unbounded. Consequently, establishing certain, more 
prescriptive, uniform performance parameters helps ensure that image 
recordings conform to minimum standards necessary for reliable, post-
accident/incident investigation. A more performance-based approach 
risks potential variances and omission of necessary data. However, FRA 
makes clear that these standards are minimum standards, and passenger 
railroads do have considerable discretion as to how they want their 
outward-facing locomotive cameras to operate and record data.

G. Inward-Facing Locomotive Image Recording Systems and Devices

1. Inward-Facing Recording Devices as a Tool To Detect Fatigue
    In the NPRM, FRA discussed the possibility of inward-facing image 
recorders being a tool to identify fatigue, prevent fatigue-related 
accidents/incidents, and identify when fatigue has been a relevant 
factor in an accident/incident. However, APTA commented that relying on 
image data as a fatigue-mitigation tool has limited application, 
stating it is unclear what criteria the industry would use to determine 
when an employee is fatigued and that such analysis on the part of the 
railroad could be subjective.
    This final rule requires the inward-facing image recording systems 
to have sufficient resolution only ``to record crewmember actions''; 
FRA has not adopted the proposed text specifically addressing 
crewmember incapacitation. FRA is still hopeful that inward-facing 
locomotive cameras can be helpful devices to determine whether fatigue 
may have caused or contributed to an accident or incident. However, FRA 
agrees that requiring passenger railroad to make a determination that 
their inward-facing locomotive image recording systems have sufficient 
resolution to identify whether a crewmember is physically incapacitated 
is too subjective a standard.
2. Locomotive Recording Devices and Real-Time Monitoring
    APTA sought clarification whether the proposal implied that 
passenger railroads must conduct real-time monitoring of their 
locomotive cabs. According to APTA, the passenger railroad industry 
does not support real-time monitoring and, if remote monitoring is 
added as a requirement, FRA would need to significantly adjust its cost 
burden estimates to account for staffing and other increased costs of 
such monitoring. As discussed in the Section-by-Section analysis below, 
FRA has not adopted the proposed language that APTA believed may imply 
a requirement to engage in real-time monitoring of the train crew. FRA 
intended no such requirement.
3. Inward-Facing Recording Device Coverage of the Locomotive Cab
    APTA suggested changes to the proposal in Sec.  229.136(c)(1) that 
the inward-facing recording system be positioned to provide ``complete 
coverage of all areas of the controlling locomotive cab where a 
crewmember typically may be positioned.'' APTA commented that the 
proposal was too prescriptive, stating that multiple designs of 
locomotives would require various solutions and therefore the devices 
should be positioned to provide coverage of areas of the controlling 
locomotive cab as defined by the operating railroad.
    Similarly, SMART disagreed with requiring the inward-facing image 
recorders to provide ``complete'' coverage of the locomotive cab, and 
instead suggested that the standard should provide for ``overall'' 
coverage. SMART acknowledged that an inward-facing locomotive image 
recording device must be positioned to provide coverage of the 
controlling locomotive, but believed requiring ``complete'' coverage 
might be overly broad and imply coverage to include every minute area 
of the locomotive.
    In general, the requirement to provide ``complete'' coverage is 
intended to ensure that the recording system not omit footage of 
crewmember actions in any part of the locomotive cab that might be 
vital in post-accident/incident investigations.\24\ Allowing the 
operating railroad to define the areas of the lead locomotive to be 
covered by the inward-facing recording system or allowing only 
``overall'' coverage may lead to a lack of a uniform minimum amount of 
coverage that risks omitting critical data. Therefore, FRA is still 
requiring that inward-facing image recording systems provide 
``complete'' coverage of all areas of the controlling locomotive cab 
but puts some limits on the requirement. ``Complete'' coverage only 
needs to be ``of all areas of the lead locomotive cab where a 
crewmember typically may be positioned, including complete coverage of 
the instruments and controls required to operate the controlling 
locomotive in normal use.'' This clause ensures that passenger 
railroads will not be found in violation of the standard if their 
inward-facing image recording system does not cover mostly inaccessible 
corners of the locomotives where activities necessary to operate the 
locomotive would not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FRA has exempted the locomotive's sanitation compartment in 
paragraph (c)(3), because the privacy needs of the train crew 
outweigh, among other things, the potential that actions occurring 
in the sanitation compartment will cause or contribute to an 
accident/incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Recording in Low-Light Conditions
    APTA opposed including the language in proposed paragraph Sec.  
229.136(c)(1)(ii) (now in (c)(1)(iii)) requiring recording systems to 
automatically switch to infrared or another operating mode that enables 
the recording to have sufficient clarity when ambient light levels drop 
too low for

[[Page 70735]]

normal operation. Instead of what it termed a too prescriptive and one-
size-fits-all approach, APTA believed the requirement should provide 
that the camera system be capable of using ambient light in the cab 
during all times in passenger service. Conversely, the NTSB agreed with 
FRA's proposal.
    FRA disagrees that the proposed requirement for a recording system 
to switch to another operating mode to enable effective recording when 
ambient light levels are too low for normal operation is overly 
prescriptive. As proposed, the camera system may use any operating mode 
that enables the passenger railroad to record with sufficient clarity 
all areas of the lead locomotive cab where a crewmember typically may 
be positioned. Infrared technology is one way of meeting this 
requirement, but the use of infrared technology is not required. This 
is a key requirement, however, to ensure that regardless of the 
technology used to record inside the locomotive cab at nighttime or in 
other periods of low ambient light (e.g., in tunnels), the inward-
facing cameras must still be capable of recording crewmember actions 
with sufficient clarity. Accordingly, FRA is adopting this requirement 
as proposed in the NPRM.
    In addition, BLET commented that locomotive technologies are 
already excessively distracting to crewmembers, there is no need for 
additional distractions, and cameras or independent light sources 
should never emit any light that distracts the crew from safely 
performing their duties or interferes with the crew's vision outside 
the locomotive window. APTA also stated that a crew should always be 
able to use the locomotive's sun visor to block direct sunlight that 
could affect the crew's sight and the identification of signals or 
other objects outside of the locomotive cab windows.
    Existing FRA regulations provide that any illumination in low-light 
conditions cannot interfere with a crew's vision (49 CFR 229.127(a)), 
and the placement of image recording devices cannot obstruct a crew's 
view of the right-of-way from its normal positions in the cab (49 CFR 
229.119(b)). The use of infrared technology itself is not a distraction 
to crewmembers and should be installed on a locomotive so it does not 
interfere with the ability of crewmembers to safely perform their 
duties. In addition, although FRA does agree that train crews should be 
able to use the locomotive's sun visor to block direct sunlight that 
could affect the crews' vision, FRA cautions railroads to not place the 
inward-facing cameras in such a way that they can be blocked by the 
train crew's use of the locomotive visor.
5. Frame Rate for Inward-Facing Recording Devices
    APTA commented that it supported the proposed standard to require 
inward-facing recording devices to record at a frame rate of at least 5 
fps. In contrast, BLET commented that 5 fps could be too low a frame 
rate for use during accident reconstruction if the pictures are not 
fluid enough to capture action as it happens at the speed it happens. 
Although BLET understood that allowing inward-facing image recorders to 
record at a lower frame rate enabled passenger railroads to store more 
image data at a lower expense, BLET was concerned that the frame rate 
could create synchronization inaccuracies when the video and audio are 
captured or played back at different rates. Therefore, BLET stressed 
that the final rule should specify a frame rate that will prevent these 
types of inaccuracies.
    The NTSB agreed with BLET that a recording rate of 5 fps was not 
sufficient for inward-facing image recorders. According to the NTSB, 
because locomotive operating compartments contain numerous indicator 
lights and displays, cameras recording at 5 fps may not adequately 
capture possible intermittent warnings or indicator lights. The NTSB 
stated that it was not aware of any memory limitations that would 
necessitate such a low frame rate and, instead, recommended at least a 
10-fps recording rate for inward-facing image recorders.
    FRA understands the concerns raised by BLET and the NTSB. However, 
FRA is adopting 5 fps as the minimum standard to provide passenger 
railroads maximum flexibility to comply with the requirements of this 
final rule. As previously discussed in the NPRM as well as below, a 
rate of 5 fps is APTA's recommended practice for the selection of 
recording systems for use in transit-related closed circuit television 
recording systems and in low-traffic areas or areas where only walking-
pace motion is likely (such as passenger areas). Moreover, this frame 
rate is only a minimum standard. For instance, FRA expects that some 
passenger railroads may install inward-facing recording systems with a 
higher frame rate to enhance the use of the devices for operational 
testing. In addition, under paragraph Sec.  229.136(g), discussed below 
in the Section-by-Section Analysis, passenger railroads must provide a 
written description of the technical aspects of any locomotive image 
recording system installed to comply with this section. Under Sec.  
229.136(c)(1)(i), FRA will not approve an image recording system that 
does not have ``sufficient resolution to record crewmember actions,'' 
even if the system records at a minimum frame rate of 5 fps. As a 
result, recording systems that cannot accurately provide information or 
sufficiently record what is occurring within the locomotive cab will 
not be approved prior to installation.
6. Prohibition on Recording Activities Within a Locomotive's Sanitation 
Compartment
    BLET and SMART both supported the proposed requirement that inward-
facing locomotive cameras may not record any activity within a 
locomotive's sanitation compartment as defined in Sec.  229.5, and that 
no image recording device be installed in a location where the device 
could record activities within the locomotive's sanitation compartment. 
Although the Supreme Court has ruled that a locomotive is a workplace 
and therefore employees have no expectation of privacy,\25\ train 
crewmembers have an expectation that their actions will not be recorded 
on the locomotive's inward-facing recording device(s) within the 
passenger train's sanitation compartment. FRA is adopting the proposed 
prohibition on recording the sanitation compartment in the final rule 
without substantive change.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 
at 627.
    \26\ See 49 CFR 229.136(c)(2) of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Notice Provided When Locomotive Recording Devices Are Present

    FRA received several comments in response to what, if any, notice 
passenger railroad crewmembers should receive that locomotive recording 
devices are present in the locomotive cab. APTA commented that its 
member passenger railroads have already addressed this issue by 
providing information using operational notices to affected employees. 
APTA also added, as discussed above, that courts, including the Supreme 
Court, have ruled that a locomotive is a workplace and employees have 
no expectation of privacy within it. In contrast to APTA's comment, 
Amtrak stated that providing notice by Form FRA F 6180-49A alone, as 
proposed in the NPRM, was inadequate because it could in practice limit 
who sees the information. Instead, Amtrak recommended that FRA require 
signage alerting the crew that audio-visual recording devices are 
present. SMART agreed with Amtrak's comment

[[Page 70736]]

that signage should be required and that there should also be a visible 
light on the recording device that indicates to crewmembers when the 
device is in operation.
    Because as noted above, crewmembers have no expectation of privacy 
in a locomotive cab, excluding the sanitation compartment, FRA has 
concluded that although it proposed to provide notice of recording 
devices to crewmembers via a notation on Form F 6180-49A (Locomotive 
Inspection and Repair Record), such notice is not required as a matter 
of privacy concerns. Therefore, FRA will not require railroads to post 
signage alerting crewmembers that audio-visual recording devices are 
present.
    However, the value of requiring the presence of a locomotive 
recording device to be noted on a locomotive inspection and repair 
record, similar to Sec.  229.135(a)'s requirement for locomotive event 
recorders, is to ensure that the device is inspected and in proper 
operating condition as this rule requires. In this regard, as discussed 
below in Section II.I.3, when a railroad removes a locomotive image 
recording device from service, a qualified person must record the date 
the device was removed from service on Form FRA F 6180-49AP (Passenger 
Locomotive Inspection and Repair Record). This requirement varies 
slightly from the requirement proposed in the NPRM, where FRA proposed 
that the notation indicating a locomotive image recording device has 
been removed from service be made under the REMARKS section of Form F 
6180-49A. This is no longer the case. Instead, FRA has created a new 
form, Form F 6180-49AP, specifically for passenger locomotives.\27\ It 
is in the REMARKS section of new Form F 6180-49AP that a qualified 
person will note the date when a locomotive image recording device is 
removed from service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ FRA published a 60-day Federal Register notice to solicit 
public comments on the new F 6180-49AP form. 87 FR 50914 (August 18, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below in the section-by-section analysis for new Sec.  
229.22, Passenger locomotive inspection and repair record, Form F 6180-
49AP will serve as the new counterpart to Form F 6180-49A, and will 
include a designated row for entering information about annual testing 
of locomotive image recording devices required under Sec.  229.136, 
consistent with the designated row on Form F 6180-49A (as well as new 
Form F 6180-49AP) for entering information about required locomotive 
event recorder testing. FRA makes clear that this new form will in no 
way affect use of the F 6180-49A form by locomotives in freight or 
switching service, which are not subject to the requirements of this 
rule, nor will it affect use of the F 6180-49A form by passenger 
locomotives that are not used as the lead locomotives in commuter or 
intercity passenger train service.
    Further, FRA understands and does not dispute the legal precedent 
raised by APTA that locomotives are highly regulated workplaces, and 
employees have no expectation of privacy while performing, or ready to 
perform, operating duties within a locomotive. The only area where 
train crews do have an expectation of privacy is within a locomotive's 
sanitation compartment, treatment of which is discussed above in 
Section II.G.

I. Repairing, Replacing, or Removing Locomotive Image Recording Devices 
From Service

1. Practicableness of the Standard
    FRA received several comments on the appropriateness of the 
standard in proposed Sec.  229.136(i) that would require inward- and 
outward-facing locomotive image recording devices to be repaired or 
replaced at the next calendar day inspection or be removed from 
service. Many commenters claimed the standard was too burdensome and 
should be revised. APTA asserted that requiring these systems to be 
repaired or replaced by the next calendar day inspection is 
impractical, stating that locomotive image recording systems can fail 
for many different reasons, and repairs can sometimes take several 
days. According to APTA, the passenger railroad industry has limited 
fleet availability and restricting locomotives or trainsets due to 
locomotive image recording system failures alone could have a 
substantial impact on dispatching trains, potentially taking an entire 
trainset out of service when the cars are semi-permanently coupled. 
APTA contended that the proposed standard was financially unrealistic 
and, if adopted, would require the industry to obtain additional 
locomotives or trainsets, driving up the cost of the final rule and 
significantly affecting the rule's cost-benefit analysis. APTA stated 
that the Statute prevents FRA from adopting a standard that 
``requir[es] a railroad carrier to cease or restrict operations upon a 
technical failure of an inward- or outward-facing image recording 
device or in-cab audio device,'' \28\ and asserted that the operating 
railroad should be free to repair or replace the device ``as soon as 
practicable'' under the Statute. APTA added that, given passenger 
railroads' voluntary installation of these devices, railroads find it 
in their best interest to repair or replace these devices for many 
reasons independent of Federal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 49 U.S.C. 20168(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Metra agreed with APTA's assertion that FRA's proposed standard 
conflicted with the Statute. Metra suggested that FRA should interpret 
``as soon as practicable'' under the Statute to mean 48 hours at a 
minimum. Metra stated that, because the locomotive recording systems it 
uses require substantial investment in both money and workforce any 
requirement to repair or replace non-functioning equipment that 
provides for less than 48 hours is not practicable. In its comments, 
AAR agreed with Metra that ``as soon as practicable'' should be at 
least 48 hours from the discovery that the device has failed, citing 
the cost of image recording devices, the multitude of components that 
could cause the device to fail, and the inevitability of tampering.
    Amtrak also commented on the appropriateness of FRA's proposal and 
suggested basing the standard on the ``next capable facility'' rather 
than on a specific unit of time. According to Amtrak, long-distance 
passenger trains may operate for multiple days until a suitable repair 
facility is available to replace equipment and often calendar day 
inspections are performed at outlying locations where minimal 
workforces do not have the suitable means to replace equipment. Amtrak 
believed a requirement to repair the equipment at the next capable 
facility would address this concern, and that this standard should 
apply to both inward- and outward-facing locomotive cameras.
    A private citizen also commented that, in some situations, 
passenger trains are parked overnight far from comprehensive repair 
facilities. The commenter therefore believed there should be an 
allowance for locomotive recording devices to make it back to an 
appropriate repair facility without cancellation or delays to passenger 
trains. The commenter stated that ultimately the use and repair of the 
devices should not force passengers into less safe situations by 
requiring them to drive instead of taking the train, given that rail is 
a safer mode of travel.
    However, not all commenters objected to FRA's proposed standard. 
BLET stated that locomotive cameras should be treated the same as any 
device mounted on or in a locomotive cab, asserting that locomotive 
cameras are appurtenances under Sec.  229.7 and should be treated in a 
similar fashion to event

[[Page 70737]]

recorders under Sec.  229.135. BLET believed the calendar day 
inspection requirement mirrors long-established requirements for 
removing event recorders from service under Sec.  229.135(c), is no 
more burdensome than the event recorder requirement, and should be 
included in this final rule.
    FRA agrees with BLET's reasoning and is largely adopting the 
standard proposed in the NPRM that all inward- and outward-facing image 
recording devices either need to be repaired or replaced within the 
next calendar day inspection or be removed from service. However, after 
consideration and review of the comments received, FRA reexamined how 
this requirement would affect long-distance intercity passenger trains 
and is creating a new exception to the requirement for these trains. 
Instead of taking a lead locomotive on a long-distance intercity 
passenger train out of service if it cannot be repaired or replaced by 
the next calendar-day inspection, the locomotive may continue in 
service until arrival at its destination terminal or its nearest 
forward point of repair, whichever occurs first. At that point, the 
locomotive must be taken out of service until the device is repaired or 
replaced.
    FRA determined an exception for long-distance intercity passenger 
trains was necessary, taking into further account the implications of 
the difference between the application of this final rule and the 
locomotive event recorder rule in Sec.  229.135. Section 229.135 
requires locomotive event recorders to be installed on both freight and 
passenger locomotives, yet this final rule requires locomotive image 
recording devices to be installed only on passenger train lead 
locomotives. Because a much smaller number of locomotives will be 
required to have compliant image recording devices than event 
recorders, FRA expects there will be a correspondingly smaller number 
of locations throughout the nation where properly equipped replacement 
locomotives and image recording devices are available, as well as where 
appropriate parts and equipment for repair are available. Accordingly, 
long-distance intercity passenger trains may need to travel beyond the 
location of their next calendar day inspection until a suitable repair 
facility is available to repair or replace the equipment, especially 
because calendar day inspections for long-distance intercity passenger 
trains are sometimes performed at outlying locations, as Amtrak 
commented.
    This exception is limited to long-distance intercity passenger 
trains. The majority of passenger locomotives in this Nation operate in 
commuter service or short-distance intercity passenger service \29\--
service supported by centralized inspection and repair locations. 
Passenger railroads operating trains in commuter or short-distance 
intercity passenger service are therefore expected to have adequate 
parts, equipment, and facilities available at calendar day inspection 
locomotives to repair or replace defective image recording systems or 
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Short-distance intercity passenger service means service 
provided exclusively on the Northeast Corridor or between cities not 
more than 125 miles apart. 49 CFR 238.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Standard's Consistency With Locomotive Recording Devices' 
Designation as Safety Devices
    Hitachi commented that allowing a passenger train to continue in 
operation without the proper image recording capabilities until the 
next calendar day inspection conflicts with FRA's defining locomotive 
recording devices as a safety device under part 218. FRA disagrees that 
there is a contradiction. Taking a locomotive out of service 
immediately because a safety device (e.g., a locomotive image recorder) 
is not working could potentially lead to a more dangerous safety issue 
(e.g., stranding passengers or overwhelming the safe capacity of 
station platforms).
3. Documenting When a Locomotive Image Recording Device Has Been 
Removed From Service
    APTA commented that when a railroad removes a locomotive image 
recording device from service, the final rule should not require a 
qualified person to record the removal date on Form FRA F 6180-49A, 
under the REMARKS section. As discussed above in Section II.H, APTA 
repeated its objection to the NPRM's proposed requirement that the 
railroad note the presence of any image or audio recording system on 
Form FRA F 6180-49A. APTA stated that passenger railroads already 
address the issue by providing information to affected employees 
through operational notices. In addition, APTA believed adding this 
paperwork burden is not beneficial to safety, and claimed that FRA has 
not considered this cost in its cost-benefit analysis.
    Although FRA agrees with established legal precedent that train 
crews have no expectation of privacy in a locomotive cab, excluding the 
sanitation compartment, FRA disagrees that this form notation 
requirement is a paperwork burden without a safety benefit. As 
discussed above in Section II.H, passenger railroads will be required 
to note in the REMARKS section of new Form FRA F 6180-49AP, 
specifically for passenger locomotives, when an image recording device 
has been removed from service. This notation will serve as a quick 
reference to inform crewmembers and other passenger railroad employees 
(e.g., mechanical employees responsible for locomotive repairs, 
maintenance and inspection) of the status of the locomotive's recording 
devices and the image recording system on board any passenger 
locomotive. The final rule varies slightly from the requirement 
proposed in the NPRM in that such a notation will be made in the 
REMARKS section of Form FRA F 6180-49AP--not Form F FRA 6180-49A. Form 
F 6180-49A will be exclusively used by locomotives in freight or 
switching service and by passenger locomotives that are not operated as 
the lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger train service. 
In response to APTA's cost-benefit analysis comment, FRA has updated 
its cost-benefit analysis to discuss that the costs are incorporated in 
locomotives' routine scheduled maintenance. The removal from service 
requirements in Sec.  229.136(i) do not apply to audio recording 
devices, which are not required to be installed under this final rule.
    In its comments, Amtrak asserted that a notation on form FRA F 
6180-49A is not sufficient notice that a locomotive's inward- or 
outward-facing camera is out-of-service. Instead, Amtrak recommended 
making a record in an electronic maintenance system and opening a work 
order for repair, along with applying a non-compliant tag on the 
equipment. Amtrak stated such a process would be similar to that for 
the failure of dynamic brakes under Sec.  232.109 of this chapter.
    FRA maintains that the requirement as proposed is adequate to 
provide notice that either the locomotive's inward- or outward-facing 
camera system is malfunctioning. Moreover, the reporting of any defect 
on a locomotive is subject to the calendar day inspection requirements 
in Sec.  229.21. However, part 229 does not require a non-compliant tag 
to be placed on a locomotive with a defective event recorder under 
Sec.  229.135, and no such tag is required under this final rule.

J. FRA Approval Process for Locomotive Image Recording Systems and 
Devices

1. Necessity of the Approval Process
    In response to FRA's proposal, APTA questioned why an approval 
process

[[Page 70738]]

was needed, stating that the recording system is not safety-critical. 
Further, APTA commented that FRA had not accounted for the approval 
process in the cost-benefit analysis, asserting that an approval 
process for any element increases the cost of the rule and 
implementation time. According to APTA, given the widespread, voluntary 
implementation of these systems, FRA should not require their approval 
and should, instead, allow passenger railroads to create and maintain a 
written description that can be made available upon request to FRA at 
any time.
    FRA has not adopted APTA's comment. The Statute requires FRA, as 
the Secretary's delegate, to establish a review and approval process 
for inward- and outward-facing locomotive image recorders.\30\ This 
final rule therefore includes a review and approval process as the 
Statute requires. Nonetheless, FRA has adjusted the economic analysis 
to include the approval process cost; for more detailed information on 
the cost, please see the RIA accompanying this final rule. Further, for 
the reasons discussed below in Section II.M, FRA disagrees with APTA's 
assertion that image recording devices are not safety-critical. 
Notably, FRA is amending part 218's prohibitions against tampering with 
safety devices specifically to include passenger locomotive recording 
devices and is adopting Sec.  229.136(j) to expressly prohibit 
disabling or interfering with passenger locomotive recording systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clarifying the Approval Process
    In commenting on proposed Sec.  229.136(g), Wi-Tronix stated that 
the approval process for locomotive recording devices needed 
clarification. According to Wi-Tronix, the proposed requirements would 
lead to confusion and delays in the marketplace because railroads often 
look for a certified product or service and have little desire to go 
through an additional certification process. Wi-Tronix requested FRA 
clarify whether suppliers can self-submit a system for approval, and 
believed the timelines and process (including each railroad needing 
separate certification) to be commercially impractical and lead to 
increased costs and slow the rule's implementation.
    Separately, Amtrak requested changing the approval process 
submission timeframes, citing constraints due to clerical limitations 
and the logistics of acquiring equipment. Amtrak stated that a more 
realistic and achievable timeframe would be 90 days for existing 
systems and 180 days for proposed systems.
    FRA disagrees that the approval process is unclear. Section 
229.136(g)(1) explains what a passenger railroad must include in its 
description of the technical aspects of the locomotive image recording 
system. Although the paragraph does not provide extensive technical 
detail, FRA does not consider this to be a limitation but rather to 
provide the passenger railroads flexibility in preparing their 
submissions.
    FRA also believes 60 days from the effective date of this final 
rule provides railroads sufficient time to prepare and submit 
descriptions of the technical aspects of their existing locomotive 
image recording systems. (Please note that the 60-day period after the 
final rule's effective date reflects an earlier effective date than 
indicated in the NPRM, so that the overall length of the submission 
period is the same.) This final rule takes effect on November 13, 2023, 
which is 30 days after publication of this final rule. Accordingly, 
railroads have a total of 90 days from this final rule's publication to 
prepare and submit descriptions of the technical aspects of their 
existing locomotive image recording systems. Such description of the 
technical aspects may be submitted to FRA in electronic form.
    In this final rule, FRA is also correcting an error in proposed 
Sec.  229.136(g)(2) in which FRA stated that the submissions for 
existing systems must be made ``not less than'' 30 (now 60) days after 
the effective date of the final rule. However, the explanation of this 
proposed paragraph in the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis did 
correctly state that the submissions must be made ``not more than'' 30 
(now 60) days after the effective date of a final rule. FRA is 
correcting the erroneous language in the text of paragraph (g)(2) 
accordingly, as railroads are not required to wait until the end of the 
period to make their submissions. FRA is also revising the approval 
process in this final rule to make clear affirmative approval from FRA 
will be required before a passenger railroad's inward- or outward-
facing locomotive image recording system can be installed or placed 
into service. This is a change from the proposal in the NPRM that, in 
the absence of written disapproval from FRA within 90 days of FRA's 
receipt of the submission, the railroad's locomotive image recording 
system would be considered approved. FRA has concluded that a 
transparent and conclusive approval process is required, and it would 
not be in the public's interest to allow for the possibility that a 
non-compliant system could be approved through unexpected events or 
inadvertence. At the same time, FRA plans to publish a list of any 
previously approved systems on its website for railroads' convenience, 
as FRA noted in the NPRM.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 84 35714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this final rule requires FRA's affirmative approval before 
a locomotive image recording system can be installed or placed into 
service on a locomotive, if a railroad chooses to submit the required 
information 180 days before installation of these systems, consistent 
with Amtrak's comment, FRA would not object. In fact, as a practical 
matter, FRA encourages railroads to make their submissions well in 
advance of the submission deadline, so that if the submission were 
incomplete or requires clarification, or if FRA were to disapprove any 
or all of a railroad's submission, the railroad could timely respond to 
minimize, if not avoid altogether, any impact on the railroad's 
proposed installation schedule or the use of railroad resources.
    Finally, in response to Wi-Tronix's comment, the submission must 
come from the applying passenger railroad, as opposed to a supplier or 
other party, though it may of course be prepared in consultation with a 
supplier or other party. This is necessary as each railroad may use 
potentially different types of locomotives with different internal and 
external characteristics. How each passenger railroad complies with the 
requirements of Sec.  229.136, such as (but not limited to) how the 
inward- and outward-facing locomotive cameras are installed or placed, 
is for the passenger railroad to describe and demonstrate.
3. Application of the Approval Process to Freight Locomotives
    Finally, similar to other comments BLET made on the NPRM, BLET 
stated that the requirements of Sec.  229.136(g) should apply whether a 
system is installed on a voluntary basis or mandated by law. FRA 
disagrees. As discussed previously, the requirements of this rulemaking 
do not apply to freight locomotives that have or will have installed 
locomotive image recorders. However, FRA expects that all railroads 
that voluntarily install recording devices on their locomotives will 
adhere to practices that are consistent with those in this final rule, 
and FRA invites parties with questions about the voluntary installation 
of recording devices on locomotives to contact FRA for such technical 
assistance.

[[Page 70739]]

K. Implementation Period of the Rule

1. Four-Year Implementation Period
    FRA received several comments about the proposed four-year 
implementation period within which all lead passenger train locomotives 
in commuter or intercity passenger service would be required to be 
equipped with compliant inward- and outward-facing image recording 
devices. Commenters provided different suggestions on how FRA should 
set the implementation date for the final rule. APTA stated that if FRA 
would not exclude from the final rule existing locomotives already 
equipped with recording devices, the rule should take effect 10 years 
from its publication date. APTA believed the 10-year period would allow 
passenger railroads to obtain the full, life-cycle value of locomotive 
image recording systems installed or soon to be installed, i.e., 
already under contract and designed. APTA contended that this would be 
a more effective use of funds, as most passenger railroads are public 
transportation agencies funded by taxpayer dollars, and also stated 
that these public agencies must adhere to strict, public procurement 
rules, and consequently need a considerable amount of time to get 
public agency procurements completed.
    Metra suggested that FRA phase-in the requirements with an 8-year 
implementation period in which passenger railroads have 70 percent of 
their locomotive fleets compliant within the first 5 years. Metra 
stated that it was generally supportive of FRA's implementation 
requirement, but found the proposed 4-year timeframe to be insufficient 
for an entity the size of Metra, which has over 529 pieces of equipment 
requiring installation.
    Other commenters supported the proposed 4-year implementation 
period. The NTSB stated that the deadline would encourage prompt 
implementation of the final rule's requirements. As the NTSB discussed 
in its report on the DuPont accident, and as discussed earlier in this 
final rule, there is a clear investigative benefit to the information 
provided by locomotive recording devices. The NTSB also noted that it 
had issued NTSB Safety Recommendation R-10-01 in 2010, on the need for 
locomotive recorder devices, and that any further delay beyond the 
proposed deadline in the NPRM would be unacceptable. SMART also 
commented that the final rule should allow 4 years for passenger 
railroads to install compliant recording devices, but sought to require 
that as compliant devices are installed on locomotives, railroads 
should comply with the other requirements of the final rule.
    FRA maintains that 4 years is an adequate time-period for passenger 
railroads to comply with the final rule's requirements. Granting 
passenger railroads a full 10 years or a phased-in 8 years to comply 
with the minimum requirements would be both excessive and not in the 
best interests of the public or rail safety. As the NTSB commented, 
recent accidents involving passenger trains have proven how valuable 
locomotive image recordings can be as part of post-accident/incident 
analysis to identify rail safety hazards. The 4-year period allows 
passenger railroads sufficient time to get significant remaining value 
out of their equipment while taking into account the increased post-
accident investigation benefit and other benefits that result from 
compliance with the final rule's requirements.
2. Application of the Final Rule to Image Recording Systems on New, 
Remanufactured, or Existing Locomotives
    FRA invited comment on the appropriateness of the proposal that 
image recording systems installed after one year from the final rule's 
publication date on new, remanufactured, or existing locomotives used 
in commuter or intercity passenger service meet the requirements of 
this final rule. Based on concerns about the length of the public 
procurement process, number of locomotives already equipped with image 
recording devices, and the lifespan of these devices, APTA and Hitachi 
asked that FRA extend the time to comply until after two years from the 
final rule's publication date.
    FRA has decided against extending the time from one to two years 
because the one-year period is intended to provide an appropriate 
margin of time for passenger railroads to obtain image recording 
systems compliant with the requirements of this final rule for 
installation on new, remanufactured, and existing locomotives. These 
requirements are minimum standards and are achievable. In this regard, 
AAR commented that FRA should compare the standards in this rulemaking 
with the May 29, 2019, standards proposed by Transport Canada to 
prevent conflicting requirements between Canada and the United 
States.\32\ FRA compared the two standards and did not identify any 
concerns. FRA has also compared the final standards issued by Transport 
Canada and this final rule.\33\ Transport Canada's standards for 
inward-facing cameras are more stringent than those in this final rule; 
however, Transport Canada's standards do not require outward-facing 
locomotive cameras, which are specifically required by the FAST Act and 
therefore this final rule.\34\ Lead locomotives on Canadian passenger 
trains that enter the United States from Canada must comply with all of 
the requirements of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-05-25/html/reg5-eng.html.
    \33\ https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-09-02/html/sor-dors178-eng.html.
    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Operational (Efficiency) Testing

    In the NPRM, FRA discussed the potential benefits to railroads that 
use locomotive recording devices as part of their operational 
(efficiency) testing programs and proposed requirements for railroads 
choosing to use locomotive recording devices to conduct operational 
testing under part 217, to protect employees from targeted testing as a 
form of retaliation. FRA received various comments regarding FRA's 
proposed amendments to part 217, and the agency's existing operational 
testing requirements.
1. Application of the Rule's Part 217 Amendments to Freight Railroads
    AAR commented that because existing part 217 applies to both 
passenger and freight railroads, FRA's proposed revisions to Sec.  
217.9 (proposed new paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) governing operational 
testing using locomotive recording devices) would apply to both types 
of railroads. AAR noted that FRA's stated intent in the NPRM's preamble 
was that these provisions would apply to passenger railroads only. 
Accordingly, AAR suggested that FRA modify proposed paragraphs (b)(3) 
and (4) to specify that the paragraphs apply to passenger railroads 
only.
    AAR is correct. FRA did not intend proposed new paragraphs (b)(3) 
and (4) to apply to freight railroads. Therefore, in this final rule, 
FRA is clarifying its intent to exclude freight railroads from these 
requirements by using the word ``passenger railroad,'' instead of 
``railroad,'' in new paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of Sec. Sec.  217.9. 
However, as discussed above in Section II.A.2, it is FRA's expectation 
that all railroads that voluntarily install recording devices on their 
locomotives will adhere to practices that are consistent with those in 
this final rule, notably the new part 217 requirements that serve to 
protect employees from targeted testing as a form of retaliation when 
railroads

[[Page 70740]]

conduct operational testing using recording devices or their 
recordings. Further, under existing Sec.  217.9(h), FRA reviews 
railroads' operational testing and inspection programs and, if 
necessary, may disapprove any such program for cause stated.
2. Burden of the Rule's Part 217 Requirements
    APTA commented that FRA should not adopt in this final rule any of 
the requirements FRA proposed to add to Sec.  217.9 because the regular 
monitoring of image recordings does not need to be under or part of a 
railroad's operational testing program. Instead, APTA asserted that 
passenger railroads should be allowed to establish their own practices 
to monitor employees' compliance with rules and deter them from unsafe 
actions. APTA also contended that the additional burdens from the 
requirements FRA proposed may incentivize railroads not to use 
recording devices in operational testing and therefore reduce one of 
the benefits of this rulemaking.
    In addition, APTA claimed that requiring test subjects for 
operational testing using locomotive recorders to be selected at random 
would create an unnecessary cost and burden for passenger railroads, 
because the ability to use cameras in the railroads' current 
operational testing plans already exists and this cost was not 
considered in the NPRM's cost estimate. Finally, APTA objected to FRA's 
proposed condition that operational testing be completed within 72 
hours of the completion of the tested employee's tour of duty, calling 
it impractical and indicating that such is allowed when testing for 
radio rules compliance.
    FRA disagrees with APTA's comment that the regular monitoring of 
locomotive recordings does not need to be under a railroad's 
operational testing program or that passenger railroads should be 
allowed to establish their own plans and practices to monitor employees 
using these recordings. Section 20168(i) of the Statute prevents in-cab 
audio or image recordings from being used to retaliate against an 
employee. New Sec.  217.9(b)(3) requires passenger railroads to 
describe how they will randomly select testing subjects, better 
enabling FRA to oversee that passenger railroads are fulfilling the 
requirements and railroad supervisors are not unfairly selecting 
specific employees for operational testing as a form of retaliation. 
FRA is including in-cab audio recorders and their recordings under 
paragraph (b)(3), as previously discussed. It does not make sense to 
require passenger railroads to select their operational testing 
subjects randomly when using image recorders or their recordings 
without applying the same protections to the use of audio recorders and 
their recordings.
    FRA disagrees that the limitations on operational testing will 
cause passenger railroads to abandon using these devices for 
operational testing purposes altogether. APTA's assertion that any 
costs associated with these limitations are unnecessary is flawed, in 
part because the Statute itself prohibits the use of locomotive 
recording devices as a medium to retaliate against employees. Further, 
the RIA accompanying this final rule addresses in more detail APTA's 
claim that FRA has not sufficiently accounted for the cost of 
implementing a random selection program for locomotive recordings. 
Finally, while APTA compares testing for radio rules compliance with 
using locomotive recording devices for operational testing, listening 
to radio recordings provides a far more limited window into the crew's 
activities and has far less potential for abuse than locomotive 
recording devices.
3. Appropriateness of Using Locomotive Recordings for Operational 
Testing
    BLET also objected to FRA's proposed revisions to Sec.  217.9 
allowing railroads to utilize locomotive recordings for operational 
testing purposes. BLET asserted that railroads have historically used 
operational testing as an indirect way to discipline their employees. 
According to BLET, although locomotive engineers are accustomed to how 
operational testing is currently done (e.g., sporadic skills tests in 
the field), use of recording devices would put engineers under 
``constant surveillance.'' BLET believed crewmembers would feel 
continually watched and change how they act as a result, because crews 
would be worried about performing for the camera first and reacting to 
the circumstances that are actually occurring second, which would 
negatively impact safety.
    In contrast to BLET's comment, FRA received comments from TTD, 
Metra, and SMART, in support of FRA's proposed additions to Sec.  
217.9. TTD called FRA's proposed requirement for operational testing 
subjects to be selected at random a ``meaningful step towards fair 
usage of recorded images.'' Metra agreed with TTD and specifically 
asked FRA to make clear in the final rule that passenger railroads 
could not use subjective factors in the utilization of locomotive 
recordings to conduct operational tests. SMART and BLET also 
``applauded'' FRA on its proposed random testing requirement and SMART 
stated that the provision would prevent a vindictive supervisor from 
tracking an employee the supervisor personally dislikes for punishment, 
such as a union representative. While still opposed to locomotive 
recordings being used for operational testing purposes at all, BLET 
also commented that how the random testing requirement was actually 
practiced by rail carriers in the field would be the determining factor 
on carrying out the intent of the regulation.
    TTD also expressed its support for the proposed requirement that 
any operational test or inspection must be performed within 72 hours 
after the employee's tour of duty. TTD called this a critical tenet to 
ensure that data received by the railroads is not misused and believed 
FRA should not weaken any of the proposed protections in a final rule.
    FRA agrees with TTD, Metra, and SMART and is adopting the proposed 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4). FRA notes that APTA and BLET 
objected to the proposed requirements for opposing reasons. As stated 
above, APTA commented that FRA should not adopt any of the proposed 
requirements, not because APTA is opposed to using locomotive recording 
devices in operational testing, but because APTA believed the 
regulations would place constraints on the use of the devices that many 
passenger railroads already use as part of operational testing and 
cause these railroads to change their existing testing programs. APTA 
preferred FRA instead let railroads make their own decisions on how to 
use their locomotive recording devices. Conversely, BLET objected to 
the proposed requirements on the basis that railroads should not be 
allowed to use locomotive recording devices for operational testing in 
any circumstance, because they could be used to unfairly target their 
employees. As explained below, the conditions FRA is adopting in this 
final rule address the targeting of employees when passenger railroads 
use locomotive recording devices for part 217 testing purposes.
    Without addressing BLET's allegation that operational testing has 
historically been used to target and discipline employees, FRA 
acknowledges that the amendments to Sec.  217.9 in this final rule are 
intended to ensure passenger railroad supervisors do not use inward-
facing locomotive cameras or in-cab audio recording devices to target 
specific employees. Hence, FRA's insistence that subjects for 
operational testing be selected at random, that there must be a testing 
plan that FRA can

[[Page 70741]]

review and disapprove for cause, and that all operational testing must 
be completed within 72 hours of the employee being tested completing 
his or her shift. BLET also commented that employees are used to having 
their skills sporadically tested in the field as opposed to the 
``constant surveillance'' of inward-facing cameras. However, the new 
regulations require employees to be selected at random. Constant 
surveillance of a certain employee will violate the randomness 
requirement.
    Further, as stated previously, locomotive engineers and other 
railroad employees who work in a locomotive have no expectation of 
privacy, with the exception of the locomotive's sanitation compartment. 
Railroad employees can be observed in the locomotive at various times 
by railroad management, FRA inspectors, or even members of the public. 
Although BLET maintained that the constant surveillance of railroad 
employees would negatively impact the employees' behavior, passenger 
railroads have been using locomotive cameras long before this 
rulemaking without any such observable impact on passenger train 
safety.
4. FRA's Authority To Regulate the Use of Locomotive Audio Recordings 
in Operational Testing
    APTA commented that FRA should not adopt in Sec.  217.9 any 
reference to audio recordings or related language as it would provide 
FRA with regulatory authority for something not within the scope of the 
NPRM or under current FRA regulations. FRA disagrees. FRA widely 
discussed and asked numerous questions about audio recording devices in 
the NPRM, in addition to raising the requirement in the NPRM. FRA 
specifically proposed that inward-facing locomotive image and in-cab 
audio recordings, if used for operational testing, would be subject to 
the proposed requirements in Sec.  217.9. Additionally, FRA has for 
some time regulated railroads' operational testing programs, and 
specifically what railroads can and cannot do as part of these 
programs.
5. Effect on FRA's Confidential Close Call Recording System (C3RS)
    BLET commented that allowing locomotive recording devices as an 
operational testing tool would have a negative effect on FRA's C3RS 
program. C3RS is a confidential reporting system that allows railroad 
employees in the field to report incidents where a potential accident 
was averted, or a risk was mitigated. The report is generated by the 
railroad employee without fear of reprisal from railroad management. 
BLET stated that confidentiality is the key to the success of the C3RS 
program but, with the constant surveillance of locomotive cameras, 
railroads may not feel there is an advantage to C3RS if they can simply 
watch accumulated video to identify trends. According to BLET, when a 
railroad has observed sufficient footage it could modify its 
operational testing to increase the number of exceptions and consequent 
cases of employee discipline, and thereby ignore the underlying safety 
problem or rule violation because the person committing the violation 
would be removed.
    FRA does not believe that inward-facing cameras used for 
operational testing will negatively affect FRA's C3RS program. 
Passenger and freight railroads began installing inward-facing cameras 
in locomotives many years ago and FRA is not aware of any evidence, nor 
has BLET provided any, that these cameras have negatively impacted the 
C3RS program.
6. Rules or Regulations Locomotive Recording Devices Should Address as 
Part of a Passenger Railroad's Operational Testing Program
    BLET commented that in the event recorder regulation all actions 
required to be captured are enumerated in the regulation. However, BLET 
asserted that for image or audio data captured by a camera or other 
recording devices, the NPRM lacked specificity as to which rules or 
regulations the data could be used to determine compliance. FRA did not 
provide in the NPRM, and declines to do so in this final rule, specific 
guidance on how the locomotive cameras should be used for evaluating 
compliance with specific rules or regulations, other than such use must 
comport with the stated protections for employees. FRA expects that 
railroads will use the locomotive image recording devices as a tool for 
purposes of carrying out their operational testing program 
requirements, evaluating compliance with the rules and regulations they 
already take into consideration as part of their operational testing 
programs.

M. Locomotive Recording Devices as Safety Devices Under Part 218

    FRA received comments from APTA, BLET, and the NTSB on FRA's 
proposal to include image and audio recording equipment installed on a 
passenger train locomotive as a ``safety device'' under Sec.  
218.53(c). APTA objected to the proposed changes and did not believe 
including an image recording device as a safety device under part 218 
was necessary. APTA claimed that although tampering has not been a 
known issue for passenger railroads, the railroads already have 
internal rules and policies that prevent tampering with locomotive 
image recording devices. In addition, APTA stated that locomotive 
cameras do not need protection from the public, as they are not readily 
publicly accessible, and that the presence or operability of locomotive 
image recording devices does not affect the safe operation of a 
passenger locomotive or the train it is powering because these devices 
are strictly forensic in nature and cannot prevent any accident or 
incident.
    In contrast to APTA's position, both BLET and the NTSB supported 
including locomotive recording devices as safety devices under part 
218. The NTSB agreed with FRA that treating a locomotive-mounted image 
or audio recording device as a ``safety device'' will deter employees 
from tampering with or disabling one of these devices. BLET also 
agreed, but added that the technical requirements and standards for 
locomotive recording devices should be no less stringent that the 
requirements for event recorders.
    FRA agrees with the NTSB that including locomotive recording 
devices under the definition of ``safety device'' in Sec.  218.53(c) 
will deter railroad employees from tampering with such devices. 
However, because a locomotive recording device is not currently defined 
as a ``safety device,'' FRA is not aware of the extent to which there 
may be tampering with these devices. FRA expects locomotive recording 
devices to be at least as, if not more, susceptible to tampering as 
event recorders, which are safety devices under part 218. For example, 
as stated in the NPRM, in one incident of tampering with an inward-
facing locomotive camera system, FRA viewed a recording in which an 
engineer covered the inward-facing cameras on his locomotive, 
apparently unaware of another camera mounted on the ceiling near the 
back wall of the cab. That camera recorded him appearing to play a game 
on a personal electronic device while operating a moving freight train. 
Accordingly, the changes to part 218 will serve not only to discourage 
passenger railroad employees from tampering with these important safety 
devices, but to hold individuals who do engage in such tampering 
accountable under FRA's rail safety regulations.
    Even if train crew tampering with locomotive image recorders would 
continue to be handled under passenger railroads' rules and policies, 
as APTA suggested, this does not confer the same significance as a 
safety device subject to part 218. By including passenger

[[Page 70742]]

locomotive recorders as safety devices under part 218, engineers and 
conductors directly risk the revocation of their FRA certification for 
tampering with these devices. Further, this change ensures that all 
passenger railroads handle tampering with locomotive recording devices 
according to uniform FRA standards, instead of having individual 
railroads apply potentially different internal rules and policies.
    FRA also disagrees with APTA that the presence or operability of 
image recording devices does not affect the safe operation of a 
passenger locomotive or the train it is powering. Although locomotive 
recording devices can provide information about the actions of train 
crewmembers following the occurrence of an accident or incident, 
properly function recording devices can serve additional safety 
purposes. In its comments to FRA, NCTD stated that its COASTER commuter 
rail service can currently observe through its inward-facing cameras in 
real time when the equipment is in range of the railroad's wireless 
mesh network along NCTD's right-of-way. FRA notes the ability to 
observe a train crew in real time could provide the railroad an 
opportunity to intervene if, for example, it observed unauthorized 
persons in or around the locomotive cab, including closely monitoring 
interactions with passengers, in addition to curbing violations of 
railroad rules that could lead to a potentially catastrophic incident 
or accident. In this regard, Wi-Tronix commented that the benefits of 
being able to livestream video and data during emergency situations 
would be a great benefit to the public, as well as when the train crew 
experiences a health issue or there is hostile activity in the 
locomotive cab.
    Regardless of whether locomotive recording devices are monitored in 
real time, the train crews' awareness of the devices will deter 
behavior that can negatively affect railroad safety, such as crewmember 
cell phone use while performing safety-sensitive functions, and the 
presence of cameras may also deter unauthorized occupancy of the 
locomotive or curb actions of other persons who may interact with the 
crew. Although the information currently provided by locomotive 
recording devices is mostly forensic in nature, the information can be 
critical in post-accident analysis and cannot be obtained from other 
sources such as locomotive event recorders. For instance, while 
locomotive event recorders provide information on data elements 
including locomotive speed and the amount and time of the locomotive's 
brake application, information from recording devices may be 
particularly useful in accidents arising from human factor causes, as 
image data can show investigators what the train crew was doing in the 
locomotive from a perspective that event recorders cannot provide. The 
railroads can then use this information to change railroad rules or 
revise their training programs to help prevent these types of accidents 
from reoccurring. This post-accident/incident data will be a vital 
source of information for FRA, the NTSB, and railroads to determine the 
cause of accidents/incidents as well as whether any action is necessary 
to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
    FRA also received a comment from Metra about the addition of Sec.  
218.53(d), which clarifies that the requirements of Sec. Sec.  218.59 
and 218.61 do not apply to recording devices voluntarily installed on 
freight locomotives. Metra noted that because these devices are 
voluntarily installed by freight railroads, the railroads can operate 
lead freight locomotives without such functioning recording devices. 
Metra is correct that freight railroads can operate freight locomotives 
without recording devices in compliance with this rule. However, as 
previously discussed, unless used as a rescue locomotive, a freight 
locomotive used in commuter or intercity passenger service must comply 
with all the requirements of this final rule.

N. Twelve-Hour Recording Period for Locomotive Image Recording Devices

1. Appropriateness of the 12-Hour Recording Period
    APTA commented that although it understood FRA arrived at the 12-
hour retention period for locomotive image recording data by reference 
to NTSB recommendations and the Statute's requirements, the requirement 
was excessive and unnecessary compared to the requirements of other 
federal agencies. APTA stated that the Federal Aviation Administration 
requires only 30 minutes of recording, claimed that the NTSB cited 
limited data supporting its recommendation for the 12-hour timeframe, 
and asserted that, unlike some freight trains, commuter train trip 
lengths are much shorter and ``turn backs,'' where the locomotive is in 
the lead in one direction and a cab car is in the lead in the other 
direction, are common after completing a run or directional trip. 
According to APTA, crew on-duty time for commuter and intercity 
passenger routes are scheduled to minimize jobs close to 12 hours on 
duty, some crews have a respite before their next trip, and some crews 
may also change train consists during their duty tour. APTA believed 
these elements contribute towards reducing the overwrite potential of 
critical image recordings available to investigate an incident and 
therefore asked that passenger railroads be allowed to determine their 
own time for storing their locomotives' image recording data. APTA 
added that passenger railroads already have image recording devices in 
other vehicles in a train consist for security purposes and noted they 
are generally recorded onto the same storage system as locomotive 
recording systems; consequently, APTA asserted that a shorter storage 
duration for locomotive recorders is necessary from a capacity 
perspective.
    Hitachi also asserted that 12 hours of required recording time is 
excessive, commenting that accidents happen due to actions or inactions 
that span just minutes. Hitachi suggested a two-hour recording window 
would be more appropriate instead.
    However, the Statute specifically mandates that locomotive image 
recording devices be capable of a minimum of 12 hours of continuous 
recording.\35\ Accordingly, to comply with the Statute, this final rule 
cannot require anything less. Further, FRA disagrees that only the 
crew's actions immediately before an accident or incident are relevant 
to determining the cause of an accident or incident. The visual 
evidence of what was occurring in the time leading up to an accident or 
incident, including evidence of possible interactions with passengers 
or other persons, as well as evidence of outside objects striking or 
even entering the cab, can prove useful in any subsequent investigation 
of the accident or incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Feasibility of 24 Hours of Continuous Recording Capability
    Responding to FRA's questions in the NPRM as to whether requiring 
passenger railroads to maintain a total of 24 hours of continuous 
recording capability would be feasible, Amtrak stated that the 
potential cost to double the recording timeframe from 12 to 24 hours 
would be ``astronomical,'' with only minimal additional benefits. 
According to Amtrak, the current marketplace does not have solutions 
that can capture recording time beyond approximately 14 hours and, 
under the hours of service laws, crews are only permitted 12 hours of 
continuous time on duty.
    FRA agrees with Amtrak that the cost of a 24-hour recording 
timeframe would

[[Page 70743]]

outweigh the benefits, and that such a lengthy amount of recording time 
is not practical or necessary.

O. Privacy Considerations

    FRA received several comments highlighting privacy concerns with 
FRA potentially taking possession of locomotive recordings as part of 
an accident investigation. The NPRM contains a detailed discussion of 
these privacy issues, and FRA specifically stated that it would 
``rarely take possession of recordings.'' In its comments, APTA 
asserted that FRA should state that it will ``never'' take possession 
of recordings. According to APTA, the NTSB has protections in place 
that would protect the release of such recordings (49 U.S.C. 1114(c) 
and (d)), while FRA does not. APTA stated that FRA inspectors should be 
able to view any video or listen to any audio recordings, but to 
prevent the release of sensitive data, FRA should not take possession 
of the recordings. APTA asserted that FRA should not be allowed to take 
possession of recordings unless FRA has the same statutory prohibition 
as the NTSB protecting against the release of information.
    The NTSB stated that it has longstanding legal restrictions and 
procedures in place that protect crew privacy and prevent the public 
release of sensitive onboard audio and video recovered in the accidents 
it investigates. The NTSB noted that 49 U.S.C. 1114(c) and (d) prohibit 
the agency from publicly disclosing voice and video recording from 
inside locomotive cabs involved in accidents or incidents. The law also 
specifies the circumstances under which the NTSB may make public an 
audio transcript or written depiction of visual information relevant to 
an accident or incident. Thus, the NTSB believes that current Federal 
law protecting against the public release of locomotive image or audio 
recordings during NTSB investigations is sufficient.
    AAR also commented that the Statute stipulates that DOT may not 
disclose to the public ``any part of an in-cab audio or image recording 
. . . related to an accident or incident investigated by the 
Secretary.'' \36\ According to AAR, the statutory language is clear 
that Congress intended to include both inward- and outward-facing 
cameras, and FRA should clarify in the regulatory text that ``in-cab'' 
means both inward- and outward-facing cameras, ``as colloquially, `in-
cab' refers to inward-facing cameras only.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, SMART commented that it supports the nondisclosure of 
audio and image recordings or transcripts of oral communications 
related to an accident investigated by FRA.
    As raised in the comments, valid privacy concerns exist on the 
appropriate protection and dissemination of locomotive recordings that 
are made, particularly where an accident has occurred and the 
recordings may be graphic and violent. It is not desirable for railroad 
employees or their families to have such images released publicly. 
Congress has previously provided statutory protections for a train's 
audio and image recordings that the NTSB takes possession of during the 
course of its accident investigations (49 U.S.C. 1114(d) and 1154(a)). 
Therefore, when the NTSB takes possession of such locomotive 
recordings, it is prohibited from releasing the contents of the 
recordings (except that transcripts may be released as part of its 
accident investigation proceedings).
    Similarly, the Statute (49 U.S.C. 20168(h)) prohibits FRA from 
publicly disclosing recordings that FRA takes possession of after a 
railroad accident has occurred. Subsection (h) of the Statute, which is 
similar to the FOIA exemption for locomotive recordings applicable to 
the NTSB at 49 U.S.C. 1114(d), prohibits FRA from disclosing publicly 
locomotive audio and image recordings, or transcripts of communications 
by and among train employees or other operating employees, or between 
such operating employees and communication center employees, related to 
an accident investigated by FRA.\37\ Moreover, the Statute does not 
limit these protections to such recordings and transcripts of 
communications involving locomotives used only in intercity or commuter 
passenger train service. Section 20168(h)'s protections apply 
regardless of whether the underlying recording devices are required to 
be implemented by this final rule. Consequently, this subsection 
protects recordings and transcripts of communications involving 
locomotives on which the devices are voluntarily installed--notably, 
such locomotives used in freight service. In addition, FRA will apply 
these subsection (h) protections not just to recordings from inward-
facing locomotive recording devices, but to recordings from outward-
facing recording devices as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Interested parties should note that FRA may make public a 
transcript or a written depiction of visual information that FRA 
deems relevant to the accident at the time other factual reports on 
the accident are released to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Statute's prohibition on FRA disclosing publicly locomotive 
audio and image recordings or transcripts of oral communications among 
certain railroad employees addresses the concerns expressed by 
commenters. Therefore, FRA declines to adopt APTA's suggestion to 
``never'' take possession of a locomotive recording. As stated in the 
NPRM, for the most serious of rail accidents, FRA anticipates that the 
NTSB will take possession of locomotive recordings, as they currently 
do, and that FRA will have the opportunity to view or listen to the 
recordings as a party to the investigation and in conducting its own 
parallel investigation under its separate statutory authority (49 
U.S.C. 20107(a)(1)). However, in the vast majority of rail related 
accidents, the NTSB does not launch an investigation, and FRA is the 
sole Federal accident investigator. In these accidents or incidents, 
FRA normally attempts to view the recordings while they are still 
within the railroad's possession. However, if necessary, FRA has the 
statutory authority and obligation, as the Secretary's delegate to 
investigate railroad accidents, to take possession of locomotive image 
and audio recordings as part of an FRA accident investigation or 
investigation of a violation of a railroad safety law, regulation or 
order.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 49 U.S.C. 20107(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Abuse of Locomotive Recording Devices

    FRA received several comments expressing concerns that locomotive 
recording systems would be used as a form of retaliation against 
railroad employees, even though using passenger locomotive recording 
devices to retaliate against employees is prohibited by the 
Statute.\39\ BLET commented that how locomotive recording devices are 
ultimately used is a critical issue for its members, and that the 
proposed rule contained no real protection from abuse. BLET asserted 
that, although the requirement that recordings be prohibited from being 
used to retaliate against an employee was well-intentioned, how 
retaliation is defined will be the key to ensuring whether Congress' 
intent to prevent recordings from being used as devices for retaliation 
will be realized. BLET also stated that FRA misunderstood Congress' 
non-retaliatory intent and that part 240 has been serially revised to 
thwart repeated attempts by numerous

[[Page 70744]]

carriers to misuse its provisions as a way to discipline their 
certified engineer workforce. BLET asserted this will also occur with 
locomotive recording devices in the absence of a uniform set of 
standards and requirements for all locomotive recording devices that 
limits their use to legitimate accident investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hitachi also expressed concerns with how locomotive recording 
devices would be used and commented that there is significant room for 
abuse if the proposed analytic tools are used for purposes outside of 
the narrow scope defined by the proposed rule. Hitachi therefore 
recommended that FRA bar railroad operators or owners from utilizing 
recordings for purposes other than training or accident investigations.
    SMART commented that FRA misinterpreted Congress' intent to prevent 
the use of locomotive recording devices for retaliation by concluding 
that the anti-retaliation provision of the Statute did not apply to 
railroad rules violations discovered via locomotive image or audio 
devices.\40\ SMART claimed that the Statute is clear that in-cab audio 
or image recordings obtained by a passenger railroad cannot be used to 
retaliate against an employee, 49 U.S.C. 20168(i), and therefore FRA 
was reading something into the section not stated in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 84 FR 35712, 35715 (July 24, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA disagrees with SMART's contention that the investigation of a 
railroad safety violation violates the Statute's anti-retaliation 
requirements. One of the purposes of this rulemaking is to use 
locomotive recording devices as a tool to identify and address safety 
violations that endanger public safety, such as personal electronic 
device usage while performing safety-critical duties. This purpose is 
not inconsistent with the Statute, which addresses retaliation 
implicated by other existing statutes (e.g., the railroad employee 
whistleblower law at 49 U.S.C. 20109).
    Amtrak commented that it already has an established company program 
and process in place governing the use of audio and visual recordings 
for compliance means only.
    FRA disagrees with Amtrak's suggestion that a railroad's company 
policy is sufficient to prevent retaliation incidents. FRA proposed in 
the NPRM, and is now adopting in this final rule, several requirements 
to prevent railroad retaliation against trains crews and other railroad 
employees. This final rule, in compliance with the Statute,\41\ 
specifically limits the purposes for which a passenger railroad may use 
a locomotive image or audio recording. In addition, to use any inward-
facing locomotive recording device for operational testing, a passenger 
railroad must develop and comply with a program under part 217 to 
ensure that testing subjects are selected randomly and any operational 
test must be completed within 72 hours of an employee's tour of duty. 
This will prevent the selection of specific candidates for operational 
testing or being subject to review on footage for an extended period of 
time to find a potential Federal railroad safety or railroad operating 
rule to penalize the employee in question. Moreover, as discussed 
above, it is FRA's expectation that all railroads that voluntarily 
install recording devices on their locomotives will adhere to practices 
that are consistent with those required under this final rule, such as 
the new part 217 requirements that serve to protect employees from 
targeted testing as a form of retaliation when railroads conduct 
operational testing using recording devices or their recordings. For 
further discussion about these requirements, relevant comments, and 
FRA's response to those comments, please see Section II.L above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 49 U.S.C. 20168(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. Recording Devices' Effect on Railroad Employees

    BLET commented that monitoring the day-to-day performance of 
workers can have damaging effects outside any of the claimed benefits 
of the final rule. According to BLET, visual or audio surveillance will 
build resentment and a climate of distrust between the railroad and its 
workers. BLET asserted that no matter the privacy protections and 
respect of use adopted in passenger railroad policies, railroad 
employees will resent the presence of the locomotive recording devices 
and find their presence offensive, and there will be a multitude of 
unforeseeable consequences that neither FRA, nor the passenger 
railroads have considered.
    It is likely that Congress took these concerns into account when 
mandating the installation of inward- and outward-facing image 
recording devices in all regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail 
passenger locomotives in the Statute. Locomotive recording devices are 
not a novel technology. Locomotive cameras and recording devices have 
become common within locomotives over the past two decades. FRA does 
not believe this final rule will introduce a major change to the 
working conditions of a large segment of passenger train crews, as 
suggested by BLET.

R. Download and Security Features of Locomotive Recording Systems

1. Federally Mandated or Industry-Adopted Standard
    FRA received several comments about the download and security 
feature requirements for locomotive image recording systems proposed in 
the NPRM (paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  229.136). Amtrak commented 
that this final rule should not regulate the download and security 
features of these systems, believing an industry-adopted standard is 
better suited to fit the technological capabilities of locomotive image 
recording systems. APTA agreed with Amtrak, and commented that 
passenger railroads should be allowed to develop their own best 
practices for conducting inspections and downloading data without 
prescriptive standards, stating that passenger railroads have been 
handling these downloads for quite some time.
    In contrast, BLET commented that there should be uniform standards 
and requirements in this final rule for all locomotive-mounted 
recording systems, electronic downloads, and security features, such as 
encryption functions, etc. BLET stated that if this type of data is not 
encrypted and a strict chain of custody is not maintained, any 
credibility or value of using the data for post-accident investigation 
could be called into question. According to BLET, wireless transmission 
of audio or image recording data should also be prohibited to prevent 
such private, personal data from being hacked.
    The standard FRA adopts in this final rule balances the concerns of 
the commenters. The standard adopted is broader than that proposed in 
the NPRM, which addressed electronic security measures only to prevent 
unauthorized downloads of recordings. As adopted in this final rule, 
Sec.  229.136(d) requires passenger railroads to develop a system that 
allows only authorized downloads and has electronic security measures 
to prevent unauthorized access to, and download, deletion, or 
alteration of, the recording system or its recordings. FRA therefore 
expects that passenger rail will safeguard the recordings using 
encryption technology or equivalent data protection measures. However, 
this paragraph does not prescribe how such a system must be 
specifically created or structured, and recognizes that recordings must 
be accessible for review during an accident or incident investigation, 
as provided in 49 U.S.C. 20168(b)(3), and may be put to other lawful 
purposes, see Sec.  229.136(f)(3). As a result, these requirements 
further

[[Page 70745]]

FRA's objective to protect the recording systems and their recordings, 
while providing railroads the flexibility on how to best achieve that 
protection, which will allow for differences in the specific systems 
used. For similar reasons, FRA disagrees that wireless download and 
transmission of audio or image recording data should be prohibited, 
because it would unduly restrict the technology that may be used. 
Whether data is downloaded and transmitted via wired or wireless 
technology, passenger railroads are responsible for ensuring the 
integrity of the process under Sec.  229.136(d), which includes 
preventing the unauthorized downloading, deletion, or alteration of the 
recording system or its recordings.
2. Standard or Crashworthy Memory Modules
    Hitachi commented that, as proposed, the requirements for download 
and security features of locomotive recording systems would seem to 
require both a standard and a crashworthy memory module. Hitachi stated 
that, if a crashworthy module meets all the requirements, then standard 
memory modules are unnecessary and could potentially create confusion.
    FRA has not adopted the reference to standard memory modules in 
this final rule, as its inclusion in the NPRM was in error. Locomotive 
recording device data, whether it be audio or image recording data, 
must be stored on a crashworthy memory module. Because locomotive image 
or audio recordings cannot be stored on standard memory modules, the 
download and security features required of locomotive recording systems 
in Sec.  229.136(d) refer only to certified crashworthy memory modules 
in this final rule.

S. Self-Monitoring and Self-Reporting Systems or Devices on Locomotive 
Image Recording Systems

1. Whether Cost of These Systems or Devices Was Adequately Considered
    Wi-Tronix commented that locomotive image recording systems should 
be required to be self-monitoring and self-reporting, stating that the 
technology exists for these systems to monitor their own operational 
health and report their status. FRA agrees that a self-monitoring 
system is necessary to alert train crews and railroad maintenance crews 
conducting inspections whether the recording system is even working. 
Without a self-monitoring system, a locomotive could operate for an 
extended period of time without a functioning locomotive camera system.
    APTA commented that the self-monitoring capabilities in the 
proposal did not appear to be a part of FRA's cost estimate for 
installation or ongoing operation and maintenance costs, and requested 
that FRA justify the requirement using a cost-benefit analysis. 
Although FRA did include the cost for self-monitoring capabilities in 
the NPRM's RIA, as FRA assumed that any locomotive image recording 
device would have a self-monitoring capability built into the initial 
design, FRA has updated the cost based on the comments that were 
received and provided a range of costs to better account for any 
variance that might occur in the cost of such devices.
2. Taking a Sample Download During a Periodic Inspection
    In addition, APTA questioned the requirement that railroads take a 
sample download during a periodic inspection to ensure that the image 
recording system is functioning properly. APTA stated that passenger 
railroads need to limit those with the ability to download and access 
audio/image recordings, asserting that many railroads do not allow 
their maintenance personnel to do this. According to APTA, there could 
be a need to verify proper functioning during the periodic inspection, 
but taking a download should not be required and there are other ways 
to ensure proper functionality.
    In the NPRM, FRA asked for comment on the types of restrictions 
that should be placed on sample recording device downloads from 
passenger train lead locomotives under proposed Sec.  229.136(e)(2), as 
FRA anticipated that sample downloads for inspection or maintenance 
purpose might often be taken by non-managerial or operating employees, 
such as mechanical department employees in a locomotive repair 
facility. BLET responded by stating it is reasonable to conclude that 
railroads will need to check images and recordings from time to time to 
ensure the proper functioning of the system. However, BLET added that 
the individual checking the system should not also be conducting 
operational testing, unless that individual is qualified to do so and 
is authorized to perform operational tests, and requested that FRA 
require all recordings used for inspection or testing purposes to be 
deleted once system functioning is confirmed.
    Based on the comments received, FRA is modifying the proposed 
requirement. Passenger railroads must still conduct a sample download 
from the image recording system's crashworthy memory module; however, 
FRA is changing the frequency of the download test from a periodic to 
an annual requirement. This change will reduce the need for railroad 
employees to download and observe image recordings. Of course, 
passenger railroads may ensure the proper functioning of a recording 
system at any time. The authority under Sec.  229.136(f)(3)(vii) to 
perform inspection, testing, maintenance, or repair activities to 
ensure the proper installation and functioning of an inward-facing 
image recorder is not limited to fulfilling the minimum requirements of 
Sec.  229.136(e)(2) to take a sample download from the image recording 
system's crashworthy memory module to confirm proper operation of the 
system.
    FRA makes clear that the final rule requires the sample download 
for the annual test be taken directly from the image recording system's 
crashworthy memory module, or its equivalent in the case of remote 
storage approved under Sec.  229.136(g). Taking the download from this 
memory module is necessary to ensure not only that the locomotive 
cameras are unobstructed and pointing in the correct position to 
capture crew activity, but to ensure that the camera system is properly 
recording to the memory module. For example, an inward-facing camera 
could be technically recording, but the camera could be out of focus. 
Further, this clarification is also intended to prevent any 
misunderstanding that passenger railroads could comply with this 
paragraph's testing requirements by simply streaming a recording from 
an image recording system without downloading the recording from the 
system's memory module. An actual download from the system's 
crashworthy memory module is required to ensure the integrity and 
proper functioning of the image recording system.
    Although this final rule creates a specific annual test for 
locomotive image recording systems, passenger railroads must inspect 
the locomotive's image recording devices as part of other locomotive 
inspections required under part 229 (e.g., daily, 33-day mechanical, 
92-day periodic, and 184-day periodic inspection). During these 
inspections, the passenger railroad must note and correct any non-
complying conditions related to locomotive recording devices that can 
be determined from these inspections, especially if it can be 
determined that the locomotive recording device is no longer 
functioning properly or there has been any tampering with the 
locomotive

[[Page 70746]]

recording system or any locomotive recording device.

T. Preservation and Handling Requirements for Locomotive Recording 
Devices and Recordings

1. Chain-of-Custody Requirements
    In commenting on the preservation and handling requirement for 
passenger locomotive recording devices as proposed in the NPRM, APTA 
asserted that FRA did not account for the cost of the proposed chain-
of-custody requirements as part of FRA's cost estimate for ongoing 
operation and maintenance costs added. APTA therefore requested that 
FRA justify these costs versus the established benefits. FRA 
acknowledges it inadvertently omitted these costs from the NPRM's RIA. 
FRA has revised the RIA accompanying this final rule accordingly to 
include these costs.
2. Prohibitions on the Public Release of Locomotive Recordings
    FRA also received comments on whether FRA should create a specific 
provision that prohibits the public release of an image or audio 
recording by any person or railroad. BLET commented that there should 
be a restriction on public release, stating that without legal 
limitations upon disclosure, a regulatory scheme for governing the use 
of in-cab cameras presents a significant problem of public and personal 
privacy. According to BLET, FRA has not yet stated an intention to curb 
usage by the railroad carrier or shield employees from improper 
disclosure of sensitive footage, asserting that information from 
locomotive recorders should be strictly controlled to prevent posting 
on social media websites under the guises of promoting education and 
safety. BLET also asserted that FRA should prohibit a railroad from 
disclosing locomotive recording data of its employees to another 
railroad that is not the employing railroad. BLET added that if audio 
is recorded, it should be recorded on its own separate channel so it 
can be isolated for sound quality.
    APTA commented that many agencies providing passenger rail service 
have significant protections in place to prevent the release of image 
or audio recordings, but stated that a specific provision, even limited 
in scope, prohibiting public release would supplement these agencies' 
existing policies and offer protections where other agencies have no 
such restrictions in place. The NTSB also commented that it supports 
FRA ensuring railroads have appropriate limitations established for the 
public release of in-cab audio and image recordings.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 20168, which governs the installation of audio and 
image recording devices in passenger train service, Congress has 
limited the uses to which passenger railroads (49 U.S.C. 20168(d)) and 
the Secretary of Transportation (49 U.S.C. 20168(h)) can put locomotive 
image or audio recording device data, including those uses the 
Secretary deems appropriate under 49 U.S.C. 20168(d)(4). This final 
rule delineates those allowable uses of both image and audio recording 
device data in Sec.  229.136(f)(3), and mere public disclosure is not 
an authorized use.\42\ Indeed, as noted by a commenter, posting on 
social media websites under the guise of promoting education and safety 
is not an authorized use, nor can an image or audio recording obtained 
by a passenger railroad be used to retaliate against an employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ While this rule delineates the allowable uses of image and 
audio recording device data, FRA notes that a private party may be 
required to disclose such data in a legal proceeding, such as a 
civil lawsuit, where the recording may contain probative 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as provided in Sec.  229.136(f)(2), image or audio 
recording system data from a locomotive in commuter or intercity 
passenger service that has been involved in an accident/incident that 
must be reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter, can only be 
extracted and analyzed by the railroad for the purposes described in 
Sec.  229.136(f)(3). The data cannot be used for any other purpose 
except by direction of FRA or another Federal agency. Likewise, FRA may 
not disclose publicly any part of an in-cab audio or image recording or 
transcript of oral communications by or among train employees or other 
operating employees responsible for the movement and direction of the 
train, or between such operating employees and company communication 
centers, related to an accident or incident investigated by FRA. 
However, FRA may make public any part of a transcript or any written 
depiction of visual information that FRA determines is relevant to the 
accident at the time a majority of the other factual reports on the 
accident or incident are released to the public.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(h). The NTSB restricts the public release 
of recordings it takes possession of during an investigation until 
its final report on the accident or incident has been published. 
However, once the final report has been released, the NTSB does not 
restrict the owner of any investigative information from publicly 
releasing that information, including in-cab locomotive recordings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Application to Audio Recording Devices and Their Recordings
    APTA separately commented that the requirements of Sec.  229.136(f) 
pertaining to handling of recordings should not apply to audio 
recording devices or their recordings, stating that audio requirements 
were not part of the NPRM, and therefore should not be a part of the 
final rule. FRA disagrees. Although FRA did not propose in the NPRM and 
does not require in this final rule the installation of devices to 
record audio either inside or outside the locomotive cab, passenger 
railroads that have installed these devices or install these devices in 
the future must preserve resulting recordings according to the 
preservation and handling requirements of Sec.  229.136(f)(2), if the 
locomotive is involved in a reportable accident or incident under 49 
CFR part 225. Such information will be relevant to an accident 
investigation conducted by FRA, the NTSB, or other investigator.
4. Preservation Requirements Between Different Public Agency Rail 
Owners and Operators
    APTA asked how the rule would address a situation where an accident 
occurs and one public agency owns the rolling stock, but another agency 
operates the rolling stock. APTA sought clarification as to which 
entity would be required to preserve the locomotive recording data.
    The rule provides that the operating railroad at the time of the 
accident is responsible for maintaining the data. However, like many 
issues where there is shared usage of equipment between entities 
involved in providing passenger rail service, as a practical matter, 
FRA expects the entities to work such issues out by agreement. Such 
coordination among the entities involved in providing passenger rail 
service is also consistent with that expected under the System Safety 
Program rulemaking, 49 CFR part 270. The entities may mutually agree on 
fulfilling responsibilities under this final rule on each other's 
behalf, as tailored to their individual circumstances.
5. Providing Image and Audio Data in a Usable Format
    APTA next asked how railroads could provide FRA or the NTSB image 
or audio data in a usable format when the software required for 
playback of such data downloaded from a locomotive is contractually 
controlled by a usage agreement involving the system's original 
equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the OEM requires each user of the 
software to sign the user

[[Page 70747]]

agreement. APTA asked how this situation would be handled and whether 
FRA or the NTSB would work directly with the OEM to acquire the 
software when the railroad has no legal ability to provide the 
software.
    This question is a good example of why FRA is requiring railroads 
to either provide the image and/or audio data in a readable format, or 
make available any platform, software, media device, etc., that is 
required to play back the image and/or audio data. FRA believes that 
whatever software the railroad uses could be put into a free format. 
The time to make a format change would be considered to be de minimis. 
FRA has found its accident investigations hindered when the recording 
devices used by passenger railroads were not in a usable format or the 
platform, software, or media device required the purchase of a system 
to play the image and/or audio data. It is not in the public's interest 
to inhibit FRA's use of locomotive image or audio recordings because 
they are in a format not readily accessible without the purchase of a 
unique program or other software or equipment from a private 
manufacturer. Therefore, it is FRA's intention through this final rule 
that the locomotive recording device record image or audio data be in a 
readily accessible format, or the railroad provide the program or other 
software or equipment so the locomotive recording can be accessed.
    As noted above, entities providing passenger rail service may 
contract with other parties to fulfill the requirements of this rule 
and may therefore enter into agreements with manufacturers to develop 
their locomotive recording systems. FRA will not provide specific 
guidance on how the procurement and bidding process for such technology 
should be managed other than to reiterate FRA's concern as to the 
accessibility of the locomotive recording device data. Unless the 
recordings are in a readily available format for investigators to use, 
the post-accident value of the recordings and the accident 
investigations themselves may be impaired.
6. Permissible Uses for Locomotive Recording Devices
i. FRA Should Only Set Minimum Safety Requirements
    APTA opposed FRA specifying in the NPRM permissible uses for 
locomotive recording device technology, asserting that the final rule 
should only set minimum safety requirements. APTA stated FRA should 
either not adopt such a proposal or instead take a broader approach 
that allows passenger railroads to develop their own uses for safety 
and security purposes. APTA cited to the experience railroads have 
using such data for several purposes, including investigating 
accidents. APTA added that allowing passenger railroads to use their 
locomotive image and audio recording devices to monitor locomotive cabs 
for unauthorized occupancy should be deleted as it could be interpreted 
as a requirement to use remote monitoring, which is not practical for 
the passenger railroad industry which operates thousands of trains a 
day.
    FRA is adopting the permissible uses for locomotive recording 
devices as proposed. The Statute enumerates certain purposes for which 
passenger railroads may use locomotive recording device data and 
authorizes FRA, as the Secretary's delegate, to provide for other 
appropriate purposes.\44\ Therefore, it would be contrary to the 
Statute to let passenger railroads set such purposes. Further, the 
provision allowing railroads to use recorder data to monitor 
unauthorized occupancy of the lead locomotive cab or cab car operating 
compartment comes directly from the Statute.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(d).
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule does not require passenger railroads to remotely 
monitor their locomotives for unauthorized occupancy, though it allows 
passenger railroads to use their recording device data to do so. For 
further discussion on remote monitoring, please see Section II.G.
ii. Application to Freight Locomotive Recording Devices
    In its comments, BLET stated that the permissible uses for 
locomotive recording device technology should apply to both passenger 
and freight railroads that voluntarily install locomotive recording 
devices. BLET further suggested that such a uniform set of standards 
and requirements provide for the encryption of image and voice 
recordings and access only by authorized personnel, to safeguard the 
identities of the recorded individuals. Moreover, in the event that 
surveillance data is used in disciplinary and/or certification 
revocation proceedings, BLET asserted that the identities of those who 
decrypt the data should be made known to the labor organizations 
representing the charged employees, and that such persons be made to 
testify as a witness at any discipline or revocation hearing, if 
requested by the labor organizations.
    In addition, BLET commented that, in the NPRM, FRA repeated a 
misperception of what cameras can do to promote safety by asking 
whether there are other safety-appropriate uses for locomotive 
recordings. According to BLET, cameras provide no protection against 
accidents that would happen within an operational envelope, and do not 
prevent electronic device usage. BLET questioned what safety goal is 
achieved when a personal electronic device is found through locomotive 
recording data, when the recording itself could not prevent it. BLET 
also questioned the extent to which locomotive recording data in post-
accident analysis can actually help in day-to-day operations. Overall, 
BLET believed locomotive recorders will serve only to document a 
problem someone already knew existed and negligence over time, but that 
safety will not improve as a result if the underlying issue is not 
addressed.
    As previously noted, FRA lacks the justification to apply the 
requirements for permissible uses of locomotive recording device 
technology in this final rule to freight railroads, in accordance with 
FRA's implementation of the Statute. However, it is FRA's expectation 
that all railroads that voluntarily install recording devices on their 
locomotive will adhere to practices that are consistent with those in 
this final rule. In addition, BLET's suggestion to encrypt all 
locomotive recording data would unnecessarily increase the cost of this 
rulemaking, although FRA expects that encryption technology or 
equivalent data protection measures will be used, given the 
requirements in this final rule that such data may only be accessed by 
authorized personnel and its integrity be safeguarded against 
unauthorized download, deletion, or alteration. Finally, although FRA 
agrees that most of the benefits of this rulemaking will come from 
enhancing post-accident analysis through the information contained in 
locomotive recordings, FRA strongly disagrees that locomotive recording 
devices will provide no deterrence against personal electronic device 
use or other safety violations occurring during railroad operations. 
FRA also notes that, as identified by Congress, the recordings may 
serve to document a criminal act or monitor unauthorized occupancy of a 
locomotive.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 49 U.S.C. 20168(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U. Factual Determinations When There Are Discrepancies Between 
Locomotive Image and Event Recorder Data

    APTA commented that the NPRM did not address a situation where data 
from

[[Page 70748]]

a locomotive image recorder and an event recorder do not match and 
asked FRA which of the two devices will be determinative for factual 
considerations. FRA expects that any such discrepancies will be 
addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of the investigation 
following an accident or incident, taking into account the totality of 
the circumstances. This final rule does not make the data from one 
device primary over the other.

V. Personal Electronic Device Use and Locomotive Recording Devices

    FRA discussed extensively in the NPRM how concerns about preventing 
accidents caused by distraction involving the use of personal 
electronic devices was one of the bases for this rulemaking, as well as 
the focus of NTSB recommendations and RSAC Working Group discussion. As 
a result, FRA received several comments about locomotive recording 
devices and how they would deter crewmembers from using personal 
electronic devices while performing safety sensitive service.
    BLET commented that locomotive cameras will not deter negative 
behavior involving crewmembers or personal cell phone usage. BLET 
asserted that evidence shows individuals continued to use their 
personal phones when locomotive cameras were present, and that 
locomotive cameras will just show the behavior, which is already known 
to exist.
    BLET also commented that FRA did not include a discussion in the 
NPRM on technology that can disrupt cell phone connectivity. BLET 
stated it partnered with Amtrak on a project that demonstrated the 
utility of technology that would both intercept cell phone connectivity 
outside of the locomotive and alert designated supervisors in real time 
of any attempt to use a cell phone. BLET found this to be a significant 
safety enhancement at relatively low cost, one that operates far less 
intrusively than inward-facing locomotive cameras, and noted that this 
technology was not mentioned in the NPRM as a potential ``alternative 
technology.''
    Wi-Tronix commented that major passenger train incidents over the 
past decade proved that distracted driver operation is a critical 
problem and that technology also exists to monitor such activity in 
locomotive cabs. Wi-Tronix stated that the integration of image and 
audio recording data and the detection of such data in cellular logs, 
when integrated and synchronized with event recorder data, make an 
extremely powerful tool for accident/incident investigation and to 
influence behavior.
    While BLET is correct that the presence of inward-facing locomotive 
recording devices will not entirely prevent the usage of personal 
electronic devices when performing safety-sensitive service, the 
presence of these devices will nonetheless provide a deterrent effect. 
FRA found a study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute that 
examined the change in commercial truck driver behavior when an image 
recording device was within the cab of the vehicle.\47\ The study found 
that the two carriers which participated experienced a 27 percent and 
52 percent reduction in human factor events per miles traveled, 
respectively.\48\ While these results cannot be applied directly to the 
railroad industry, the study provides additional evidence that 
locomotive image recording devices can alter operator behavior, and 
thus reduce human factor accidents. However, as noted within the 
Virginia Tech study, any altering of operational behavior is most 
likely to be more prominent at the beginning of the observation period, 
and behavior could revert as time passes. Further, the presence of 
locomotive recording devices will help FRA and railroads identify 
individuals who violate Federal regulations against personal electronic 
device usage in part 220, subpart C, and various other railroad 
operating rules prohibiting cell phone usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Hickman, Jeffrey S., Richard J. Hanowski, and Olu Ajayi. 
Evaluation of An Onboard Safety Monitoring Device In Commercial 
Vehicle Operations. Report. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (2009).
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, aside from the deterrent effect locomotive recording 
devices have in preventing personal electronic device usage, the 
recording devices provide other important safety functions unrelated to 
personal electronic device usage. For example, one of the primary 
functions of locomotive recording devices is to provide information as 
to the causes(s) of a railroad accident or incident. Therefore, 
although FRA encourages the use and development of technology to 
promote safety, the technology described by the commenters to detect or 
prevent personal electronic device usage cannot be considered an 
``alternative technology'' for purposes of the statutory requirement to 
install inward- and outward-facing locomotive image recorders.

W. Positive Train Control

    Railroad carriers providing ``intercity rail passenger 
transportation'' and ``commuter rail passenger transportation'' subject 
to this final rule are covered by 49 U.S.C. 24102 (passenger railroads 
required to install PTC systems under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)). Although FRA 
did not specifically request comments on PTC, FRA received several 
comments relating to PTC technology, the nature of the overlap between 
passenger railroads required to install PTC and locomotive image 
recording devices, and the interaction between locomotive recording 
devices and PTC systems. Specifically, commenters asserted that 
passenger railroads should not be required to divert resources from 
installing, maintaining, and operating PTC systems to address the 
recording device requirements in this rulemaking.
    APTA cited the accidents and associated NTSB recommendations 
discussed in the NPRM and stated that almost every one of the accidents 
would have been prevented by a functioning PTC system. In addition, 
APTA stated that most were accidents involving freight trains, not 
passenger trains.
    Hitachi agreed with APTA that all the accidents discussed in the 
NPRM were arguably PTC-preventable accidents. Hitachi believed that, 
although image recording devices could prove useful as accident 
investigation tools in the future, accident prevention should currently 
be the primary focus and, as a result, railroads should not divert 
valuable resources from operating and maintaining PTC equipment ``to 
meet well-intentioned, but misguided FRA mandates.''
    BLET also took issue with the accidents FRA discussed in the NPRM. 
BLET pointed out that two of the accidents, the 2008 accident in 
Chatsworth, California, and the 1999 accident in Bryan, Ohio, led to 
the NTSB recommending both the installation of PTC and the installation 
of locomotive image recording devices. According to BLET, the NTSB 
stated that PTC could have prevented these accidents from occurring. 
Therefore, BLET questioned why locomotive image recording systems would 
be appropriate where PTC is installed and operating, except perhaps to 
use outward-facing cameras to document signal visibility due to dense 
fog, which was at issue in the Bryan, Ohio, accident.
    Additionally, FRA received a comment from a private citizen who 
stated that outward-facing locomotive recording devices offer no 
preventative qualities. The commenter believed that resources dedicated 
to outward-facing recording systems detract from finite resources 
available for safety, installing a form of PTC technology would be a

[[Page 70749]]

much better use of those resources, and that this final rule should not 
be adopted until PTC technology is installed on all rail miles.
    FRA understands the concerns raised by commenters and does not 
dispute the commenters' assertion that many, if not all, of the 
accidents cited in the NPRM could have been prevented by the 
implementation of PTC systems, nor does FRA dispute the safety benefits 
of PTC systems. However, PTC is not an adequate ``alternative 
technology'' under the Statute, as PTC and locomotive recording devices 
serve different safety functions. PTC is designed to prevent certain 
accidents, and, although locomotive recording devices do have the 
potential to help prevent accidents, one of the main purposes of 
locomotive recording devices is to record information to provide to 
investigators after an accident or incident has occurred.\49\ The 
information recorded by the recording devices cannot normally be 
provided by the PTC system, or other similar technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 49 U.S.C. 20168(d)(2) (Railroad carriers subject to the 
Statute may use recordings from inward- or outward-facing image 
recording devices for ``[a]ssisting in an investigation into the 
causation of a reportable accident or incident'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All PTC systems must be designed to prevent train-to train 
collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work 
zones, and movement of trains through switches left in the wrong 
position, in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 236, 
subpart I. As touched on above, one of the primary uses of locomotive 
recording devices is for investigating railroad accidents or incidents 
caused by human factors where standard event recorders can provide 
little or incomplete information about what occurred in the locomotive 
cab prior to the accident or incident.\50\ PTC may be able to provide 
some information, but not a full accounting of the train crew's actions 
immediately before an accident. Therefore, PTC is not an adequate 
technology to replace the locomotive recording device requirements in 
the Statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See also 49 U.S.C. 20168(d)(1) (Railroad carriers subject 
to the Statute may use recordings from inward- or outward-facing 
image recording devices for ``[v]erifying that train crew actions 
are in accordance with applicable safety laws and the railroad 
carrier's operating rules and procedures, including a system-wide 
program for such verification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, the Statute requires the promulgation of 
regulations requiring passenger railroads to install recording devices 
in all controlling (or ``lead'') locomotives. When the locomotive 
recording devices statutory mandate was enacted, the statutory mandate 
to implement PTC on passenger railroads had long been in place.\51\ In 
fact, between Congress' initial PTC mandate in 2008 and the Statute in 
2015, Congress continued to be actively engaged in PTC policymaking 
through legislation and other activities. Congress held multiple 
oversight hearings about the technology and passed another piece of PTC 
legislation approximately five weeks prior to the passage of the 
Statute. It is clear that Congress passed the locomotive recording 
devices mandate for passenger trains with the awareness that the same 
passenger railroads would also be required to install PTC systems. As a 
result, FRA does not believe Congress intended PTC systems to be 
considered an ``alternative technology'' under the Statute that would 
excuse passenger railroads from implementing locomotive recording 
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Locomotive Image Recorder Analytics

    Wi-Tronix commented that data created by locomotive image recorders 
will need to be accessed for artificial intelligence and image 
analytics purposes, stating that artificial intelligence and image 
analytics are key elements to improving industry safety, as seen in the 
automotive industry. As a result, Wi-Tronix asserted there needs to be 
a mechanism to allow for sharing anonymous data for use in improving 
safety and operations.
    FRA declines to develop a mechanism in this rule for sharing 
anonymous data from locomotive image recording devices. The Statute did 
not mandate the establishment of such a mechanism, and FRA expects that 
passenger railroads would be reluctant to share the data due to the 
need to address proprietary, liability, privacy and other potential 
issues and concerns. Although FRA strongly supports the use of data to 
promote safety purposes, this final rule is not the appropriate forum 
for imposing such a requirement, consideration of which would require 
the involvement of all stakeholders. See also the discussion under 
Section II.L.5 above, noting that this final rule will not affect the 
adoption of C3RS programs, which allow railroad employees to raise 
safety incidents confidentially and generate reports based on such 
incidents without identifying data.

Y. Procurement of Locomotive Recording Devices

    Hitachi commented that FRA should investigate and suggest updates 
for procurements, to favor transit agencies, considering the best 
technology or exploring the most advanced technological applications. 
FRA declines to adopt this suggestion, as it is beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking. FRA's purpose in this final rule is to implement the 
statutory mandate to establish minimum standards for inward- and 
outward-facing locomotive image recording systems for passenger 
railroads. Railroads may, of course, exceed these minimum standards and 
work together in procuring and applying the technology, including the 
development of industry specifications and best practices consistent 
with this rule.

Z. Application of the Rule to GP-Style Long-Hood Locomotives

    APTA provided a comment specific to commuter railroads that utilize 
some general purpose (GP)-style locomotives with one cab only on the 
short-hood end, and a narrow car body on the long-hood end. These 
locomotives can operate in the lead with the long- or short-hood 
forward while in revenue service. APTA sought clarification whether the 
long-hood of these locomotives must comply with the final rule, even if 
operated only occasionally long-hood forward, and believed that such 
use should be excluded by the final rule.
    FRA disagrees with APTA's comment that these locomotives should be 
excluded from the final rule's requirements. If a railroad operates 
such locomotives long-hood forward in regularly scheduled passenger 
service, however occasionally the locomotive configuration may be used, 
the long-hood must be equipped with an outward-facing image recording 
device in the direction that the locomotive is traveling. FRA disagrees 
with APTA, in part, because an exclusion could incentivize use of 
locomotives in this configuration. FRA addresses the costs associated 
with long-hood forward use of locomotives in this final rule's RIA by 
increasing the number of impacted locomotives affected by the final 
rule.

AA. Inclusion of Passenger Railroad Cab Cars in the Rule's Requirements

    Wi-Tronix, believing that passenger railroad cab cars may not be 
locomotives, commented that it would be critical that cab cars be 
covered by this final rule's requirements applicable to locomotives. 
FRA makes clear that cab cars are indeed locomotives subject to this 
final rule. Cab cars are formally recognized by the existing definition 
of ``control cab locomotive'' in Sec.  229.5 to mean a ``locomotive.''

[[Page 70750]]

III. Civil Penalties

    FRA did not request or receive any comments regarding the potential 
civil penalties FRA could issue for violations of new or amended 
requirements in this final rule. FRA will modify the schedule of civil 
penalties on its website \52\ to reflect the requirements of the final 
rule. Because such penalty schedules are statements of agency policy, 
notice and comment are not required before their issuance, and FRA did 
not propose a penalty schedule in the NPRM.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ www.railroads.dot.gov.
    \53\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA is authorized to assess a civil penalty of at least $976 and 
not more than $31,928 per any violation of the requirements established 
in this final rule.\54\ However, penalties up to $127,712 may be 
assessed for a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated 
violations that created an imminent hazard of death or injury to 
individuals, or has caused death or injury.\55\ In accordance with the 
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by 
the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act 
of 2015, these minimum and maximum penalty amounts will be adjusted for 
inflation in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 87 FR 15839 (Mar. 21, 2022).
    \55\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Amendments to Part 299 Pertaining to Texas Central 
Railroad Trainset Image Recording Systems

    Texas Central Railroad (TCRR) intends to implement a high-speed 
passenger rail system by using the Tokaido Shinkansen system's service-
proven technology and by replicating Central Japan Railway Company's 
(JRC) operational and maintenance practices and procedures. The 
contemplated system will run between Dallas and Houston, Texas, with an 
intermediate stop in Grimes County, Texas, approximately 240 miles, at 
a speed not to exceed 205 mph. TCRR plans to implement the latest, 
service-proven derivative of the N700 trainset and other core systems 
currently in use on the Tokaido Shinkansen line, which have been 
refined for high-speed operations over the last 50-plus years.
    On November 3, 2020, FRA published a final rule establishing 
regulatory requirements applicable only to TCRR--a rule of particular 
applicability (RPA).\56\ Such a regulation, in addition to providing 
for regulatory approval, institutes a comprehensive regulatory 
framework that provides TCRR clarity on the minimum Federal safety 
standards that it must comply with through technology-specific, 
performance-based requirements. Through the RPA, FRA is able to protect 
the integrity of the Tokaido Shinkansen system as implemented in Texas, 
by establishing regulatory requirements codifying the service-proven 
technological, operational, and maintenance aspects of the Tokaido 
Shinkansen high-speed rail system operated by JRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 85 FR 69700 (Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 10, 2020, FRA published an NPRM proposing a set of safety 
requirements for TCRR (the TCRR NPRM). FRA proposed to make FRA's 
regulation implementing section 11411 of the FAST Act applicable to 
TCRR's high-speed trainsets used in revenue service.\57\ However, the 
TCRR final rule was published before this final rule implementing 
section 11411 of the FAST Act. Accordingly, FRA noted in the TCRR final 
rule that it would make revisions to the TCRR final rule as part of 
this final rule.\58\ The amendments to Sec.  299.5 adopted in this 
final rule and new Sec.  299.449 reflect these revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 85 FR 14036, 14041 (Mar. 10, 2020); see also 84 FR 
35712 (Jul. 24, 2019).
    \58\ See Section V.C, Trainset Image Recording System, of the 
TCRR final rule, 85 FR 69700, 69714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 77-day comment period on the TCRR NPRM, FRA received 
comments from TCRR on the topic of locomotive image recorders. TCRR 
requested that FRA exercise its statutorily granted discretion under 49 
U.S.C. 20168(e)(2) and exempt TCRR from the requirement to install 
inward- and outward-facing image recording devices, asserting that TCRR 
will implement an alternative technology or practice that provides an 
equivalent or greater level of safety or is better suited to the risks 
of the operation. In support of its request, TCRR stated that such 
alternative technologies or practices to be employed include: a 
signaling system that will comply with the requirements for PTC under 
49 U.S.C. 20157 and be installed throughout the TCRR system (including 
trainset maintenance facilities) and used at all speeds; a dedicated, 
fully fenced (except for elevated structures), grade-separated right-
of-way; an intrusion detection system; a right-of-way barrier plan to 
protect against unauthorized incursions into the right-of-way and from 
adjacent highway and freight rail operations; and wind, rain, and flood 
hazard detectors located at specific sites along the right-of-way.
    FRA recognizes and appreciates the mitigations that TCRR will have 
in place under part 299 and that those mitigations are modeled on the 
very successful Tokaido Shinkansen system. However, even with all the 
mitigations TCRR is putting in place to avoid any form of accident/
incident, it is in the interest of railroad safety to require TCRR to 
install image recording systems in its high-speed trainsets. Notably, 
should an event occur despite the mitigations put in place by the 
railroad, it will be even more crucial to have imagery from the 
recording system to determine how the event occurred and/or what was 
occurring in the controlling cab of the trainset in the time before and 
during the event. See also the discussion under Section II.W of this 
final rule, noting that FRA cannot consider PTC an adequate 
``alternative technology'' to installation of inward- and outward-
facing image recording devices for purposes of the statutory exemption. 
Accordingly, TCRR is not exempt from the requirement to install inward- 
and outward-facing image recording devices.
    Contrary to the discussion in the TCRR NPRM, in which FRA stated it 
would make appropriate conforming changes to the requirements outlined 
in the NPRM, essentially making the requirements of Sec.  229.136 
applicable to TCRR, FRA is adding Sec.  299.449 to part 299 to contain 
the specific requirements for the image recording system applicable 
only to TCRR.\59\ Placing the requirements that are specific to TCRR in 
part 299 allows FRA to properly tailor the requirements to the TCRR 
system and operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The TCRR final rule explained that, because the image 
recording device rulemaking was not finalized at the time the TCRR 
rule was finalized, FRA would ``make any necessary changes to [the 
TCRR] regulation as a part of'' the image recording device final 
rule. 85 FR 69700, 69715 (Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 299.449, as adopted in this final rule, reflects FRA's 
efforts to tailor the locomotive image recorder requirement to TCRR's 
equipment and operation and to address TCRR's comments. Section V, 
Section-by-Section Analysis, below, contains a discussion of the 
changes made and codified under Sec. Sec.  299.5 and 299.449, and under 
appendix A to part 299, Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event 
Recorder Memory Module. FRA has made both editorial and substantive 
changes in applying the rule text in Sec.  229.136 and appendix D to 
part 229 to TCRR's rule of particular applicability, part 299. The 
changes ease understanding of the various requirements, as applied to 
TCRR, including clarifying whether a requirement pertains to a 
component of the image recording system (such as an

[[Page 70751]]

image recording device) or whether a requirement pertains to the image 
recording system as a whole. The substantive changes were made to 
tailor the rule text appropriately for TCRR's system.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This section responds to public comments and identifies any changes 
made from the provisions as proposed in the NPRM. Provisions that 
received no comment, and are otherwise being finalized as proposed, are 
not discussed again here.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 84 FR 35,712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 217

Section 217.9 Program of Operational Tests and Inspections; 
Recordkeeping
    In this final rule, FRA is clarifying its intent to exclude freight 
railroads from these requirements by using the term ``passenger 
railroad,'' instead of ``railroad,'' throughout paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(4).
    FRA is also adding audio recordings to paragraph (b)(3)(iii). 
Although proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) did not expressly mention audio 
recordings as subject to the 72-hour limitation on operational tests or 
inspections after completion of the employee's tour of duty, the 
omission of audio recordings was inadvertent and not consistent with 
proposed paragraph (b)(3) as a whole. For instance, proposed paragraph 
(b)(3)'s introductory text made clear that operational tests and 
inspections involving inward-facing image or in-cab audio recordings 
must comply with the conditions in paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (ii), and 
(iii). Further, it would not make sense for FRA to require passenger 
railroads to select testing subjects at random for operational testing 
involving inward-facing locomotive image recordings, but allow the 
potential for specific employees to be targeted for operational testing 
with audio recording devices. Therefore, FRA is correcting the 
inadvertent omission in this final rule. Accordingly, while the final 
rule does not require passenger railroads to install audio recording 
devices of any kind, if passenger railroads choose to install such 
devices and then use them for operational testing, the same protections 
for operational testing and use of image recorders also apply for 
operational testing and use of audio recorders.

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 218

Section 218.53 Scope and Definitions
    FRA is revising paragraph (d) of this section to make clear that 
the provisions in Sec. Sec.  218.59 and 218.61 do not apply to 
locomotive-mounted image or audio recording equipment on freight 
locomotives. FRA's use of ``or,'' instead of ``and'' as proposed in the 
NPRM, is to avoid the potential ambiguity that both image and audio 
recording equipment on a freight locomotive must be present for the 
exclusion to apply. It is FRA's intention that Sec. Sec.  218.59 and 
218.61 will not apply to either type of recording device on a freight 
locomotive, whether alone or in combination.
Section 218.61 Authority To Deactivate Safety Devices
    FRA is also revising subsection (c) of this section to read that 
the requirements of this section do not apply to inward- or outward-
facing image recording devices that are installed on freight 
locomotives, instead of inward- and outward-facing image recording 
devices on freight locomotives. Like its revision in Sec.  218.53, FRA 
is substituting the word ``and'' with ``or'' to avoid the potential 
ambiguity that both an inward- and outward-facing image recording 
device must be present on a freight locomotive to avoid the application 
of this section, when the presence of either an inward- or outward-
facing image recording device is sufficient to avoid the section's 
requirements.

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

Section 229.5 Definitions
    Although proposed in the NPRM, FRA is not amending this section to 
add a definition for ``NTSB'' as the acronym for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, an independent U.S. government 
investigative agency responsible for civil transportation accident 
investigation. The term is not used in any of the amended or new 
language being added to part 229 by this final rule.
Section 229.21 Inspections and Tests
    FRA is making conforming changes to Sec.  229.21 to reflect the 
allowance for movement beyond a calendar day inspection point of a lead 
locomotive in long-distance intercity passenger train service with a 
locomotive image recorder system or device defect. See the discussion 
in the Section-by-Section analysis of Sec.  229.136, below, as well as 
Section II.I (Repairing, Replacing, or Removing Locomotive Image 
Recording Devices From Service) within the Discussion of Specific 
Comments and Conclusions, above. Although not expressly proposed in the 
NPRM, these changes are limited only to such long-distance intercity 
passenger trains led by locomotives subject to this final rule's 
locomotive image recorder requirements--and only to the handling of 
such locomotive image recording systems or devices. FRA intends no 
other changes to this section's application or effect.
Section 229.22 Passenger Locomotive Inspection and Repair Record
    FRA has added this section in preparing the final rule to establish 
use of new Form FRA F 6180-49AP (Passenger Locomotive Inspection and 
Repair Record) to collect Federally required locomotive inspection, 
testing, and repair information for lead locomotives in commuter or 
intercity passenger train service, including information for locomotive 
recording devices. This new form is based on existing Form FRA F 6180-
49A (Locomotive Inspection and Repair Record), which has been used for 
many years as the centralized record of Federally required inspection, 
testing, and repair information for all locomotives, as defined broadly 
in Sec.  229.5. Form FRA F 6180-49AP, as the new counterpart to Form 
FRA F 6180-49A, will include a designated row for entering information 
about annual testing of locomotive image recording devices required 
under Sec.  229.136, consistent with the designated row on Form FRA F 
6180-49A (as well as new Form FRA F 6180-49AP) for entering information 
about required locomotive event recorder testing. Form FRA F 6180-49AP 
will also continue to be organized to fit on one double-sided page, for 
ease of use and printing and copying.
    Establishing use of the new F 6180-49AP form for lead locomotives 
in commuter or intercity passenger train service will help avoid any 
potential confusion for freight railroad operators as to the 
application of locomotive recording device requirements under this 
rule, and also conserve valuable space on the existing F 6180-49A form. 
Freight railroads operate the vast majority of locomotives, and the 
locomotive recording device requirements in this rule do not apply to 
locomotives in freight service, or to locomotives used in switching 
service. Nor will the rule affect use of the F 6180-49A form by non-
lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger train service.
    To phase-in use of new Form FRA F 6180-49AP for lead locomotives in 
commuter or intercity passenger train service, Sec.  229.22 expressly 
permits continued use and maintenance of Form FRA F 6180-49A until 
October 12,

[[Page 70752]]

2027, when all such locomotives will be required to be equipped with 
image recording devices compliant with Sec.  229.136. In providing 
broad flexibility, Sec.  229.22 also makes clear that railroads may 
adopt use of Form FRA F 6180-49AP earlier than required.
Section 229.136 Locomotive Image and Audio Recording Devices
    FRA is making changes in this section's regulatory text from the 
NPRM. In various paragraphs, the changes remove redundant words or 
phrases from the proposed language to streamline the final rule. Where 
these and other purely stylistic textual changes do not modify the 
meaning or requirements of the paragraphs or this section, they will 
not be addressed in the analysis below.
    FRA is modifying the headings for paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) 
by inserting the word ``lead'' into each paragraph heading, to clarify 
that only passenger locomotives in the lead position must comply with 
these paragraphs' requirements. FRA is also adding clarifying text to 
avoid any confusion as to the applicability of this section's 
requirements to recording devices or systems voluntarily installed in 
locomotives. FRA has therefore inserted ``as required under paragraph 
(a)(1) or (2) of this section'' to make clear that the corresponding 
text applies only to locomotives required to be equipped with recording 
devices or systems under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    In paragraph (a)(3), FRA has changed the name of the form 
referenced in this paragraph from ``Form FRA F 6180-49A'' to ``Form FRA 
F 6180-49AP,'' as FRA has created this new form specifically for 
passenger locomotives subject to the requirements in this final rule. 
Passenger railroads must still note the presence of any image or audio 
recording system in the REMARKS section; however, passenger railroads 
must use new Form FRA F 6180-49AP for their lead locomotives used in 
commuter or intercity passenger train service.
    In paragraph (a)(5), FRA is adding language making clear that 
locomotive recording device data can be stored on a certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module or an alternative, remote 
storage system that provides equivalent data protections if approved by 
FRA. See Section II.E.2 (Potential Exemptions From the Crashworthy 
Memory Module Requirements) for a detailed discussion of FRA's 
considerations in approving a remote storage system as part of the 
locomotive recording system approval process. FRA has added paragraphs 
(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to clarify when required image recording and 
voluntarily installed audio recording devices on lead locomotives must 
comply with the paragraph's requirements. Paragraph (a)(5)(i) 
references paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) for when image recording devices 
on lead locomotives must comply with this paragraph's requirements, 
while paragraph (a)(5)(ii) specifies when voluntarily installed audio 
recording devices on lead locomotives must comply with the same 
requirements. FRA added these paragraphs because the NPRM was unclear 
when voluntarily installed audio recording devices on lead locomotives 
in commuter or intercity passenger service would be required to record 
their data to a certified crashworthy event recorder memory module or 
FRA-approved remote storage system.
    FRA is not adopting the language proposed in paragraph (c)(1)(i) 
specifying that the locomotive inward-facing camera system have 
sufficient resolution to record whether a crewmember is physically 
incapacitated and whether a crewmember is complying with the indicators 
of a signal system or other operational control system. Instead, FRA is 
simply retaining the requirement that the inward-facing camera system 
have sufficient resolution to record crewmember actions, without the 
more prescriptive language. FRA reiterates that this paragraph does not 
require the real-time monitoring of passenger train crews. Please see 
the above discussion in Section II.G (Inward-Facing Locomotive Image 
Recording Systems and Devices).
    FRA is also renumbering paragraph (c) for clarity. The proposed 
regulatory language in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is now contained in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) in this final rule. Similarly, the 
regulatory language in proposed paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) is now 
found in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv), (2), and (3), respectively. In 
addition, FRA is adding the phrase ``on image recordings'' in paragraph 
(c)(1)(iv) for clarity.
    FRA is modifying and broadening paragraph (d) from the proposal in 
the NPRM to make clear that, in addition to unauthorized downloads, 
passenger railroads must also take necessary protective measures 
against unauthorized access to the recording system and its recordings 
that could lead to the deletion or alteration of data. Likewise, 
paragraph (d)'s heading now refers to ``protection requirements,'' 
rather than ``download protection requirements,'' to make clear this 
paragraph's requirements address measures to protect the integrity of 
the recording system more than just protecting against unauthorized 
downloads. In addition, as stated above in Section II.R (Download and 
Security Features of Locomotive Recording Systems), the reference to 
standard memory modules in this paragraph was proposed in error and has 
not been retained.
    FRA is also adding paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) to clarify when 
required image recording and voluntarily installed audio recording 
devices on lead locomotives must comply with paragraph (d)'s 
requirements. Paragraph (d)(1) includes requirements for image 
recording devices on lead locomotives, while paragraph (d)(2) addresses 
requirements for voluntarily installed audio recording devices on the 
same locomotives. The language FRA is adopting in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(2) is nearly identical to that which FRA is adopting in paragraphs 
(a)(5)(i) and (ii). Similar to those new paragraphs, which are 
discussed above, FRA is adding these paragraphs to paragraph (d) 
because the NPRM was unclear when voluntarily installed audio recording 
devices on lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service 
would have to meet the paragraph's requirements.
    In paragraph (e), FRA is modifying paragraph (e)(1) so that it 
directly references the requirements in paragraph (i) for the removal 
from service and handling for repair of inward- and outward-facing 
image recording systems. FRA had initially proposed referencing the 
daily inspection requirements in Sec.  229.21 (Daily inspection). 
However, as discussed in Section II.I (Repairing, Replacing, or 
Removing Locomotive Image Recording Devices From Service), FRA has 
modified the requirements for the removal from service and handling for 
repair of inward- and outward-facing image recording systems on long-
distance intercity passenger trains, as specified in paragraph (i) of 
this section.
    FRA is also modifying paragraph (e)(2)'s requirements based on 
comments it received, which are discussed above in Section II.S (Self-
Monitoring and Self-Reporting Systems or Devices on Locomotive Image 
Recording Systems). Specifically, paragraph (e)(2) makes clear that the 
required sample download(s) must be taken directly from the image 
recording system's crashworthy memory module, or FRA-approved remote 
storage system, to confirm proper operation of the system. Paragraph 
(e)(2) also now provides for taking the required sample

[[Page 70753]]

download(s) during a locomotive's annual test required under Sec.  
229.27, Annual tests.
    Information concerning the results of this annual test must be 
entered on new Form FRA F 6180-49AP in a row specifically dedicated for 
this purpose. The added row on the new form parallels, and is directly 
below, the row for entering information concerning the results of event 
recorder tests required by Sec. Sec.  229.25(d) and 229.27(c), and 
provides for entering the same information as for other required tests.
    In paragraph (f), the exception to a railroad's use of image or 
audio recording device data in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) applies by 
direction of FRA or ``another Federal agency,'' including but not 
limited to the NTSB. This change is consistent with the use of similar 
forms of ``another Federal agency'' throughout paragraph (f)(2) and 
clarifies that another Federal agency is not limited to the NTSB. FRA 
is also modifying the language in paragraph (f)(3)(vii) to make clear 
that a railroad may perform inspection, testing, maintenance, or repair 
activities on an ``image or audio recorder,'' and not only an ``inward-
facing image recorder'' as stated in the NPRM, to ensure proper 
installation and functioning. Passenger railroads may of course perform 
such activities on inward- or outward locomotive image or audio 
recording devices at any time.
    In paragraph (g), FRA is requiring a ``description'' of the 
technical aspects of any locomotive image recording system intended to 
comply with this section, rather than a ``written description'' as 
proposed in the NPRM. In addition, paragraph (g) specifies an email 
address rather than a mailing address for submitting the description to 
FRA. FRA has made these changes to encourage and promote the electronic 
submission of the information to FRA. This final rule also clarifies 
that railroads should submit to FRA a description of the technical 
aspects of any locomotive image recording system ``intended'' to comply 
with the section, rather than after a recording system has been 
``installed,'' as stated in the NPRM. FRA revised this language as it 
is rational that railroads would seek FRA's approval of their 
locomotive image recording systems before spending money to install a 
potentially non-approved system on their locomotives.
    Further, FRA is correcting paragraph (g)(2)'s submission date 
requirements, to address an inadvertent error in the proposed rule, and 
also modifying paragraph (g)(3) to make clear that FRA must review a 
railroad's submission and approve any locomotive image recording system 
before the system can be installed or put into service in compliance 
with this section. Please see Section II.J (FRA Approval Process for 
Locomotive Image Recording Systems and Devices) above, for more 
detailed discussion of these revisions.
    In paragraph (i), FRA is inserting the word ``alone'' into the 
regulatory text to clarify that a locomotive with only an out-of-
service image recording device is not considered to be in an improper 
condition, unsafe to operate, or a non-complying locomotive under 
Sec. Sec.  229.7 and 229.9. However, as unchanged from the NPRM, 
paragraph (i) also makes clear that a railroad must remove the device 
from service if the railroad knows the device is not properly 
recording. Further, when a railroad removes a locomotive image 
recording device from service, a qualified person must record the date 
the device was removed from service under the REMARKS section of Form 
FRA F 6180-49AP--not Form FRA F 6180-49A. For a more extensive 
discussion of this requirement, please see Sections II.H (Notice 
Provided When Locomotive Recording Devices Are Present) and II.I.3 
(Documenting When a Locomotive Image Recording Device Has Been Removed 
From Service), above.
    In addition, except for long-distance intercity passenger trains, a 
locomotive with a defective image recording device may remain as the 
lead locomotive only until the next calendar-day inspection required 
under Sec.  229.21. This includes a lead locomotive in a commuter train 
with an image recording device found defective at an outlying 
inspection point, which may remain as the train's lead locomotive only 
until the next calendar-day inspection required under Sec.  229.21. As 
discussed above in Section II.I (Repairing, Replacing, or Removing 
Locomotive Image Recording Devices From Service), FRA has expanded the 
movement-for-repair allowance for a long-distance intercity passenger 
train's lead locomotive with a defective image recording device so that 
it may remain as the lead locomotive until arrival at its destination 
terminal or its nearest forward point of repair, whichever occurs 
first.
    FRA notes that the rule does not specify how a railroad shall 
indicate on the F 6180-49AP form when a locomotive image recording 
device is returned to service. This is intended to provide railroads 
the flexibility to denote this information in the REMARKS or the 
REPAIRS section of the F 6180-49AP form, or in an equivalent location.
    FRA is adding paragraph (l) to exclude from compliance with the 
requirements of this section freight locomotives acting as passenger 
locomotives when they are performing rescue operations for intercity or 
commuter passenger trains. Please see the above discussion in Section 
II.A.3 (Application of Requirements to Freight Locomotives Performing 
Rescue Operations).
    Finally, FRA is revising the introductory paragraph of appendix D 
to part 229 to clarify that data from image and voluntarily-installed 
audio recording systems must be recorded on a certified crashworthy 
memory module or on an alternative, remote storage system that provides 
equivalent data protections and is approved by FRA.

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 299

Section 299.5 Definitions
    Consistent with the revisions made to part 229 in this final rule, 
FRA is adding three new definitions to part 299: ``Event recorder 
memory module'', ``Image recording system'', and ``Recording device''. 
These define key components of what comprises the image recording 
system and are substantively similar to the definitions of the same 
terms in Sec.  229.5. The definitions in part 299 differ only slightly 
from those in part 229 to reflect editorial revisions to harmonize the 
definitions with the rest of part 299.
Section 299.449 Trainset Image and Audio Recording System
    Section 299.449 is based on Sec.  229.136. Similar to Sec.  
229.136, FRA is requiring all TCRR high-speed passenger trainsets used 
in revenue service to be equipped with an image recording system as 
described under Sec.  299.449 prior to commencing revenue operations. 
However, because TCRR is not yet operating, it does not need to avail 
itself of an implementation period for this requirement, as in Sec.  
229.136(a), and FRA has not included one.
    As provided in Sec.  229.136(a)(3), if a locomotive is equipped 
with an image or audio recording system, that fact must be annotated on 
the locomotive's Form FRA F 6180-49AP. FRA is not including this 
annotation requirement in Sec.  299.449, however, as TCRR is not 
required to use Form FRA F 6180-49AP.
    FRA has also revised the language in Sec.  299.449(a)(4) to clarify 
that TCRR's locomotive image recording device data must recorded on 
either a certified crashworthy memory module or an alternative, remote 
storage system that provides at least equivalent data protections and 
has been approved by FRA under Sec.  299.449(g).
    In commenting on the TCRR NPRM, TCRR stated that the resolution

[[Page 70754]]

requirements for both outward- and inward-facing image recording 
devices proposed in Sec.  229.136(b) were quite prescriptive and should 
be reexamined for high-speed operations. As adopted in this final rule, 
Sec.  229.136(b) requires the outward-facing image recording device to 
record at a minimum frame rate of 15 fps and have sufficient resolution 
to record the position of switch points 50 feet in front of the leading 
locomotive. TCRR questioned the underlying rationale and the benefit of 
such a requirement on a system that would have a PTC system capable of 
preventing a trainset from operating through a misaligned switch. 
Further, TCRR noted that for a trainset operating at 205 mph (330 km/h) 
the trainset would travel 20 feet between frames using an image 
recording device with a minimum frame rate of 15 fps and would pass a 
switch that is located 50 feet in front of the trainset within \1/6\ of 
a second. TCRR also commented that for its trainsets, the outward-
facing image recording device would be mounted at least 12.5 feet back 
from the front of the trainset, and thus the proposal would effectively 
require the image recording device to have a resolution capable of 
detecting the position of switch points 62.5 feet in advance of the 
switch.
    FRA notes that TCRR raises issues that were not fully considered 
for an exclusive, high-speed passenger rail system. Accordingly, and 
consistent with FRA's approach to regulating TCRR as a system, FRA is 
requiring the railroad to develop and define certain image recording 
system requirements for inclusion in its inspection, testing, and 
maintenance program. Specifically, Sec.  299.449(b)(4) requires TCRR to 
define the resolution requirements for outward-facing image recording 
devices in its inspection, testing, and maintenance program. TCRR must 
ensure such requirements provide sufficient resolution to determine the 
position of switch points 50 feet in advance of the trainset (wherever 
the outward-facing image recording device may be located) while 
operating at speeds of 170 km/h (106 mph) or below (TCRR track class H4 
and below), and to capture images in daylight or with normal nighttime 
illumination from the trainset's headlight, required by Sec.  299.433. 
As the resolution requirements adopted under Sec.  229.136(b)(1)(iii) 
are not specifically attuned to exclusively higher speed passenger rail 
operations as contemplated by TCRR, FRA has taken into account the 
conditions under which the outward-facing image recording devices are 
expected to operate. FRA notes that, with respect to switches, facing-
point diverging moves present an increased risk of derailment, or other 
accident/incident, compared to other types of moves through a switch, 
and TCRR's outward-facing image recording devices must therefore be 
able to capture the position of the switch points. However, FRA is also 
sensitive to TCRR's concern that at the proposed maximum operating 
speeds of 330 km/h (205 mph), it may be difficult for an image 
recording device to capture useful images so close to the leading edge 
of the trainset. Further, under TCRR's proposed system, facing-point 
(switch) diverging moves would occur most commonly when entering a 
station location, at lower speeds. Thus, FRA believes it has harmonized 
the requirements for outward-facing image recording devices so that 
they are suitable for TCRR while still capturing images of the more 
crucial movements along TCRR's right-of-way.
    Additionally, Sec.  299.449(c)(1)(i) provides that TCRR will define 
the resolution requirements for its inward-facing image recording 
devices in its inspection, testing, and maintenance program, ensuring 
sufficient resolution to record crewmember actions, including under the 
lighting conditions specified in Sec.  299.449(c)(1)(iii).
    TCRR commented on the periodic inspection and download requirements 
in proposed paragraph Sec.  229.136(e)(2) to take sample downloads of 
the image recording system to confirm operation of the system. TCRR 
agreed with APTA's comment on the part 229 proposal,\61\ in which APTA 
stated that railroads should be allowed to establish their own 
inspection processes for the image recording system. TCRR stated that 
such sampling of the image recording system, how often and by whom, 
should be established under TCRR's inspection, testing, and maintenance 
program. With respect to TCRR, FRA agrees that such requirements should 
be developed and defined as part of TCRR's inspection, testing, and 
maintenance program, consistent with FRA's overall approach to the 
systems-based use of TCRR's inspection, testing, and maintenance 
program. Accordingly, Sec.  299.449(e)(2) requires TCRR to define, as 
part of its inspection, testing, and maintenance program for its 
rolling stock under Sec.  299.445, the requirements for periodic 
inspection of and taking sample downloads from its trainset image 
recording system. FRA also expects that TCRR's training program 
developed under 49 CFR part 243 will include appropriate training and 
qualification requirements for the personnel who will be responsible 
for inspecting and taking sample downloads from the image recording 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Docket No. FRA-2016-0036, Docket ID. FRA-2016-0036-0014 
at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Sec.  299.449(i) addresses the removal of an image 
recording system or device from service and handling for repair. In 
commenting on proposed Sec.  229.136(i), the part 229 counterpart to 
this section, TCRR essentially echoed APTA's comments on the 
proposal.\62\ Specifically, APTA commented that for semi-permanently 
coupled trainsets, prohibiting the use of the trainset due to a non-
functioning image recording device or system could lead to an entire 
trainset being taken out of service, because individual cars in such 
trainsets are not typically uncoupled or freely switched; accordingly, 
if it is not possible to repair or replace the defective image 
recording device or system by the next calendar day inspection (or, for 
TCRR, the next pre-service inspection), the proposal could lead to 
removing an entire trainset from service. TCRR therefore suggested that 
the regulatory language mirror the statutory language in 49 U.S.C. 
20168(j), allowing the image recording device or system to be repaired 
or replaced ``as soon as practicable,'' rather than by the next pre-
service inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Docket No. FRA-2016-0036, Docket ID. FRA-2016-0036-
0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially, FRA notes that a requirement to repair or replace a 
defective image recording device or system by the next pre-service 
inspection would mirror the requirement for event recorders under Sec.  
299.439(d). Additionally, FRA is treating the image recording system as 
a safety device under part 218 and, accordingly, expects that the 
railroad will make preparations to be able to repair or replace a non-
functioning image recording device or system within the timeframe 
permitted under the regulation. FRA is also treating TCRR trainsets 
similar to Amtrak's semi-permanently coupled, high-speed trainsets 
operated exclusively in a designated rail corridor, which are not 
subject to Sec.  229.136(i)'s exception for long-distance intercity 
passenger trains.\63\ Moreover, FRA makes clear that Sec.  299.449 does 
not prohibit TCRR from using a trainset in revenue service beyond the 
next pre-service inspection that has only one cab end with a non-

[[Page 70755]]

functioning image recording device, provided the system is properly 
functioning in the cab end that is the leading end of the trainset. 
Accordingly, Sec.  299.449(i) as adopted in this final rule makes this 
distinction clear. For clarity, FRA provides two examples to illustrate 
application of this rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Section 229.136(i) cross-references the definition of long-
distance intercity passenger train in Sec.  238.5, which excludes 
passenger trains operated exclusively on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor 
regardless of the distance between large cities serviced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Example 1 (Trainset A, with cab ends 1 and 2): Trainset A 
is found to have a non-functioning image recording device in cab end 1 
(its outward-facing image recording device), and TCRR has it properly 
taken out service under Sec.  299.449(i)(2). The inward-facing 
recording device in cab end 1 is still fully functional, along with the 
event recorder and all image recording devices in cab end 2. After the 
image recording device in cab end 1 is taken out of service, cab end 1 
can remain the leading cab end of the trainset only until the next pre-
service inspection required under the railroad's inspection, testing, 
and maintenance program, and then the railroad would be required to 
repair or replace the image recording device before cab end 1 could be 
used as the leading end for trainset A in revenue service. However, 
should the railroad elect, the railroad could keep trainset A in 
service beyond the next pre-service inspection so long as all image 
recording devices in cab end 2 remained fully functional, along with 
the event recorder and all other required components. The railroad is 
limited to using only cab end 2 for trainset A as the leading end for 
all revenue service movements.
     Example 2 (Trainset A, with cab ends 1 and 2): In this 
example, the trainset's entire image recording system has been 
discovered as non-functional (either each cab end has non-functional 
image recording devices, or some other failure is affecting the image 
recording system's functionally as a whole), and has been properly 
taken out of service under Sec.  299.449(i)(2). Trainset A can remain 
in service only until the next pre-service inspection required under 
the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program, and then 
the railroad would be required to repair or replace the image recording 
system for trainset A before returning it to revenue service.
    The distinction between the above examples is that in Example 2, 
there is no cab end that can serve as the leading end for trainset A 
while operating in revenue service.
    Finally, FRA has added paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) to provide the 
same employee protections as described under Sec.  217.9(b)(3) and (4). 
As the rationale for the requirements is the same as discussed under 
Sec.  217.9(b)(3) and (4), FRA will rely on that discussion without 
repeating here. FRA's omission of paragraph (k) in the NPRM to provide 
these protections expressly was inadvertent, and notes that there are 
some minor differences between paragraph (k) and Sec.  217.9(b)(3) and 
(4) only to harmonize the language with that used in part 299 for TCRR.
Appendix A to Part 299--Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event 
Recorder Memory Module
    FRA is revising the introductory paragraph of appendix A to part 
299 to harmonize the language of the appendix with the introductory 
paragraph of appendix D to part 229, reflecting the changes made in 
this final rule.

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    This final rule was designated as significant by the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs. The final rule follows the 
direction of Executive Order 13563, which emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing 
rules, and of promoting flexibility. However, FRA was unable to 
determine how effective locomotive image recording devices will be at 
reducing accidents. Thus, instead of presenting the quantifiable 
benefits, FRA presents the benefits qualitatively, as discussed further 
below. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found 
in the rule's economic analysis.
    This final rule directly responds to the Congressional mandate in 
section 11411 of the FAST Act that FRA, by delegation from the 
Secretary, require each railroad that provides intercity rail passenger 
or commuter rail passenger transportation to install image recording 
devices on the controlling locomotives of its passenger trains. The 
requirements of this final rule, as applied to passenger trains, are 
directly or implicitly required by the Statute and will promote 
railroad safety.
    FRA has prepared and placed an RIA addressing the economic impact 
of this final rule in the rulemaking docket (Docket no. FRA-2016-0036). 
The RIA provides estimates of the costs of this final rule that are 
likely to be incurred over a ten-year period. FRA estimates the low- 
and high-range costs of this final rule using discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent in the tables below.

                  Table 1--Total 10-Year Costs of Locomotive Image Recording Devices, Low Range
                                    [Costs are in 2018 dollars, in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Discounted at 7%   Discounted at 3%   Annualized at 7%   Annualized at 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...............................              $42.2              $46.2               $6.0               $5.4
Cost Savings........................                2.0                2.4                0.3                0.3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.......................               40.2               43.9                5.7                5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 2--Total 10-Year Costs of Locomotive Image Recording Devices, High Range
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Discounted at 7%   Discounted at 3%   Annualized at 7%   Annualized at 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...............................              $87.3              $94.0              $12.4              $11.0
Cost Savings........................                2.0                2.4                0.3                0.3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs.......................               85.3               91.6               12.1               10.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70756]]

    As discussed in the preamble above, FRA may consider 
crashworthiness protection requirements unnecessary (or met) in the 
future for passenger locomotive image recording device memory modules 
if recorded data is stored at a remote location away from a locomotive 
consist, safe from accident destruction. FRA did not require this 
option because the agency does not believe current technology would 
reliably allow for such remote transmission and storage in all 
instances, and such a system would likely be much costlier to develop 
in order to transfer the recorded data to a centralized location.
    In the 2015 Amtrak accident in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, image 
recording devices could have helped provide additional causal 
information during the post-accident investigation. Causal data is 
especially critical for the prevention of future accidents when no 
apparent accident cause can be determined through other means. Further, 
images can become key to identifying new safety concerns that otherwise 
would be difficult to research or identify, which could lead FRA and 
the railroad industry to better understand areas in which safety could 
be improved. Other safety benefits will also primarily accrue from the 
deterrence of unsafe behaviors that cause railroad accidents. For 
instance, the presence of locomotive image recording devices could have 
deterred the engineer from text messaging while operating the Metrolink 
train involved in the 2008 accident at Chatsworth, California. In the 
RIA, FRA discusses and provides examples of how the deterrent effect of 
locomotive image recording devices could reduce negative behavior 
because train crews know their actions are being recorded.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Benefits, Section VIII, of the RIA for more 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary source of expected benefits is the potential reduction 
in safety risk. FRA conducted a literature review to determine the 
effectiveness rate of inward- and outward-facing recording devices, but 
was unable to determine an appropriate rate. The benefits for the final 
rule are qualitatively discussed. The reduction in safety risk is 
expected to come primarily from the change in crew behavior. Railroads 
can deter unsafe behavior if crewmembers realize their actions may be 
observed on a frequent, but random, basis by railroad supervisors. 
Locomotive image recorders cannot directly prevent an accident from 
occurring, but rather can provide investigators with information after 
an accident occurs that can help to prevent future accidents of that 
type from occurring.
    Although FRA is declining to require locomotive recording devices 
in freight locomotives, many freight railroads have informed FRA the 
above reasons are why railroads install camera systems even without an 
FRA regulation. FRA's analysis shows there are many factors that are 
difficult to quantify that combine to warrant the final rule.
    Tables: Costs of the final rule:

                               Table 3--10-Year Costs and Cost Savings (Low Range)
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discounted at   Discounted at   Annualized at   Annualized at
                                   Undiscounted         7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Camera......................           $40.6           $34.6           $37.7            $4.9            $4.4
    Crashworthiness.............             9.2             7.5             8.4             1.1             1.0
    Administrative Costs........             0.1             0.1             0.1             0.0             0.0
    Governmental Costs..........           0.004           0.004           0.004          0.0006          0.0005
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs.............            49.9            42.2            46.2             6.0             5.4
Cost Savings:
    Operational Testing.........             2.7             2.0             2.4             0.3             0.3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Costs...............            47.2            40.2            43.9             5.7             5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table 4--10-Year Costs and Cost Savings (High Range)
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discounted at   Discounted at   Annualized at   Annualized at
                                   Undiscounted         7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Camera......................           $90.6           $79.7           $85.5           $11.3           $10.0
    Crashworthiness.............             9.2             7.5             8.4             1.1             1.0
    Administrative Costs........             0.1             0.1             0.1             0.0             0.0
    Governmental Costs..........           0.004           0.004           0.004          0.0006          0.0005
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs.............            99.9            87.3            94.0            12.4            11.0
Cost Savings:
    Operational Testing.........             2.7             2.0             2.4             0.3             0.3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Costs...............            97.2            85.3            91.6            12.1            10.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70757]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency 
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small 
entities. An agency must prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As discussed below, FRA does not 
believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Under section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, FRA has issued a final policy 
statement that formally establishes ``small entities'' as railroads 
that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III 
railroad, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual 
revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions 
that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 49 CFR part 209, app. C.
    This final rule will apply to railroad carriers that provide 
regularly scheduled intercity rail or commuter rail passenger 
transportation to the public. FRA notes that one passenger railroad is 
considered a small entity: the Hawkeye Express (operated by the Iowa 
Northern Railway Company). All other passenger railroad operations in 
the United States are part of larger governmental entities whose 
service jurisdictions exceed 50,000 in population, and, based on the 
definition, are not considered small entities. Hawkeye Express is a 
short-haul passenger railroad that does not provide commuter or 
intercity passenger service, and therefore will not be affected by the 
final rule. Additionally, the Hawkeye Express has not been in operation 
for at least the past two years. FRA does not believe that the 
provisions of the final rule will significantly impact a substantial 
number of small entities.
    FRA invited all interested parties to submit comments, data, and 
information demonstrating the potential economic impact on any small 
entity that would result from the adoption of the final rule. During 
the NPRM comment period, FRA did not receive any comments from the 
public or stakeholders regarding the impact that the final rule would 
have on small entities.
    Accordingly, the FRA Administrator hereby certifies this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that contain the new information and 
current information collection requirements and the estimated time to 
fulfill each requirement are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Total cost
        CFR section \65\               Respondent universe         Total annual responses     Average time per responses   Total annual     equivalent
                                                                                                                           burden hours        \66\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
217.7(a)--Operating rules;        2 new railroads.............  2 documents................  1 hour.....................               2            $154
 filing and recordkeeping--
 Filing of code of operating
 rules, timetables, and
 timetable special instructions
 by Class I, Class II, Amtrak,
 and commuter railroads with FRA.
    --(b) Amendments to code of   53 railroads................  312 revised documents......  20 minutes.................             104           8,008
     operating rules,
     timetables, and timetable
     special instructions by
     Class I, Class II, Amtrak,
     and commuter railroads with
     FRA.
    --(c) Class III and other     2 new railroads.............  2 documents................  1 hour.....................               2             154
     railroads--Copy of code of
     operating rules,
     timetables, and timetable
     special instructions at
     system headquarters.
    --(c) Class III and other     714 railroads...............  1,596 amendments...........  15 minutes.................             399          30,723
     railroads--Amendments to
     code of operating rules,
     timetables, and timetable
     special instructions at
     system headquarters.
217.9(b)(2)--Program of           765 railroads...............  4,732 records..............  2 minutes..................             158          12,166
 operational tests and
 inspections; recordkeeping--
 Written records documenting
 qualification of each railroad
 testing officer.
    --(b)(3) Development and      36 railroads................  12 adopted procedures......  24 hours...................             288          34,560
     adoption of procedure
     ensuring random selection
     of employees by railroads
     utilizing inward-facing
     locomotive and in-cab audio
     recordings to conduct
     operational tests and
     inspections (New
     requirement).
    --(c) Written program of      2 new railroads.............  2 programs.................  10 hours...................              20           2,400
     operational tests and
     inspections.
    --(d)(1) Records of           765 railroads...............  9,120,000 test records and   5 minutes..................         760,000      58,520,000
     operational tests/                                          updates.
     inspections.
    --(d)(2) Railroad copy of     53 railroads................  159 program revisions......  70 minutes.................             186          14,322
     current program operational
     tests/inspections--
     Amendments.
    --(e)(1)(i) Written           8 (Amtrak + 7 Class I)        32 reviews.................  2 hours....................              64           4,928
     quarterly review of           railroads.
     operational tests/
     inspections by RRs other
     than passenger RRs.
    --(e)(1)(ii) 6-month review   7 Class I railroads.........  14 reviews.................  2 hours....................              28           2,156
     of operational tests/
     inspections/naming of
     officer.
    --(e)(2) 6-month review by    35 (Amtrak + 34 passenger)    70 reviews.................  2 hours....................             140          10,780
     passenger railroads           railroads.
     designated officers of
     operational testing and
     inspection data.
    --(e)(3) Records of periodic  50 railroads................  116 records................  1 minute...................               2             154
     reviews.
    --(f)-(g) Annual summary of   50 railroads................  71 summary records.........  1 hour.....................              71           5,467
     operational tests and
     inspections.
    --(h)(1)(i) RR amended        765 railroads...............  6 revised programs.........  30 minutes.................               3             231
     program of operational
     tests/inspections.
    --(h)(1)(ii) FRA disapproval  765 railroads...............  6 supporting documents.....  1 hour.....................               6             462
     of RR program of
     operational tests/
     inspections and RR written
     response in support of
     program.
217.11(a)--RR periodic            2 new railroads.............  2 written programs.........  8 hours....................              16           1,232
 instruction of employees on
 operating rules--New railroads.

[[Page 70758]]

 
217.11(b)--RR copy of amendment   765 railroads...............  110 modified written         30 minutes.................              55           4,235
 of program for periodic                                         programs.
 instruction of employees.
218.95(a)(5)-(b)--Instruction,    765 railroads...............  85,600 employees' records..  1 minute...................           1,427         109,879
 training, examination--Employee
 records.
    --(c)(1)(i) Amended RR        765 railroads...............  5 amended programs.........  30 minutes.................               3             231
     program of instruction,
     testing, examination.
218.97(b)(4)--RR copy of good     765 railroads...............  4,732 copies to new          6 minutes..................             473          36,421
 faith challenge procedures.                                     employees.
218.97(c)(1) and (c)(4)--RR       10 workers..................  10 gd. faith challenges....  15 minutes.................               3             231
 employee good faith challenge
 of RR directive.
    --(c)(5) RR resolution of     2 new railroads.............  5 responses................  15 minutes.................               1              77
     employee good faith
     challenge.
    --(d)(1) RR officer           2 new railroads.............  3 reviews..................  30 minutes.................               2             154
     immediate review of
     unresolved good faith
     challenge.
    --(d)(2) RR officer           2 new railroads.............  3 answers..................  15 minutes.................               1              77
     explanation to employee
     that Federal law may
     protect against employer
     retaliation for refusal to
     carry out work if employee
     refusal is a lawful, good
     faith act.
    --(d)(3) Employee written/    2 new railroads.............  3 written protests.........  15 minutes.................               1              77
     electronic protest of
     employer final decision.
    --(d)(3) Employee copy of     2 new railroads.............  3 copies...................  1 minute...................             0.1               8
     protest.
    --(d)(4) Employer further     2 new railroads.............  2 further reviews..........  15 minutes.................             0.5              39
     review of good faith
     challenge after employee
     written request.
    --(d)(4) RR verification      2 new railroads.............  2 decisions................  15 minutes.................             0.5              39
     decision to employee in
     writing.
    --(e) Recordkeeping and       765 railroads...............  765 copies.................  5 minutes..................              64           4,928
     record retention--
     Employer's copy of written
     procedures at division
     headquarters.
218.99(a)--Shoving or pushing     2 new railroads.............  2 rule modifications.......  1 hour.....................               2             154
 movement--RR operating rule
 complying with section's
 requirements.
218.101(a)-(c)--Leaving           2 new railroads.............  2 rule modifications.......  30 minutes.................               1              77
 equipment in the clear--
 Operating rule that complies
 with this section.
218.103(a)(1)--Hand-Operated      2 new railroads.............  2 rule modifications.......  30 minutes.................               1              77
 Switches--Operating Rule that
 Complies with this section.
229.22--Locomotive image          36 railroads................  4,500 passenger locomotives  15 minutes.................           1,125          86,625
 recording systems--Form FRA F
 6180-49AP (New requirements)
 \67\.
229.136(f)(1)--Passenger          36 railroads................  12 c of c procedures.......  48 hours...................             576          44,352
 railroads adoption and
 development of chain of custody
 (c of c) procedures (New
 requirements).
    --(f)(2)-(3) Passenger        36 railroads................  140 saved recordings.......  10 minutes.................              23           1,771
     railroad preservation of
     accident/incident data of
     image and audio recording
     system from locomotive
     using such system at time
     of accident/incident
     (includes voluntary freight
     railroads & restates
     previous requirement under
     section 229.135(e)) (New
     requirements).
    --(g) Locomotive image        36 railroads................  12 descriptions/plans......  20 hours...................             240          18,480
     recording system approval
     process--Description of
     technical aspects any
     locomotive image recording
     system to FRA for approval
     (New requirements).
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................  765 railroads...............  9,223,047 responses........  N/A........................         765,488      58,955,829
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ FRA anticipates that no procedures will be disapproved 
under Sec.  217.9(b)(4). Additionally, the burdens associated under 
Sec.  299.449 and appendix A to part 299 have been accounted for 
under the burden associated with Sec.  229.136(f) and (g).
    \66\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the 
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent 
overhead charges.
    \67\ The burdens for Sec. Sec.  229.21, 229.136(a)(3), (e)(2), 
and 229.139(i) are covered under Sec.  229.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to 
OMB, contact Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance 
Officer, at email: [email protected] or telephone: (571) 609-
1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, 
at email: [email protected] or telephone: (757) 897-9908.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. 
Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: 
[email protected] or telephone: (571) 609-1285 or Ms. Joanne 
Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: 
[email protected] or telephone: (757) 897-9908.
    OMB must make a decision concerning the collection of information 
requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication. FRA received two public 
comments on the information collection requirements contained in the 
NPRM.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. The current OMB control number for this 
rule is 2130-0035.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), 
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States,

[[Page 70759]]

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not 
issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government 
officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a 
regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the 
agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process 
of developing the regulation.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule could affect State 
and local governments to the extent that they sponsor, or exercise 
oversight of, passenger railroads. Because this final rule is required 
by Federal statute for passenger railroads under 49 U.S.C. 20168, the 
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not 
apply. However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by 
operation of law under certain provisions of the Federal railroad 
safety statutes, specifically the former Locomotive Inspection Act and 
the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, repealed and recodified 
at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. 20106, respectively. Section 
20701 governs all ``parts and appurtenances'' of locomotives, and has 
been held to occupy the field.\68\ Section 20106 provides that States 
may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order 
related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter 
of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of 
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security 
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies 
under the ``essentially local safety or security hazard'' exception to 
section 20106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See, e.g., Napier v. Atlantic Coastline RR. Co., 272 U.S. 
605 (1926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria in Executive Order 13132. As explained above, FRA has 
determined this final rule has no federalism implications, other than 
the possible preemption of State laws under Federal railroad safety 
statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. 20106. 
Therefore, preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for 
this final rule is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

    Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, and FRA's 
NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771, FRA has evaluated 
this final rule and determined that it is categorically excluded from 
environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of 
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement 
(EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an 
agency's NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a 
significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require 
either an EA or EIS.\69\ Specifically, FRA has determined that this 
final rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review 
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ``[p]romulgation of rules, the 
issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of existing 
regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do not result 
in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or 
noise.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to require commuter and intercity 
passenger railroads to install recording devices on locomotives in 
compliance with this rule and use those devices to help investigate and 
prevent railroad accidents. This rule does not directly or indirectly 
impact any environmental resources and will not result in significantly 
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. In analyzing 
the applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual 
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed 
environmental review.\70\ FRA has concluded that no such unusual 
circumstances exist with respect to this final rule and it meets the 
requirements for categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 23 CFR 771.116(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties.\71\ FRA has also 
determined that this rulemaking will not approve a project resulting in 
a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f).\72\ Further, FRA 
reviewed this final rule and found it consistent with Executive Order 
14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 54 U.S.C. 306108.
    \72\ See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended 
(Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT 
Order 5610.2C (require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice as 
part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their 
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT agencies to address 
compliance with Executive Order 12898 and requirements within the DOT 
Order in rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this 
final rule under Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order and has 
determined it will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-income 
populations.

G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FRA has evaluated this final rule under the principles and criteria 
in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments, dated November 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 Executive Order 13175 do not apply, 
and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements 
specifically set forth in

[[Page 70760]]

law).'' Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) 
further requires that before promulgating any general notice of 
proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any 
rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure 
by State, local, and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for 
which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency 
shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local, 
and Tribal Governments and the private sector. This final rule will not 
result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 
(as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and thus 
preparation of such a statement is not required.

I. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' \73\ 
FRA evaluated this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211 
and determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant 
energy action'' within the meaning of the Executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Trade Impact

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et 
seq.) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards setting 
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. FRA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule on foreign commerce 
and believes that its requirements are consistent with the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979. The requirements are safety standards, which, 
as noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to trade.

K. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs did not designate this 
rule as a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 217

    Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad employees, 
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 218

    Locomotives, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad 
employees, Railroad safety, and Tampering.

49 CFR Part 229

    Locomotives, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 299

    High-speed rail, Railroad safety, Reporting and recording 
requirements, Tokaido Shinkansen.

The Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA is amending chapter 
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 217--RAILROAD OPERATING RULES

    The authority citation for part 217 is revised to read as follows:

0
1. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20168, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 
49 CFR 1.89.

Subpart A--General

0
2. In Sec.  217.9, add paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:


Sec.  217.9   Program of operational tests and inspections; 
recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A passenger railroad that utilizes inward-facing locomotive 
image or in-cab audio recordings to conduct operational tests and 
inspections shall adopt and comply with a procedure in its operational 
tests and inspections program that ensures employees are randomly 
subject to such operational tests and inspections involving image or 
audio recordings. The procedure adopted by a passenger railroad must:
    (i) Establish objective, neutral criteria to ensure every employee 
subject to such operational tests and inspections is selected randomly 
for such operational tests and inspections within a specified time 
frame;
    (ii) Not permit subjective factors to play a role in selection, 
i.e., no employee may be selected based on the exercise of a railroad's 
discretion; and
    (iii) Require that any operational test or inspection using 
locomotive image or audio recordings be performed within 72 hours of 
the completion of the employee's tour of duty that is the subject of 
the operational test. Any operational test performed more than 72 hours 
after the completion of the tour of duty that is the subject of the 
test is a violation of this section. The 72-hour limitation does not 
apply to investigations of railroad accidents/incidents or to 
violations of Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, or orders, or 
any criminal laws.
    (4) FRA may review a passenger railroad's procedure implementing 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and, for cause stated, may disapprove 
such procedure under paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *

PART 218--RAILROAD OPERATING PRACTICES

0
3. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131, 20138, 20144, 20168; 
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

Subpart D--Prohibition Against Tampering With Safety Devices

0
4. In Sec.  218.53, revise paragraph (c) and add paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  218.53   Scope and definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Safety Device means any locomotive-mounted equipment used 
either to assure the locomotive engineer is alert, not physically 
incapacitated, and aware of and complying with the indications of a 
signal system or other operational control system, or a system used to 
record data concerning the operations of that locomotive or the train 
it is powering. See appendix C to this part for a statement of agency 
policy on this subject.
    (d) The provisions in Sec. Sec.  218.59 and 218.61 do not apply to 
locomotive-mounted image or audio recording equipment on freight 
locomotives.

0
5. Revise Sec.  218.61(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  218.61   Authority to deactivate safety devices.

* * * * *
    (c) If a locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service is 
equipped with a device to record data concerning the operation of that 
locomotive or the train it is powering, that device may be deactivated 
only under the provisions of Sec.  229.135 of this chapter. Inward- and 
outward-facing image recording devices on commuter or intercity 
passenger

[[Page 70761]]

locomotives may be deactivated only under the provisions of Sec.  
229.136 of this chapter. This section does not apply to inward- or 
outward-facing image recording devices that are installed on freight 
locomotives.

0
6. In appendix C to part 218, revise the fifth sentence of the fourth 
paragraph of appendix C to part 218 to read as follows:

Appendix C--Statement of Agency Enforcement Policy on Tampering

* * * * *

Safety Devices Covered by This Rule

    * * * This regulation applies to a variety of devices including 
equipment known as ``event recorders,'' ``alerters,'' ``deadman 
controls,'' ``automatic cab signal,'' ``cab signal whistles,'' 
``automatic train stop equipment,'' ``automatic train control 
equipment,'' ``positive train control equipment,'' and ``passenger 
locomotive-mounted image and audio recording equipment.'' * * *
* * * * *

PART 229--RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
7. The authority citation for part 229 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143, 
20168, 20701-03, 21301-02, 21304, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 
1.89.

Subpart A--General

0
8. In Sec.  229.5, revise the definition of ``Event recorder memory 
module'' and add, in alphabetical order, definitions of ``Image 
recording system'' and ``Recording device'' to read as follows:


Sec.  229.5   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Event recorder memory module means that portion of an event 
recorder used to retain the recorded data as described in Sec. Sec.  
229.135(b) and 229.136(a) through (c).
* * * * *
    Image recording system means a system of cameras or other 
electronic devices that record images as described in Sec.  229.136, 
and any components that convert those images into electronic data 
transmitted to, and stored on, a memory module.
* * * * *
    Recording device means a device that records images or audible 
sounds, as described in Sec.  229.136.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Inspections and Tests

0
9. In Sec.  229.21, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  229.21  Daily inspection.

    (a) Except for MU locomotives, each locomotive in use shall be 
inspected at least once during each calendar day. A written report of 
the inspection shall be made. This report shall contain the name of the 
carrier; the initials and number of the locomotive; the place, date and 
time of the inspection; a description of the non-complying conditions 
disclosed by the inspection; and the signature of the employee making 
the inspection. Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  229.9, 229.136, 
229.137, and 229.139, any conditions that constitute non-compliance 
with any requirement of this part shall be repaired before the 
locomotive is used. Except with respect to conditions that do not 
comply with Sec. Sec.  229.136, 229.137, or 229.139, a notation shall 
be made on the report indicating the nature of the repairs that have 
been made. Repairs made for conditions that do not comply with 
Sec. Sec.  229.136, 229.137, or 229.139 may be noted on the report, or 
in electronic form. The person making the repairs shall sign the 
report. The report shall be filed and retained for at least 92 days in 
the office of the carrier at the terminal at which the locomotive is 
cared for. A record shall be maintained on each locomotive showing the 
place, date and time of the previous inspection.
    (b) Each MU locomotive in use shall be inspected at least once 
during each calendar day and a written report of the inspection shall 
be made. This report may be part of a single master report covering an 
entire group of MU locomotives. If any non-complying conditions are 
found, a separate, individual report shall be made containing the name 
of the carrier; the initials and number of the locomotive; the place, 
date, and time of the inspection; the non-complying conditions found; 
and the signature of the inspector. Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  
229.9, 229.136, 229.137, and 229.139, any conditions that constitute 
non-compliance with any requirement of this part shall be repaired 
before the locomotive is used. Except with respect to conditions that 
do not comply with Sec. Sec.  229.136, 229.137, or 229.139, a notation 
shall be made on the report indicating the nature of the repairs that 
have been made. Repairs made for conditions that do not comply with 
Sec. Sec.  229.136, 229.137, or 229.139 may be noted on the report, or 
in electronic form. A notation shall be made on the report indicating 
the nature of the repairs that have been made. The person making the 
repairs shall sign the report. The report shall be filed in the office 
of the carrier at the place where the inspection is made or at one 
central location and retained for at least 92 days.
* * * * *

0
10. Add Sec.  229.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.22   Passenger locomotive inspection and repair record.

    (a) Application. This section applies only to lead locomotives of 
trains used in commuter or intercity passenger service, i.e., 
locomotives subject to the requirements of Sec.  229.136.
    (b) Dates. (1) Each locomotive subject to the requirements of Sec.  
229.136 shall use and maintain Form FRA F 6180-49AP in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  229.136, except that Form FRA F 6180-49A may 
fulfill any requirement in Sec.  229.136 with respect to Form FRA F 
6180-49AP until October 12, 2027.
    (2) For purposes of complying with the inspection, testing, and 
repair recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec.  229.23, 229.27, 229.29, 
229.31, 229.33, 229.55, 229.103, 229.105, 229.114, 229.123, and 229.135 
with respect to Form FRA F 6180-49A, each locomotive subject to the 
requirements of Sec.  229.136 shall instead use and maintain Form FRA F 
6180-49AP no later than October 12, 2027.
    (c) Earlier adoption. Railroads may adopt use of Form FRA F 6180-
49AP earlier than required for locomotives subject to the requirements 
of Sec.  229.136.
    (d) Effect. Nothing in this section affects the requirements in 
this part for use of Form FRA F 6180-49A for locomotives not subject to 
the requirements of Sec.  229.136.

Subpart C--Safety Requirements

0
11. Add Sec.  229.136 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.136   Locomotive image and audio recording devices.

    (a) Duty to equip and record. (1) Effective October 12, 2027, each 
lead locomotive of a train used in commuter or intercity passenger 
service must be equipped with an image recording system to record 
images of activities ahead of the locomotive in the direction of travel 
(outward-facing image recording device), and of activities inside the 
cab of the locomotive (inward-facing image recording device).
    (i) If the lead locomotive is equipped with an image recording 
system, the system must be turned on and recording whenever a train is 
in motion, at all train speeds.
    (ii) If operating circumstances cause the controlling locomotive to 
be other than the lead locomotive, railroads must

[[Page 70762]]

also record images of activities inside the cab of the controlling 
locomotive.
    (iii) Both cabs of a dual-cab locomotive shall be equipped with 
inward- and outward-facing image recording systems. Image recordings 
for only a dual-cab locomotive's active cab and the leading end of the 
locomotive's movement are required to be made and retained.
    (2) Image recording systems installed after October 12, 2024, on 
new, remanufactured, or existing lead locomotives used in commuter or 
intercity passenger service shall meet the requirements of this 
section. Lead locomotives used in commuter or intercity passenger 
service must be equipped with an image recording system meeting the 
requirements of this section no later than October 12, 2027.
    (3) For lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger 
service, railroads must note the presence of any image or audio 
recording systems in the REMARKS section of Form FRA F 6180-49AP in the 
locomotive cab.
    (4) As required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the 
image recording system shall record at least the most recent 12 hours 
of operation of a lead locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger 
service.
    (5) Locomotive recording device data for each lead locomotive used 
in commuter or intercity passenger service shall be recorded on a 
memory module meeting the requirements for a certified crashworthy 
event recorder memory module described in appendix D to this part, or 
on an alternative, remote storage system that provides at least 
equivalent data protections and is approved by FRA under paragraph (g) 
of this section.
    (i) Paragraph (a)(5) of this section applies to locomotive image 
recording systems as required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (ii) Audio recording systems installed after October 12, 2024, on 
new, remanufactured, or existing lead locomotives used in commuter or 
intercity passenger service shall meet the requirements of paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section. Audio recording systems installed on lead 
locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service must meet the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section no later than October 
12, 2027.
    (b) Outward-facing recording system requirements for lead 
locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service. (1) As required 
under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the image recording 
system shall:
    (i) Include an image recording device aimed parallel to the 
centerline of tangent track within the gauge on the front end of the 
locomotive;
    (ii) Be able to distinguish the signal aspects displayed by wayside 
signals;
    (iii) Record at a minimum frame rate of 15 frames per second (or 
its equivalent) and have sufficient resolution to record the position 
of switch points 50 feet in front of the locomotive;
    (iv) Be able to capture images in daylight or with normal nighttime 
illumination from the headlight of the locomotive; and
    (v) Include an accurate time and date stamp on image recordings.
    (2) If a lead locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service 
experiences a technical failure of its outward-facing image recording 
system, then the system shall be removed from service and handled in 
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.
    (c) Inward-facing image recording system requirements for lead 
locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service. (1) As required 
under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the image recording 
system shall include an image recording device positioned to provide 
complete coverage of all areas of the controlling locomotive cab where 
a crewmember typically may be positioned, including complete coverage 
of the instruments and controls required to operate the controlling 
locomotive in normal use, and:
    (i) Have sufficient resolution to record crewmember actions;
    (ii) Record at a minimum frame rate of 5 frames per second;
    (iii) Be capable of using ambient light in the cab, and when 
ambient light levels drop too low for normal operation, automatically 
switch to infrared or another operating mode that enables the recording 
sufficient clarity to comply with the requirements of this paragraph 
(c)(1); and
    (iv) Include an accurate time and date stamp on image recordings.
    (2) No image recordings may be made of any activities within a 
locomotive's sanitation compartment as defined in Sec.  229.5, and no 
image recording device shall be installed in a location where the 
device can record activities within a sanitation compartment.
    (3) If a lead locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service 
experiences a technical failure of its inward-facing image recording 
system, the system shall be removed from service and handled in 
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.
    (d) Image and audio recording system protection requirements for 
lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service. Railroads 
must provide convenient wired or wireless connections to allow 
authorized railroad personnel to download audio or image recordings 
from any certified crashworthy event recorder memory module in a lead 
locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service. The railroads 
must use electronic security measures, and apply appropriate 
cybersecurity measures, to prevent unauthorized access to, and 
download, deletion, or alteration of, the recording system or its 
recordings.
    (1) Paragraph (d) of this section applies to locomotive image 
recording systems as required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (2) Audio recording systems installed after October 12, 2024, on 
new, remanufactured, or existing lead locomotives used in commuter or 
intercity passenger service shall meet the requirements of paragraph 
(d) of this section. Audio recording devices installed on lead 
locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service must meet the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section no later than October 12, 
2027.
    (e) Inspection, testing, and maintenance for image recording 
systems on lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service. 
As required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the image 
recording system shall have self-monitoring features to assess whether 
the system is operating properly, including whether the system is 
powered on.
    (1) If a fault with the image recording system is detected, the 
locomotive may be used in the lead position only in accordance with 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) As required under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, at 
each annual test required under Sec.  229.27, the railroad conducting 
the inspection shall take sample download(s) from the image recording 
system's crashworthy event recorder memory module, or an FRA-approved 
equivalent under paragraph (g) of this section, to confirm proper 
operation of the system, and, if necessary, repair the system to full 
operation.
    (f) Handling of recordings--(1) Chain-of-custody procedure. Each 
railroad with locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service 
subject to this section shall adopt, maintain, and comply with a chain-
of-custody procedure governing the handling and the release of the 
locomotive image recordings described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section and any locomotive audio recordings. The chain-of-custody 
procedure must specifically address the preservation and handling

[[Page 70763]]

requirements for post-accident/incident recordings provided to FRA or 
other Federal agencies under paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (2) Accident/incident preservation. If any locomotive in commuter 
or intercity passenger service equipped with an image or audio 
recording system is involved in an accident/incident that must be 
reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter, the railroad that was 
using the locomotive at the time of the accident shall, to the extent 
possible, and to the extent consistent with the safety of life and 
property, preserve the data recorded by each such device for analysis 
by FRA or other Federal agencies. A railroad must either provide the 
image and/or audio data in a format readable by FRA or other Federal 
agencies; or make available to FRA or other Federal agencies any 
platform, software, media device, etc., that is required to play back 
the image and/or audio data. This preservation requirement shall expire 
one (1) year after the date of the accident, unless FRA or another 
Federal agency notifies the railroad in writing that it must preserve 
the recording longer. Railroads may extract and analyze such data for 
the purposes described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, only if:
    (i) The original downloaded data file, or an unanalyzed exact copy 
of it, is retained in secure custody under the railroad's procedure 
adopted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) The original downloaded data file, or an unanalyzed exact copy 
of it, is not utilized for any other purpose, except by direction of 
FRA or another Federal agency.
    (3) Recording uses. A railroad may use the image and audio 
recordings from a locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service 
subject to this section to:
    (i) Investigate an accident/incident that is required to be 
reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter;
    (ii) Investigate a violation of a Federal railroad safety law, 
regulation, or order, or a railroad's operating rules and procedures;
    (iii) Conduct an operational test under Sec.  217.9 of this 
chapter;
    (iv) Monitor for unauthorized occupancy of a locomotive's cab or a 
control cab locomotive's operating compartment;
    (v) Investigate a violation of a criminal law;
    (vi) Assist Federal agencies in the investigation of a suspected or 
confirmed act of terrorism; or
    (vii) Perform inspection, testing, maintenance, or repair 
activities to ensure the proper installation and functioning of an 
image or audio recorder.
    (g) Locomotive image recording system approval process. Each 
railroad with locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger service 
subject to this section must provide the FRA Associate Administrator 
for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer with a description of the 
technical aspects of any locomotive image recording system installed to 
comply with this section. The required description must be submitted 
via electronic mail to the following email address: [email protected].
    (1) The description must include information specifically 
addressing the image recording system's:
    (i) Minimum 12-hour continuous recording capability;
    (ii) Crashworthiness; and
    (iii) Post-accident accessibility of the system's recordings.
    (2) The railroad must submit the statement not less than 90 days 
before the installation of such image recording system, or, for 
existing systems, not more than 60 days after November 13, 2023.
    (3) The FRA Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief 
Safety Officer will review a railroad's submission and must approve any 
locomotive image recording system intended to comply with this section 
before the system can be installed or put into service. FRA may 
disapprove any locomotive image recording systems that do not meet the 
requirements of this section.
    (h) Relationship to other laws. Nothing in this section is intended 
to alter the legal authority of law enforcement officials investigating 
potential violation(s) of State criminal law(s), and nothing in this 
section is intended to alter in any way the priority of investigations 
under 49 U.S.C. 1131 and 1134, or the authority of the Secretary of 
Transportation to investigate railroad accidents under 49 U.S.C. 5121, 
5122, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20505, 20702, 20703, and 20902.
    (i) Removal of device from service and handling for repair. A 
railroad may remove from service an image recording device on a 
locomotive in commuter or intercity passenger service, and must remove 
the device from service if the railroad knows the device is not 
properly recording. When a railroad removes a locomotive image 
recording device from service, a qualified person shall record the date 
the device was removed from service on Form FRA F 6180-49AP, under the 
REMARKS section. Except as provided in this paragraph, a locomotive on 
which an image recording device has been taken out of service as 
provided in this paragraph may remain as the lead locomotive only until 
the next calendar-day inspection required under Sec.  229.21. A 
locomotive with an inoperative image recording device alone is not 
deemed to be in an improper condition, unsafe to operate, or a non-
complying locomotive under Sec. Sec.  229.7 and 229.9. A locomotive in 
a long-distance intercity passenger train, as defined in Sec.  238.5 of 
this chapter, with a non-operational image recording device may remain 
as the lead locomotive until arrival at its destination terminal or its 
nearest forward point of repair, whichever occurs first.
    (j) Disabling or interfering with locomotive-mounted audio and 
video recording equipment. Any individual who willfully disables or 
interferes with the intended functioning of locomotive-mounted image or 
audio recording system equipment on a passenger locomotive, or who 
tampers with or alters the data recorded by such equipment, is subject 
to a civil penalty and to disqualification from performing safety-
sensitive functions on a railroad as provided in parts 209 and 218 of 
this chapter.
    (k) As used in this section--Train means (1) A single locomotive;
    (2) Multiple locomotives coupled together; or
    (3) One or more locomotives coupled with one or more cars.
    (l) Freight rescue locomotives. The requirements of this section do 
not apply to a freight locomotive when used to haul a passenger train 
due to the failure of a passenger locomotive.

0
12. Revise the introductory paragraph of appendix D to part 229 to read 
as follows:

Appendix D to Part 229--Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event 
Recorder Memory Module

    Section 229.135(b) requires railroads to equip certain 
locomotives with an event recorder that includes a certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module. Section 229.136(a)(1) 
requires passenger railroads to install locomotive-mounted image 
recording systems in every lead locomotive used in commuter or 
intercity passenger service. As required by Sec.  229.136(a)(5), 
data from these image and voluntarily installed audio recording 
systems must be recorded on a certified crashworthy memory module or 
on an alternative, remote storage system that provides at least 
equivalent data protections and is approved by FRA under Sec.  
229.136(g). This appendix prescribes the requirements for certifying 
an event recorder memory module (ERMM) or a locomotive-mounted audio 
and/or image recording device memory module as crashworthy. For 
purposes of this

[[Page 70764]]

appendix, a locomotive-mounted audio or image recording device 
memory module is also considered an ERMM. This appendix includes the 
performance criteria and test sequence for establishing the 
crashworthiness of the ERMM and marking the event recorder or 
locomotive-mounted image or audio recording system containing the 
crashworthy ERMM.
* * * * *

PART 299--TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD HIGH-SPEED RAIL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
13. The authority citation for part 299 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 
CFR 1.89.


0
14. In Sec.  299.5, add definitions for the terms ``Event recorder 
memory module,'' ``Image recording system'', and ``Image recording 
device'' to read as follows:


Sec.  299.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Event recorder memory module means that portion of an event 
recorder used to retain the recorded data as described in Sec. Sec.  
299.439(c) and 299.449(a) through (c).
* * * * *
    Image recording device means a device that records images, as 
described in Sec.  299.449.
    Image recording system means a system of electronic devices capable 
of recording images as described in Sec.  299.449, and any components 
that convert those images into electronic data transmitted to, and 
stored on, a certified crashworthy memory module as described in 
appendix A to this part.
* * * * *

0
15. Add Sec.  299.449 to read as follows:


Sec.  299.449   Trainset image and audio recording system.

    (a) Duty to equip and record. (1) Each trainset used in revenue 
service must be equipped with an image recording system comprised of--
    (i) Outward-facing image recording devices capable of recording 
images of the right-of-way ahead of the trainset in the direction of 
travel as further described in paragraph (b) of this section; and,
    (ii) Inward-facing image recording devices capable of recording 
images of crewmember activities inside the leading trainset cab as 
further described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The image recording system must be turned on and recording 
whenever a trainset is in motion, at all speeds. If operating 
circumstances cause the controlling cab to be other than the cab of the 
leading end of the trainset, the railroad must also record images of 
activities inside the controlling cab.
    (3) The trainset image recording system shall record at a minimum 
the most recent 12 hours of operation of a leading trainset cab used in 
revenue service.
    (4) Image recording device data for each leading trainset cab used 
in revenue service shall be recorded on a memory module meeting the 
requirements for a certified crashworthy event recorder memory module 
described in appendix A to this part or on an alternative, remote 
storage system that provides at least equivalent data protections and 
is approved by FRA under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (b) Outward-facing recording device requirements for leading 
trainset cabs used in revenue service. The image recording system 
shall--
    (1) Include an image recording device aimed parallel to the 
centerline of tangent track within the gauge on the leading end of the 
trainset;
    (2) Be able to distinguish the signal aspects displayed by go/no-go 
signals;
    (3) Record at a minimum frame rate of 15 frames per second (or its 
equivalent);
    (4) Have sufficient resolution, as defined by the railroad in the 
railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program under Sec.  
299.445, to record the position of switch points in advance of the 
trainset at speeds of 170 km/h (106 mph) and below, and to capture 
images in daylight or with normal nighttime illumination from the 
headlight of the trainset; and
    (5) Include an accurate time and date stamp on image recordings.
    (c) Inward-facing image recording device requirements for leading 
trainset cabs used in revenue service. (1) The image recording system 
shall include an image recording device positioned to provide complete 
coverage of all areas of the leading trainset cab where a crewmember 
typically may be positioned, including complete coverage of the 
instruments and controls required to operate the trainset in normal 
use, and--
    (i) Have sufficient resolution, as defined in the railroad's 
inspection, testing, and maintenance program under Sec.  299.445, to 
record crewmember actions;
    (ii) Record at a minimum frame rate of 5 frames per second;
    (iii) Be capable of using ambient light in the cab, and when 
ambient light levels drop too low for normal operation, automatically 
switch to infrared or another operating mode that enables the recording 
sufficient clarity to comply with the requirements of this paragraph 
(c)(1); and
    (iv) Include an accurate time and date stamp on image recordings.
    (2) Inward-facing image recording devices shall not be installed in 
a location where the device can record activities within a trainset 
cab's sanitation compartment, as defined in Sec.  229.5 of this 
chapter, and shall not be used to make recordings of any activities 
within a trainset cab's sanitation compartment.
    (3) If a leading trainset cab used in revenue service experiences a 
technical failure of its inward-facing image recording system, then the 
system shall be removed from service and handled in accordance with 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (d) Image recording system protection requirements for leading 
trainset cabs used in revenue service. The railroad must provide 
convenient wired or wireless connections to allow authorized railroad 
personnel to download audio or image recordings from any certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module in leading trainset cabs used 
in revenue service. The railroad also must use electronic security 
measure(s), and apply appropriate cybersecurity measures, to prevent 
unauthorized access to, and download, deletion, or alteration of, the 
recording system or its recordings.
    (e) Inspection, testing, and maintenance for image recording 
systems in leading trainset cabs used in revenue service. (1) The image 
recording system in trainsets used in revenue service shall have self-
monitoring features to assess whether the system is operating properly, 
including whether the system is powered on.
    (2) Periodic inspection requirements for the trainset image 
recording system shall be defined in the railroad's inspection, 
testing, and maintenance program required under Sec.  299.445. As part 
of the periodic inspection, the railroad shall take sample download(s) 
from the image recording system's crashworthy memory module to confirm 
proper operation of the system, and, if necessary, repair the system to 
full operation.
    (f) Handling of recordings. (1) Chain-of-custody procedure. The 
railroad shall develop, adopt, maintain, and comply with a chain-of-
custody procedure governing the handling and the release of the image 
recordings described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section and 
any audio recordings. The chain-of-custody procedure must specifically 
address the preservation and handling requirements for post-accident/
incident

[[Page 70765]]

recordings provided to FRA or other Federal agencies under paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section.
    (2) Accident/incident preservation. If any trainset equipped with 
an image or audio recording system is involved in an accident/incident 
that must be reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter, the 
railroad shall, to the extent possible, and to the extent consistent 
with the safety of life and property, preserve the data recorded by the 
system for analysis by FRA or other Federal agencies. The railroad must 
either provide the image and/or audio data in a format readable by FRA 
or other Federal agencies; or make available to FRA or other Federal 
agencies any platform, software, media device, etc., that is required 
to play back the image and/or audio data. This preservation requirement 
shall expire one year after the date of the accident unless FRA or 
another Federal agency notifies the railroad in writing that it must 
preserve the recording longer. The railroad may extract and analyze 
such data for the purposes described in paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section, only if--
    (i) The original downloaded data file, or an unanalyzed exact copy 
of it, is retained in secure custody under the railroad's procedure 
adopted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) It is not utilized for analysis or any other purpose, except 
by direction of FRA or another Federal agency.
    (3) Recording uses. Subject to the conditions specified in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the railroad may use image and audio 
recordings from a leading trainset cab used in revenue service subject 
to this section to--
    (i) Investigate an accident/incident that is required to be 
reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter;
    (ii) Investigate a violation of a Federal railroad safety law, 
regulation, or order, or the railroad's operating rules and procedures;
    (iii) Conduct an operational test under Sec.  299.505;
    (iv) Monitor for unauthorized occupancy of a trainset's cab or 
operating compartment;
    (v) Investigate a violation of a criminal law;
    (vi) Assist Federal agencies in the investigation of a suspected or 
confirmed act of terrorism; or
    (vii) Perform inspection, testing, maintenance, or repair 
activities to ensure the proper installation and functioning of an 
image or audio recorder as required under paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section.
    (g) Image recording system approval process. The railroad must 
submit for approval a description of the technical aspects of its 
trainset image recording system installed pursuant this section. The 
required description must be submitted via electronic mail to the 
following email address: [email protected].
    (1) The description must specifically address the image recording 
system's--
    (i) Minimum 12-hour continuous recording capability;
    (ii) Crashworthiness; and
    (iii) Post-accident accessibility of the system's recordings.
    (2) The railroad must submit the written statement not less than 90 
days before the installation of such image recording system.
    (3) The Associate Administrator will review the railroad's 
description and may approve, or disapprove, the image recording system 
if it does not meet the requirements of this section. FRA may 
disapprove any recording systems that do not meet the requirements of 
this section.
    (h) Relationship to other laws. Nothing in this section is intended 
to alter the legal authority of law enforcement officials investigating 
potential violation(s) of State criminal law(s), and nothing in this 
section is intended to alter in any way the priority of investigations 
under 49 U.S.C. 1131 and 1134, or the authority of the Secretary of 
Transportation to investigate railroad accidents under 49 U.S.C. 5121, 
5122, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20505, 20702, 20703, and 20902.
    (i) Removal of an image recording system or device from service and 
handling for repair. (1) Notwithstanding the duty established in 
paragraph (a) of this section to equip trainsets cabs used in revenue 
service with an image recording system, the railroad--
    (i) May remove from service the entire image recording system or an 
image recording device in a leading trainset cab used in revenue 
service for any reason.
    (ii) Must remove from service the entire image recording system or 
an image recording device in a leading trainset cab used in revenue 
service if the railroad knows the system or device is not properly 
recording.
    (2) When a railroad removes the entire image recording system or an 
image recording device in a leading trainset cab used in revenue 
service from service, a qualified person shall record the date the 
system or device was removed from service in the trainset's maintenance 
records.
    (3) A trainset on which the entire image recording system, or an 
image recording device in a leading trainset cab used in revenue 
service, has been taken out of service as provided in paragraphs 
(i)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section may be used as a leading trainset cab 
in revenue service only until the next pre-service inspection required 
under the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
    (4) A trainset with an image recording device that has been taken 
out of service on only one cab end may be used in revenue service 
beyond the next pre-service inspection without repair provided the 
other cab end is the leading end of the trainset and the image 
recording system is otherwise operative for that cab end.
    (5) A trainset with an inoperative image recording device alone is 
not deemed to be in an improper condition, unsafe to operate, or non-
complying under Sec.  299.447. However, a trainset with an entire image 
record system taken out of service or image recording devices taken out 
service in both cab ends, may not be used in revenue service beyond the 
next pre-service inspection required under the railroad's inspection, 
testing, and maintenance program without repair or replacement of the 
non-operative system or devices.
    (j) Disabling or interfering with locomotive-mounted audio and 
video recording equipment. Any individual who willfully disables or 
interferes with the intended functioning of image or audio recording 
system equipment mounted in a leading trainset cab used in revenue 
service, or who tampers with or alters the data recorded by such 
equipment, is subject to a civil penalty and to disqualification from 
performing safety-sensitive functions on a railroad as provided in 
parts 209 and 218 of this chapter.
    (k) Employee protections. (1) If inward-facing image or in-cab 
audio trainset recordings are utilized to conduct operational tests and 
inspections under Sec.  299.505, the railroad shall adopt and comply 
with a procedure in its operational tests and inspections program that 
ensures employees are randomly subject to such operational tests and 
inspections involving image or audio recordings. The procedure adopted 
must:
    (i) Establish objective, neutral criteria to ensure every employee 
subject to such operational tests and inspections is selected randomly 
for such operational tests and inspections within a specified time 
frame;
    (ii) Not permit subjective factors to play a role in selection, 
i.e., no employee may be selected based on the exercise of the 
railroad's discretion; and
    (iii) Require that any operational test or inspection using 
trainset image or audio recordings be performed within 72 hours of the 
completion of the

[[Page 70766]]

employee's tour of duty that is the subject of the operational test. 
Any operational test performed more than 72 hours after the completion 
of the tour of duty that is the subject of the test is a violation of 
this section. The 72-hour limitation does not apply to investigations 
of railroad accidents/incidents or to violations of Federal railroad 
safety laws, regulations, or orders, or any criminal laws.
    (2) FRA may review the railroad's procedure implementing paragraph 
(k)(1) of this section, and, for cause stated, may disapprove such 
procedure under Sec.  299.505(h).

0
16. Revise the introductory paragraph of appendix A to part 299 to read 
as follows:

Appendix A to Part 299--Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event 
Recorder Memory Module

    Section 299.439(c) requires that trainsets be equipped with an 
event recorder that includes a certified crashworthy event recorder 
memory module. Section 299.449(a)(1) requires the railroad to 
install an image recording system in its trainsets used in revenue 
service. As required by Sec.  299.449(a)(4), data from these image 
recording systems must be recorded on a certified crashworthy memory 
module or an alternative, remote storage system that provides at 
least equivalent data protections and is approved by FRA under Sec.  
299.15. This appendix prescribes the requirements for certifying an 
event recorder memory module (ERMM) or a trainset-mounted audio and/
or image recording device memory module as crashworthy. For purposes 
of this appendix, a trainset-mounted audio or image recording system 
memory module is also considered an ERMM. This appendix includes the 
performance criteria and test sequence for establishing the 
crashworthiness of the ERMM as well as the marking of the event 
recorder containing the crashworthy ERMM.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-21291 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


