Order Code IB10030
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Railroad Safety Program and
Reauthorization Issues
Updated July 10, 2002
Paul F. Rothberg
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
John Williamson
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Overview of the Scope and Nature of FRA’s Safety Program
Regulatory Development and the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
Proposed Rule
Final Rules
Compliance and Enforcement
Railroad Safety Statistics
Key Reauthorization and Other Current Topics
Fatigue and Hours of Service
Alleged Harassment and Intimidation
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety
Track Safety Standards
Other Legislative Initiatives
Maintain the Status Quo
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

---

IB10030
07-10-02
Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues
SUMMARY
The Federal Railroad Administration
a new statute affecting railroad safety is
(FRA) of the U.S. Department of
difficult, especially when a balance is sought
Transportation (DOT) is the primary federal
among the interests of public safety, railroad
agency that promotes and regulates railroad
labor, and management. The costs and
safety. To implement its safety
benefits of new regulations and revised
responsibilities, FRA uses numerous
federal programs affecting railroad operations
strategies including the Safety Assurance and
also are major considerations.
Compliance Program (SACP), field
inspections, and the Railroad Safety Advisory
Several hearings on railroad safety were
Committee (RSAC). SACP involves
held during the 105th, 106th, and 107th
numerous partnerships forged by railroad
Congresses, but no consensus has yet been
management, FRA personnel, and labor to
reached on a railroad safety reauthorization
improve safety and compliance with federal
bill. In P.L. 105-277, Congress appropriated
railroad safety regulations. About 390 FRA
$77.3 million in FY 1999 to fund the activities
personnel and 150 state inspectors oversee the
of FRA’s Office of Safety and administrative
operations of the railroad industry in the field.
expenses of other associated offices within
RSAC uses a consensus-based process
FRA, P. L. 106-69 appropriated $94.288
involving hundreds of experts who work
million for FRA’s FY2000 railroad safety
together to formulate recommendations on
program and related expenses, and for
new or revised safety regulations for FRA’s
FY2001, P.L. 106-346 appropriated $101.7
consideration.
million for these activities. In P.L. 107-87
Congress appropriated $110.9 million for
The combined impacts of SACP, RSAC,
these expenses for FY2002, rejecting once
and billions of dollars of investment in
more the Administration’s request for user
railroad infrastructure, as well as other
fees. And for FY 2003, the Administration
industry, labor, and government initiatives,
requested $122.9 million.
have yielded improvements in railroad safety,
especially during the last 10 years. Despite
This issue brief discusses various rail
those advances, further improvements in both
safety issues that either were considered
the safety record and FRA’s regulations and
during the 106th Congress or are being
programs are possible, but each approach has
discussed during the 107th Congress. Those
its own potential benefits and costs.
include: whether the railroads should be
required to develop fatigue management
The last railroad safety reauthorization
plans, whether changes in the hours of service
statute (P.L. 103-440) was enacted in 1994
requirements for railroad workers should be
and funding authority for that program
instituted, whether increased protection for
expired at the end of FY1998. FRA safety
railroad workers from alleged harassment and
programs continue using the authorities of
intimidation is needed, and whether federal
existing laws and funds appropriated annually.
efforts and FRA funding levels to improve
The reauthorization process provides an
grade crossing safety are adequate. Also, the
opportunity to review federal policies and
option of simply reauthorizing current federal
programs, to consider the current state of
railroad safety law without any new
railroad safety, and to explore various options
requirements or authorities for FRA to
intended to further improve safety. Enacting
implement is analyzed.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10030
07-10-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 106th Congress considered several bills intended to improve railroad safety. On
March 24, 1999, Senator Lott et al. introduced S. 712, which would have allowed postal
patrons to contribute funds to promote highway-rail grade crossing safety through the
purchase of specially-issued U.S. postage stamps. On July 1, 1999, Representative Oberstar
introduced H.R. 2450, which included provisions to reduce employee fatigue, increase
protection of railroad employees, and strengthen grade crossing safety. S. 1144, as reported
to the Senate on January 7, 2000, would have required the Secretary to revise traffic signs
at grade crossings. The Clinton Administration submitted a revised railroad safety
reauthorization bill that was introduced by request as H.R. 2683 and S. 1496 (106th
Congress). P.L. 106-346 appropriated $101.7 million for FRA’s FY2001 railroad safety
program and related expenses. (See “Appropriations for FY2001: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies,” CRS Report RL30508.) On July 18, 2000, the
Subcommittee on Ground Transportation of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on FRA’s rulemaking proceeding regarding a provision of the
Swift Rail Development Act (P.L. 103-440) requiring audible warnings at public
highway-rail grade crossings (49 U.S.C. 20153) under certain conditions.
Several bills regarding railroad safety have been introduced in the 107th Congress. For
example, Representative Dingell on February 6, 2001, introduced H.R. 432, which would
authorize state or local governments to enact laws or regulations to address trains
obstructing highway/rail grade crossings, unless regulations were issued by the Secretary
of Transportation by August 1, 2002. On February 12, 2001, Representative Young
introduced H.R. 554, which would require the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
to serve as a liaison between rail passenger carriers and families of accident victims. The
House passed H.R. 554 on February 14, 2001. On May 9, 2001, H.R. 1020, which directs
the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program of capital grants to Class II and
Class III railroads to rehabilitate, preserve, or improve railroad track and related
infrastructure, was marked up by the railroad subcommittee, amended and returned for
consideration by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On May 20,
2001, Rep. Petterson introduced H.R. 1942 which would require that the National
Transportation Safety Board investigate all rail grade crossing accidents where there are
fatalities or high property damage. On June 12, 2001, Senator Levin et al. introduced S.
1015 which would require the Secretary of Transportation to address safety concerns and
to minimize delays for motorists at railroad grade crossings. The Bush Administration has
not yet submitted its proposal for reauthorization of the FRA railroad safety program.

After the events of September 11, 2001, hearings were held on railroad safety and
security and legislation was considered. See: CRS Electronic Briefing Book
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter151.html].
The derailment of one of Amtrak’s only profitable operations, the Virginia-Florida
Auto Train, on April 18, 2002, resulted in four deaths and over 130 injuries. Although
investigations by FRA and NTSB continue, initial reports suggest that track or roadbed
conditions may have been a primary factor. Hearings on track safety were held in March
2001 by the railroad subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.

CRS-1

---

IB10030
07-10-02
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The FRA of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is the primary federal
agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. Every few years, the Congress amends
or reauthorizes the federal railroad safety law that governs FRA’s program. The last railroad
safety statute (P.L. 103-440) was enacted in 1994 and funding authority for that program
expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs continue using the authorities of
existing laws and funds appropriated annually.
The primary objective of federal law pertaining to railroad safety is to promote the
safety of railroad employees, passengers, and the public. FRA exercises jurisdiction over
all aspects of railroad safety as provided for in the Rail Safety Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-458).
More recent safety laws enacted during the last 25 years, such as P.L. 96-423, P.L. 100-342,
P.L. 102-365, and P.L. 103-440, have been designed to accomplish a variety of more specific
objectives. For example, those statutes provided specific authorities to FRA that are
intended to reduce drug and alcohol problems in the railroad industry, reduce the frequency
of highway-rail grade crossing incidents, and strengthen the civil penalty process and
increase penalty amounts authorized to be imposed on those individuals and companies that
violate federal railroad safety regulations. A list of federalrailroad safety laws may be found
at [http://www.fra.dot.gov/counsel/regs/cfr_49_jan1998/index.htm]
The reauthorization process provides an opportunity to review FRA’s safety programs
and policies, and evaluate various options intended to further improve railroad safety.
Enacting new law in the railroad safety arena is difficult, especially when a balance is sought
among the sometimes conflicting interests of railroad safety, labor, and management. The
cost and benefits of new regulations and FRA’s programs affecting railroad operations also
are major considerations.
Presented below is an overview of the scope and nature of FRA’s current safety
program, including a discussion of its regulatory development processes and the strategies
used to promote safety. In addition, the safety record of railroad operations is analyzed.
Those topics bear on the legislative issues pertaining to reauthorization, which are discussed
in the last section of the issue brief.
Overview of the Scope and Nature of FRA’s Safety
Program
The national railroad system consists of more than 661 railroads (including about 9
major (Class I) carriers that control more than 90% of rail freight revenues), with over
265,000 employees, 1.2 million freight cars, 20,000 locomotives, and 220,000 miles of track.
The safety of that system affects millions of people who commute by rail each year, billions
of dollars of commerce transported by railroads each year, millions of commuters who drive
over highway-rail grade crossings each year, and millions of residents who live near railroad
tracks used to transport hazardous materials. Safety is primarily the responsibility of the
industry and its employees, as well as the motoring public, especially at highway-rail grade
crossings. The FRA and state and local governments also are participants in the safety
process.
CRS-2

---

IB10030
07-10-02
The development of new or revised regulations, the assessment of the safety operations
of railroads, and the promotion of compliance with the federal safety regulations form the
core of FRA’s safety program. FRA uses numerous strategies to implement those functions.
For example, FRA issues the federal railroad safety regulations that prescribe a minimum
or floor level of safety standards affecting various aspects of railroad operations. Those
regulations include standards for track, signals, brake testing, operating equipment, engineer
certification, and maintenance of highway-rail grade crossings. Some 390 FRA railroad
safety personnel conduct audits or investigations of railroads, their personnel, and shippers
offering hazardous materials for rail transportation, or conduct other safety-oriented
activities. Federal inspectors check for compliance with the federal safety regulations, which
include hazardous materials transportation regulations pertaining to railroad transportation.
When deemed appropriate, FRA’s safety personnel, working with their attorneys, issue civil
penalties or pursue stronger actions that are imposed against railroads, hazardous materials
shippers, or employees who are alleged not to be in compliance with the safety regulations.
In addition to team and individual inspections, the agency conducts the Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program, which is discussed below.
FRA’s resources also help train about 150 state inspectors who submit reports of
probable violations of the safety regulations to FRA. Those state inspectors also work
jointly with federal personnel on various safety issues. Each year federal and state railroad
inspectors are able to audit only a small part of the industry. Government safety personnel
also provide technical and educational assistance, especially to small and historic (or tourist)
railroads.
In P.L. 105-277, Congress appropriated $77.3 million in FY1999 to fund the activities
of FRA’s Office of Safety and administrative expenses of other associated offices within
FRA. In the FY2000 budget, the Clinton Administration requested $95.462 million for those
expenses. Most of those funds are used to pay for salaries as well as associated travel and
training expenses for field and headquarters staff and for information systems monitoring
the safety performance of the industry. P.L. 106-69 appropriated $94.288 million for FRA’s
FY2000 railroad safety program and related expenses. In its FY2001 budget submission, the
Clinton Administration requested $103.2 million for these activities. P.L. 106-346
appropriated $101.7 million for these activities in FY 2001. P.L. 107-87 appropriated
$110.9 million for these expenses in FY2002, rejecting the Bush Administration’s request
for user fees. For FY2003, the Administration proposed $122.9 million, and again requested
user fees (which the Administration said would reduce the net request by about $45 million).
Regulatory Development and the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee
The Railroad Safety Act of 1970 and subsequent railroad safety laws have provided the
legal basis for much of FRA’s regulatory agenda. Over the last 30 years, and often in
response to specific crashes involving railroads, Congress also has directed the FRA to issue
specific regulations in various technical areas. In many of its rulemaking procedures
conducted during the last two and one half years, FRA has made substantial use of the work
of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). That federal advisory committee helps
FRA develop new regulatory standards through a collaborative, consensus-based process
involving key segments of the railroad community. FRA either can choose to use, modify,
CRS-3

---

IB10030
07-10-02
or reject the recommendations from RSAC as it formulates notices of proposed rulemakings.
The record of the RSAC shows numerous accomplishments in a regulatory arena where
progress has often been difficult. (Two examples of final regulations that were expedited
by RSAC deliberations include revisions of the track standards and radio communication
regulations.) According to FRA, RSAC’s collaborative approach of creating regulations
established by a consensus of all involved parties yields rules that are more easily understood
and consistently complied with than rules produced by using FRA’s traditional, less
consultative method. Prior to the implementation of the RSAC, FRA’s rulemaking officials
had to deal more often with one or more parties that either threatened to challenge a new
regulation in court, or formally petitioned the FRA Administrator to reconsider the
imposition of a final rule. The RSAC process has reduced that concern for FRA and, in
general, is supported by both railroad labor and management.
Despite intensive work and prolonged debates, RSAC members sometimes cannot
reach an agreement on some issues, e.g., the development of power brake regulations. In
such cases, if the FRA decides to pursue a rulemaking using its conventional procedures, the
agency has the option of using the analysis obtained and research conducted earlier as part
of the RSAC deliberations.
The FRA issues each year many proposed safety regulations that often draw heavily
from the RSAC work. And after receiving comments from interested parties, FRA issues
final rules. An overview of FRA regulations, orders and notices may be found at:
[http://www.fra.dot.gov/counsel/regs/index.htm]. Illustrative recent rules, proposed and
finalized, are listed below.
Proposed Rule. 49 CFR Parts 209, 234, and 236 -- proposed in the Federal Register
(v. 66, no. 155) on August 10, 2001 (p. 42352) – is a performance standard for processor-
based signal and train control systems. The proposed rule also covers systems that interact
with highway-rail grade crossing systems and specifies requirements for notification to FRA.
Final Rules. On August 1, 2001, the FRA published in the Federal Register (v. 66,
no. 148, p. 39683) amendments to the final rule which revised the regulations governing
braking systems and equipment used in freight and other non-passenger railroad train
operations.
On August 9, 2001, the FRA published in the Federal Register (v. 66, no. 154, p.
41969) a final rule conforming its drug and alcohol testing regulation to the December 19,
2000, revision of DOT’s transportation workplace testing procedures.
Compliance and Enforcement
Historically, FRA conducted audits of the operation and equipment of many railroads,
sometimes found probable violations of the safety regulations, sometimes assessed penalties
against those railroad companies, and on many occasions issued out-of-service orders for
defective equipment. According to FRA, such team and individual inspector-based audits
still comprise about 70% of the agency’s inspection and enforcement program.
CRS-4

---

IB10030
07-10-02
FRA now complements its traditional enforcement approach with a much broader
strategy that seeks to promote overall railroad safety, improve labor/industry relationships
affecting safety, and strengthen commitments to safety by all involved parties. FRA’s new
strategy, which began to evolve in 1993 and was first implemented in 1995, is embodied in
the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP). As part of that process, FRA seeks
to determine the root causes of system wide safety problems and eliminate those through a
partnership effort involving railroad managers and employees who are directly affected by
safety challenges. Under SACP, FRA serves as a catalyst to bring labor and management
together to work collaboratively on safety issues.
A key component of the SACP is the “Safety Action Plan.” In that document, each
participating railroad describes steps it will take to correct systemic safety defects or areas
of noncompliance with the federal railroad safety and hazardous materials transportation
regulations. FRA claims that it works with the railroads to ensure that the plan is
implemented. The topics dealt with by the SACP process and the action plan may extend
considerably beyond compliance with the federal safety regulations. Depending on the
safety challenges found at a particular railroad, FRA may work with labor and management
to address such issues as: How can industry/labor relationships affecting safety be
improved? How can the “corporate culture” affecting safety be improved? How can
communications among labor organizations and senior management be improved? How can
rail labor and management work together to solve a particular safety problem?
According to FRA, the ultimate goal of the railroad safety program is zero tolerance for
any safety hazard in the industry. To reach that goal, FRA managers seek to direct their
inspection and enforcement resources at the most critical safety problems. In some cases,
the FRA has noted that some railroads have taken major steps and invested substantial sums
to improve the safety of their operations and the compliance with the federal safety
regulations. In some other cases, FRA found continuing problems of alleged non-
compliance; and, consequently, FRA issued civil penalties and took other actions to promote
compliance with the safety regulations and to address safety issues.
Some are critical of the FRA compliance and enforcement program. For example, at
times some in rail labor complain that the vitality and vigor of the program needs to be
increased. On the other hand, some in rail management complain that FRA’s proposed civil
penalties for alleged noncompliance with the safety regulations are too high. As is the case
with each of the various modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
FRA faces the challenge of using a mix of appropriate strategies to promote safety and to
improve compliance with its regulations.
Railroad Safety Statistics
The long-term safety record of the railroad industry is important to consider when
evaluating various legislative alternatives regarding the future of the federal railroad safety
program or the possible imposition of future regulatory requirements. Those opposing the
mandating of various new safety regulations in a reauthorization bill often cite the steady and
significant improvements in the long-term safety record of the industry, while proponents
of legislation specifying new safety requirements cite opportunities to further improve the
CRS-5

---

IB10030
07-10-02
safety record. The following discussion summarizes the overall safety record and focuses
on statistics involving highway-rail grade crossing crashes.
The safety record of railroad operations, as measured using a variety of different
criteria, continues to improve steadily. Table 1 shows safety data for two recent time
periods: between 1986 through 1993 (under FRA’s more traditional approach of using
primarily site-specific enforcement actions to promote compliance with the safety
regulations), and from 1993 through 2000 (under the new SACP approach and the time
period immediately leading towards the SACP).
Table 1. Safety Improvements
1986
1993
Change
1993
2000
Change
from 1986
from 1993
through
through
1993
2000
Total Railroad Related Fatalities
1,091 1,279
17.23% 1,279
937
-26.7%
Crossing Fatalities a
616
626
1.62%
626
425
-32.1%
Trespasser Fatalities b
398
523
31.41%
523
463
-11.5%
EOD Casualties c
22,444 15,410
-31.3% 15,410 8,447
-45.2%
EOD Casualty Rated
6.97
5.93
-14.9%
5.93
3.44
-42.0%
Train Accidents e
2,761 2,785
0.87% 2,785 3,193
14.65%
Excluding Highway-Rail
2,620 2,611
-0.34% 2,611 2,983
14.25%
Crossings
Train Accident Rate
4.87
4.54
-6.83%
4.54
4.42
-2.62%
Excluding Highway-Rail
4.62
4.25
-7.95%
4.25
4.13
-2.96%
Crossings
a Includes all trespasser and employee fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings.
b Does not include trespasser deaths at grade crossings.
c EOD = Employee on Duty. The casualties shown include both employee deaths (roughly 35 per
year) and the rest as injuries, most of which are due to nontrain incidents.
d Rate = number of cases per 200,000 hours worked.
e A “train accident” involves a fatality resulting from a collision, derailment, fire, etc., that caused
monetary damage to on-track equipment or to the track above a specified dollar threshold —
in 2000 that threshold limit was $6,600. “Other incidents” involve any other situation that
resulted in a death but did not result in railroad damage above the threshold limit. Those
definitions are specified by FRA and are used throughout the industry.
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
The train accident rates (excluding crossings) from 1978 through 2000 are presented
in Figure 1 below.
CRS-6

---

IB10030
07-10-02
* Train Accident Rate–Train Accidents Per Million Train Miles
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
FRA data indicate that the total number of fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings
decreased from 488 during 1996, to 461 in 1997, to 431 in 1998, to 402 in 1999, but
increased to 425 in 2000. Also, FRA data indicate that the number of trespasser fatalities
in incidents that do not involve crossings went from 469 during 1996, to 529 in 1997, to 535
in 1998, and dropped to 463 in 2000. From 1997 to 2000, trespasser fatalities occurring in
incidents not involving grade crossings outnumbered total grade crossing fatalities and were
the largest single component of railroad-related fatalities. Grade crossing and trespasser
incidents combined account for about 95% of the fatalities associated with railroad
transportation in 2000. The FRA says that about 90% of the fatalities that occur at grade
crossings are the result of a driver failing to stop at a crossing or stopping and then
proceeding in error.
In recent years (1996-2000), between 4-14 passenger deaths occurred each year on the
nation’s railroads. Historically, many passenger deaths have little, if anything, to do with
actual railroad operations. For example, some fatalities occur when a passenger is getting
on or off the train. Events external to railroad operations, such as a barge operator hitting
a rail bridge and causing a train to derail or a truck driver violating the traffic signals at a
crossing and causing a collision with a passenger train, sometimes have led to catastrophic
disasters. During the last 10 years, several major train crashes, however, occurred involving
passenger fatalities that were directly related to train operations.
Although there are variations in the safety record or the degree of regulatory
compliance of an individual railroad from year to year, the long-term indicators document
CRS-7

---

IB10030
07-10-02
that improvements in railroad safety have already been made. However, increases in rail
traffic in the past few years combined with a decline in railroad capital improvement (reports
indicate that rail capital investment in 2001 was half that of 1996) have led to an increase
in track-caused and human factor-caused accidents. In addition, catastrophic events can
occur at any time.
Key Reauthorization and Other Current Topics
Debate over the reauthorization of the federal railroad safety program generally
includes two major considerations: whether to authorize funding for continuation of the core
FRA safety program (including RSAC, SACP, and the basic compliance and enforcement
activities), and whether to provide FRA with any new authorities or mandates to issue new
regulations. Debate over the first consideration is generally not controversial. Debate over
the second consideration has historically proven to be much more problematic because of
the complexity of the issues and the diversity of perspectives help by railroad labor,
management, and FRA. Some of the issues debated as part of the reauthorization process
included: Should railroads be required to implement fatigue management plans? Should the
hours of service regulations be extended to cover additional railroad workers? What should
be done, if anything, to deal more effectively with alleged harassment and intimidation of
railroad workers? What might be done to further reduce death and injury at highway-rail
grade crossings?
Those issues were discussed during the 105th Congress and again during the 106th
Congress, and are likely to be relevant to the debate during the 107th Congress. Brief
background information and analysis on each issue is presented below, and other current
topics also are considered.
Fatigue and Hours of Service
Fatigue due to excessive work hours or numerous shifts in working schedules may
reduce the alertness, mental acuity, and judgement of operating employees. As the NTSB
has noted, unpredictable work and rest cycles can adversely affect the performance of the
duties of a train crew, and ultimately, the safety of railroad operations. To help deal with
those challenges, labor and management on some railroads are working cooperatively to
reduce fatigue and related job stress. On some railroads, employees, however, claim that
they still face difficult conditions, such as working numerous concurrent 12-hour days
without sufficient time off to rest and dealing with unpredictable work schedules.
There are numerous approaches that have been considered that might reduce fatigue and
stress in the railroad environment. During hearings held in recent years, the legislative
option that received the most attention was included in the Clinton Administration’s
reauthorization proposal. (Note– The Bush Administration has not yet submitted a railroad
safety reauthorization proposal to Congress.) The Clinton Administration’s proposal would
have required specified railroads to develop programs to minimize the occurrence of fatigue-
related crashes and to submit a fatigue management plan that addressed appropriate fatigue
countermeasures, training on fatigue issues, screening for sleep disorders, and scheduling
practices for railroad operations. FRA approval of the plans would have been required. In
support of this proposal during testimony delivered on September 16, 1998, before the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Senate Committee on
CRS-8

---

IB10030
07-10-02
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the FRA Administrator indicated that about one-
third of railroad accidents/incidents are caused by human factors and cited fatigue of
operating employees as the most pervasive railroad safety issue. The FRA Administrator
at the time (Jolene Molitoris) concluded that fatigue management was an essential element
for improving railroad safety. Some union representatives, such as the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen, favored the Clinton Administration’s proposal regarding fatigue
management.
Several concerns regarding the Clinton Administration’s proposal were raised during
various hearings held in the 105th Congress. Many in industry do not want mandated fatigue
management plans that would have to meet specified requirements set by FRA. Those
supporting that view assert that joint labor/management demonstration projects to reduce
fatigue already are improving safety and advancing the current state of knowledge. Because
those efforts are being pursued on a voluntary basis, they see no need for mandated federal
requirements to deal with fatigue and work schedules. Given the complexity and detailed
requirements of the Clinton Administration’s proposal, some maintain that the proposed
requirements for a fatigue management plan are too prescriptive and burdensome.
The Clinton Administration’s 1998 safety proposal also sought to extend the coverage
of the existing Hours of Service Act to some workers involved in railroad operations who
are not currently covered and to clarify coverage in the case of employees working for two
different railroads. When commenting on that proposal before a subcommittee of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 20, 1998, a spokesman for the
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (BRC) Division of the Transportation Communications
International Union favored the concept of extending the coverage of the hours of service
regulations and stated that the changes were long overdue. On the other hand, the
Association of American Railroads (AAR) supported simply reauthorizing the basic FRA
safety program without a change in the coverage of the Hours of Service Act and without
the inclusion of new mandates for additional regulations.
The Clinton Administration’s last reauthorization proposal, which was introduced by
request as H.R. 2683 (of the 106th Congress) on August 3, 1999, was similar in many
respects to the proposal considered by the 105th Congress. The 1999 proposal would have
required specified freight railroads and passenger carriers to develop detailed fatigue
management plans and submit those for FRA’s review. The plans, which FRA proposed to
monitor periodically, would have pertained to employees who are covered by the Hours of
Service Act and employees who construct or maintain track. Similar to the proposal
considered during the 105th Congress, the Clinton Administration’s revised proposal sought
to extend the coverage of the existing Hours of Service Act to some workers involved in
railroad operations who are not currently covered and to clarify coverage in the case of
employees working for two different railroads or a railroad and a railroad contractor.
Debate on reauthorization also has involved the issue of whether FRA should be
authorized to set new hours of service requirements for railroad workers already covered by
the Hours of Service Act. The maximum number of hours that those railroad employees can
work and the minimum number of hours of off duty time required before those employees
can return to work are specified in law. Consequently, the existing statutory requirements
do not allow FRA to issue regulations revising the hours of service.
CRS-9

---

IB10030
07-10-02
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Clinton Administration did not propose to
provide FRA with the authority to issue new hours of service requirements. The Clinton
Administration recognized that both rail labor and management historically have not favored
that approach. Instead, the Clinton Administration proposed the amendments to the Hours
of Service Act that are described above. In various congressional hearings, the NTSB has
stated that it does not agree with the FRA position. The Safety Board maintains it is time
to reassess the appropriateness of the current Hours of Service Act because that Act does not
accommodate increased commuting distances crews encounter in going from one job
location to the next; the need to rest, eat, or attend to personal matters; or address the
advances in our scientific understanding of human work/rest scheduling requirements.
On July 23, 2001, Rep. LaTourette introduced H.R. 2596 which would amend the Hours
of Service Act to give train employees 72 consecutive hours of rest after being on duty or
available for duty for seven consecutive days or any portion thereof.
Alleged Harassment and Intimidation
Allegations regarding harassment and intimidation of some railroad workers continue
to be an ongoing problem in some segments of the railroad industry. The Clinton
Administration’s 1998 reauthorization proposal included provisions that were designed to
strengthen protection for railroad employees who report on-the-job injuries or illnesses,
cooperate with FRA or NTSB safety investigations, or refuse to authorize the use of
potentially hazardous equipment, track, or railroad-related structures under specified
conditions. Many in railroad management opposed those provisions, arguing that existing
law provides sufficient protection and that the railroads take many steps to reduce
harassment and intimidation by their managers against employees. For example, in
testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Railroads on May 20, 1998, a representative of the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association stated that the Clinton Administration’s proposal:
... would greatly extend and expand the sanctions and penalties which are already in place
to protect railroad employees from harassment and intimidation. The problem is that there
has been no showing of a compelling need for such an extreme remedy. Also the
potential legal and liability burden that would be imposed on our member railroad
companies and their managerial employees is of grave concern.
The representative also objected to the section of this proposal bill that would have increased
the penalties for railroads who discriminate against, suspend or discharge employees for
protected acts by eliminating the current $20,000 ceiling governing such cases and
authorizing punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages in all cases.

In contrast, in testimony at the same hearing, a representative of the BRC supported the
provisions of the proposal bill to strengthen legal protections against harassment and
intimidation. He stated:
While the statute’s current anti-retaliatory language protects only operating employees
who refuse to operate unsafe equipment, the proposed bill would expand such protection
to include those inspection and repair employees who refuse to falsely certify the safety
of track, locomotives, rolling stock or signal systems. This is a long overdue change that
will help ensure that all safety-sensitive rail employees will feel free to place safety above
a fear of being disciplined or otherwise harassed for doing what is, after all, their job.
CRS-10

---

IB10030
07-10-02
With respect to the challenge of dealing with alleged harassment and intimidation, the
Clinton Administration’s revised reauthorization proposal, as introduced in the 106th
Congress contained many similar (or identical) approaches to those included in the 1998
reauthorization bill. For example, like the 1998 proposal, the revised proposal was intended
to expand the scope of protected activities, such as a car inspector reporting to a railroad
carrier a potential danger to other railroad employees, and strengthen the remedies available
to railroad employees who report certain injuries or cooperate with crash investigators.
Similar to the proposal submitted to the 105th Congress, the Clinton Administration wanted
to strengthen relief available to employees who suffer suspension, discharge, or another form
of discrimination for certain protected activities. Under current law, FRA maintains that if
the violation of protected activities does not involve pay, the employee may be granted
reasonable damages, including punitive damages up to $20,000. H.R. 2683, of the 106th
Congress, proposed to allow the possibility of receiving punitive damages in all cases,
including those involving pay, and to improve the relief available by increasing the ceiling
on punitive damages from $20,000 to $100,000. In its 1998 proposal, the Clinton
Administration sought to eliminate the cap on all money damages for discrimination not
affecting pay.
There were alternatives to the Clinton Administration’s proposal. For example, H.R.
2666, of the 106th Congress, would have provided the Secretary of Transportation with the
authority to issue an order that would exclude from employment certain supervisors which
had harassed or intimidated a railroad employee with the intent of discouraging that
employee from reporting an accident or injury or practices that violate the safety regulations,
or “... who has demonstrated personal dishonesty or willful or continuing disregard for
railroad safety or the integrity or accuracy of railroad safety reporting requirements...”
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety
About 4000 times each year a train and a highway vehicle collide at a highway/rail
grade crossing. Safety at public crossings is primarily a responsibility of state and local
transportation officials, railroads, law enforcement officers, and the motoring public. State
transportation personnel seek careful engineering of roadways crossing track and appropriate
pavement markings, signs and guardrails at crossings. Those infrastructure investments,
however, require capital and often must compete with other funding priorities. Railroad
personnel are required to maintain and check for proper function of signals at crossings.
Adequate enforcement of state and local codes and regulations pertaining to traffic
movements at crossings is recognized as an essential component of safety. Enforcement
officers, however, often have many other priorities and responsibilities that limit the time
that can be devoted to grade crossing safety. Another means intended to promote safety is
to close a grade crossing. Since 1991, when FRA set a goal of closing 25% of the U.S. grade
crossings by 2001, over 31,000 have been eliminated, which is a net reduction of 11%.
Because elimination of crossings is frequently expensive, this approach is not always
possible, and it often meets with opposition at the local level.
The FRA uses a multifaceted approach intended to improve highway-rail grade crossing
safety. Among the key strategies used are: employing FRA field staff to help communities
address grade crossing problems, working with law enforcement personnel to increase traffic
safety at crossings, and sponsoring public education and outreach activities.
CRS-11

---

IB10030
07-10-02
For several years now, FRA has allocated roughly $1 million annually to help support
the activities of Operation Lifesaver, Inc., (OL), which is a nationwide, non-profit
organization dedicated towards reducing deaths and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings
and along railroad rights-of-way. For example, the FY2000 conference agreement
accompanying P.L. 106-69 increased funding for OL to $950,000 and provided support for
a national public service campaign to increase awareness to crossing safety and trespass
prevention. The FY2001 conference agreement which accompanied P.L. 106-346 increased
Operation Lifesaver (OL) funding to $1,025,000 and provided $300,000 of that for a national
public service campaign. In addition to the support received from FRA, OL receives
$500,000 each year from the Federal Highway Trust Fund to help defray primarily the
administrative costs of running OL. The states also allocate a minimum of about $145
million of their federal highway trust fund monies each year to improve the infrastructure
at crossings.
As part of the reauthorization process, numerous options to improve grade crossing
safety have been considered. For example, H.R. 2450, introduced in the 106th Congress,
included various provisions pertaining to emergency notification of operating problems at
crossings. That bill would have required each railroad carrier to establish and maintain a
toll-free telephone service to receive calls reporting malfunctions of signals and gates at
highway-rail grade crossings over which it dispatches trains and disabled vehicles blocking
railroad tracks at such crossings. Many railroads have already installed toll-free telephone
lines to facilitate the reporting of malfunctioning grade crossings equipment, but those
systems are not universal. Both 106th Congress measures, H.R. 2682 and S. 1559, would
have required DOT to develop a model state law with penalties for violations of crossing
signals, would have required states and railroads to submit current information to be used
in the national grade crossing inventory that helps identify high risk crossings, and sought
to expand toll-free systems for the notification of signal malfunctions or other safety
problems at grade crossings. Other options intended to improve grade crossing safety that
were discussed included: providing for a specific amount of funds for OL as part of the
authorization for FRA’s safety program, and specifying additional guidance or directives
regarding the grade crossing activities of the FRA.
On March 24, 1999, Senator Lott and three co-sponsors introduced S. 712 (106th
Congress), which would have allowed postal patrons to contribute funds to promote
highway-rail grade crossing safety through the purchase of specially issued U.S. postage
stamps. Net funds from those purchases would have been used to support OL activities.
When introducing the bill, Senator Lott stated:
To save lives now, we must intensify our efforts to educate our citizens on the hazards of,
and proper method for, crossing a railroad track. The `Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act’
would promote this worthy cause in two ways. First, the stamp itself, and its display in
post offices throughout America, would serve as a reminder to all to treat the crossing of
a railroad track as a life or death situation. Second, it would provide an additional source
of revenue to the Department of Transportation to fund Operation Lifesaver programs.
DOT and the railroad industry supported this measure. Some, however, did not favor the use
of net postal fees for such purposes.
S. 1144 (106th Congress), which was reported to the Senate on January 7, 2000, would
have required the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking to revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices to require that any sign for a railroad- highway grade crossing without a
gate and automatic protection device must: indicate that any driver must check the tracks
CRS-12

---

IB10030
07-10-02
for oncoming trains before crossing at the grade crossing; and be distinguishable from a sign
for a railroad highway grade crossing with a gate and automatic protection device.
DOT reports that since 1991 there have been about 30% fewer fatalities at U.S.
highway-rail grade crossings. Given the progress that has been made in reducing the number
of deaths at grade crossings during the last 10 years, some have questioned whether there is
a need for additional congressional action in this area. On the other hand, recent, high
visibility crashes have strengthened the argument of those supporting additional efforts to
improve safety at grade crossings.
Congress has expressed much interest in efforts by communities to ban the sounding
of train horns at highway-rail grade crossings. FRA studies show that on average collision
risk increases when a community bans the sounding of a train horn. Section 302 of the 1994
Swift Rail Development Act (P.L. 103-440) directs the Secretary of Transportation to
prescribe regulations requiring that a locomotive horn must be sounded at public highway-
rail grade crossings, except under specified circumstances. In the Federal Register on
January 13, 2000, the FRA proposed new regulations to require, in general, that the horn on
the lead locomotive be sounded in a specified manner when the train is approaching and
passes through each public crossing. FRA proposes, however, that locomotive horns need
not be sounded where there is little risk of danger, e.g., when trains operate at low speeds
(no more than 15 mph) under specified conditions, or where a “quiet zone” has been
established that provides for supplementary safety measures which fully compensate for the
absence of the warning provided by the horn.
On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation of the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing to obtain information and views on the
FRA rulemaking proceeding to implement the 1994 law. Some opponents of FRA’s
proposal have asserted that it would divert resources away from improvements at high risk
crossings to fund noise abatement efforts, raise adverse “quality of life” impacts caused by
the sounding of train horns, and require expensive infrastructure investments to meet FRA
requirements to avoid the sounding of a train horn. Some view FRA’s proposal as an
inappropriate intrusion into local decision making, especially given efforts by communities
to improve the safety of their crossings. The final rule has not yet been issued.
On February 6, 200l, Representative Dingell introduced H.R. 432, which would
authorize a State or local government to regulate trains blocking grade crossings, if the
Secretary of Transportation has not issued regulations to deal with this problem before
August 1, 2002. Representative Dingell also introduced H.R. 433 on February 6, which
directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations regarding trains blocking grade
crossings and to minimize delay for affected automobile traffic. On June 12, 2001, Senator
Levin et al. introduced S. 1015, which would require the Secretary of Transportation to
issue regulations to address safety concerns and to minimize delays for motorists at railroad
grade crossings.
CRS-13

---

IB10030
07-10-02
Track Safety Standards
On March 29, 2001, the railroad subcommittee of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee held a hearing on railroad track, related infrastructure, and FRA’s
revised safety standards in this area. Acting FRA Administrator Mark Lindsey at that time
stated that the railroads were generally doing a good job in maintaining their track and in
complying with applicable Federal standards. He noted, however, that there were
opportunities for improvement and there were concerns, such as aging infrastructure, and the
financial condition of some railroads which affects their ability to rebuild or replace
infrastructure adequately. Robert Chipkevich of the NTSB maintained that more intensive
inspections of track (including the use of advanced track inspection technology, such as a
track geometry car) and assurance of follow-through repairs on noted defects were essential
to promote rail safety. Richard Inclima of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees asserted that industry has significantly reduced its track maintenance force to the
point that there is now an insufficient number to stay ahead of declining track conditions.
He called for additional FRA inspectors and the hiring of additional maintenance-of-way
employees. The President of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, W. Dan Pickett, called
for a variety of changes to rail safety law. For example, he sought enhanced coverage of the
Hours of Service Act by including contractors and subcontractors, and to require that visual
track inspections be carried out at speeds not to exceed 15 miles per hour. Charles
Dettmann, Executive Vice President of the Association of American Railroads, stated that
many factors have led to a reduction of track-caused accidents per million train miles, which
have dropped 71% since 1980 and 13% since 1990.
Other Legislative Initiatives
The Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2001 (H.R. 554), which was
passed by the House on February 14, 2001, would require the Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to: designate a Board employee after a rail passenger
accident involving major loss of life to act as a point of Federal contact for families of
involved passengers and to serve as a liaison between the rail passenger carrier and the
affected families; and, to designate an independent nonprofit organization to have primary
responsibility for the emotional care and support of the affected families. The bill also
directs each rail passenger carrier to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and the
Chairman of the NTSB a plan for addressing the needs of the families of passengers involved
in crashes involving a major loss of life. The bill also shields the rail passenger carrier from
liability for damages (except for gross negligence or intentional misconduct) in any action
in a federal or state court arising out of the carrier’s performance in preparing or providing
a passenger list, or in providing information concerning a train reservation, pursuant to the
required plan.
Maintain the Status Quo
There also is the option of reauthorizing funding for FRA’s railroad safety program
without providing any new mandates or authorities. Those favoring that approach maintain
that additional mandates or authorities are not warranted or justified in view of the
improving trend in railroad safety statistics. Railroad representatives also point out that their
companies have been investing billions of dollars annually in infrastructure and safety
programs. Indeed, the commitment of many in labor, management, and government to work
CRS-14

---

IB10030
07-10-02
together, as well as independently, has resulted in many safety improvements. Various
safety measures taken by railroad management and labor under the SACP and the regulatory
improvements recommended by the consensus-based RSAC and implemented by FRA have
accelerated the momentum to improve safety.
On the other hand, simply reauthorizing funding for the existing FRA program without
any new directions or guidance may not address some pressing safety challenges in a timely
manner. In past reauthorization statutes, the Congress has required the issuance of specific
safety regulations and set deadlines for regulatory action. FRA has now completed most of
the congressionally mandated regulations and has made progress on those remaining.
LEGISLATION
S. 948 (Lott)/H.R. 2029 (Pickering)
Amends Title 23 of the U.S. Code to direct the Secretary of Transportation to carry out
a grant program to provide financial assistance to states for up to 90 percent of the cost of
local rail line relocation projects. S. 948 introduced May 24, 2001, read twice and referred
respectively to Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 2029 introduced May
25, 2001; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 1015 (Levin et al.)
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to address safety concerns
and to minimize delays for motorists at railroad grade crossings. S. 1015 introduced June 12,
2001, read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 432 (Dingell)
To authorize state and local governments to regulate, for public safety purposes, trains
that block road traffic. Introduced February 6, 2001; referred to Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 433 (Dingell)
To require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations addressing safety
concerns by minimizing delay for automobile traffic at railroad grade crossings. Introduced
February 6, 2001; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 554 (Young)
To establish a program, coordinated by the National Transportation Safety Board, of
assistance to families of passengers involved in rail passenger accidents. Introduced
February 12, 2001; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Considered
by the House under provisions of Rules Committee Resolution H.Res. 36. Passed House
February 14, 2001, and sent to the Senate. Received in the Senate, read twice and referred
to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
CRS-15

---

IB10030
07-10-02
H.R. 1020 (Quinn)
Amends federal rail transportation law by directing the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a program of capital grants to Class II and Class III railroads to rehabilitate,
preserve, or improve railroad track and related infrastructure. Also authorizes the Secretary
to also make grants (to pay credit risk premiums, lower rates of interest, or provide for a
holiday on principal payments) to supplement specified direct loans or loan guarantees.
Introduced March 14, 2001; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Marked up by the railroad subcommittee, amended, and returned for consideration by the full
Committee May 9, 2001.
H.R. 1942 (Peterson)
Amends federal transportation law to require the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) to investigate all railroad grade crossing accidents that result in a fatality or
substantial property damage. Introduced May 22, 2001, referred to Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, on May 23, 2001, referred to the Railroad Subcommittee.
H.R. 2596 (LaTourette)
Amends Title 49 U.S.C. §21103 to require that employees who have been on or
available for duty for any portion of seven consecutive days be given 72 hours of rest time.
Introduced July 23, 2001; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
referred on July 24, 2001 to the railroad subcommittee.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subcommittee on
Railroads. Reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Administration. Hearings held
March 26, 1998, April 1, 1998, April 29, 1998 and May 20, 1998. H.Rept. 105-62.
1269 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee of Conference. Making Appropriations for the
Department of Transportation And Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2000, and for Other Purposes. H.Rept. 106-355. 142 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee of Conference. Making Appropriations for the
Department of Transportation And Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes. H.Rept. 106-940. 189 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. DOT and Related Agencies
Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1999. S.Hrng. 105-851. 983 p.
CRS-16

---