HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS RAIL 

SHIPMENTS

Emergency 

Responders Receive 

Support, but DOT 

Could Improve 

Oversight of 

Information Sharing

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

November 2016

GAO-17-91

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-91, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

November 2016

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RAIL SHIPMENTS

Emergency Responders Receive Support, but 

DOT Could Improve Oversight of Information 

Sharing

What GAO Found

Emergency planners from most of the 25 selected counties in 17 states that 

GAO surveyed reported that training for responders and information about rail 

shipments of hazardous materials affect preparedness. Emergency planners 

from almost all of the selected counties reported that a majority of the emergency 

response personnel, such as fire fighters, who arrive first at an accident receive 

basic training that would enable them to take initial protective actions, including 

recognizing hazardous materials and calling for assistance in the event of a rail 

accident involving crude oil and other hazardous materials. Emergency planners 

from most counties reported that training related to rail hazardous materials was 

useful in preparing for accidents. Emergency planners reported that some factors 

present obstacles to responders’ receiving training, such as neglecting one’s 

professional duties to take time off for training. Emergency planners from most 

counties reported that railroads in their jurisdictions have provided them with 

information about hazardous material shipments and that this information is

useful in preparing for potential accidents. 

All seven of the largest railroads (called Class I railroads) and some of the four 

smaller railroads that GAO surveyed reported providing training and information 

about hazardous materials to local emergency responders and planners in 

recent years. The Class I railroads reported training through a variety of means,

including locally delivered training exercises or off-site at industry-recognized 

training centers. In addition, railroads reported providing information about 

hazardous material shipments to state and local emergency planners in part due 

to a May 2014 Department of Transportation (DOT) Emergency Order requiring 

notification of state emergency-planning agencies about shipments of crude oil

from North Dakota and Montana where the Bakken shale deposit is located. This 

information was intended to reach local emergency responders so that they 

could better prepare for rail accidents involving crude oil.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) within DOT have taken multiple actions to 

support emergency preparedness for rail incidents involving hazardous 

materials; some actions focused specifically on trains carrying Bakken crude oil. 

For example, PHMSA developed a web-based training curriculum on how to 

prepare for hazardous materials incidents, and FRA determined whether 

railroads provided information about Bakken crude-oil shipments to states. 

However, PHMSA learned that some states did not provide the information about 

Bakken crude oil shipments to local emergency planners, as called for in the 

Emergency Order. Recently enacted legislation expands FRA’s oversight of 

railroads’ actions moving forward; for example, railroads will be required to notify 

states of large shipments of other hazardous materials. However, FRA and 

PHMSA have not taken steps to understand whether the shipment information 

railroads are required to share with states is consistently disseminated to local

emergency planners. Therefore, the extent to which DOT’s information-sharing 

requirements have the potential to improve local preparedness for rail accidents 

involving hazardous materials is unclear.

View GAO-17-91. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Recent rail accidents involving

hazardous materials, such as crude oil,

have raised questions about local 

emergency responders’ ability to take 

protective actions in the aftermath of 

such accidents. Along with FRA, 

PHMSA is responsible for ensuring the 

safe transportation of hazardous 

materials by rail through issuing and 

enforcing railroad- and shipper-safety 

regulations.

GAO was asked to review efforts that 

enhance preparedness for hazardous 

materials rail accidents. This report 

examines: (1) the factors selected local 

emergency planners report affect 

preparedness; (2) the actions selected 

railroads have taken to support 

preparedness; and (3) the actions DOT

has taken to support emergency 

planners.

GAO reviewed laws and regulations

and surveyed (1) emergency planners 

representing 25 counties and 17 states 

with the highest volumes of hazardous 

materials rail shipments and (2) all 

seven Class I railroads and four

smaller railroads selected because 

they operate in the counties where 

GAO surveyed local emergency 

planners.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT develop a 

process for regularly collecting

information from state emergencyplanning agencies about their

distribution of railroad-provided 

hazardous materials shipping 

information to local emergency 

planning entities. DOT concurred with 

our recommendation.
Page i GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Letter 1

Background 5

Selected Emergency Planners Reported That Responder Training 

and Railroads’ Information Sharing Affect Preparedness 13

Class I Railroads and Selected Class II and III Railroads Reported 

Supporting Preparedness for Rail Accidents Involving 

Hazardous Materials 22

DOT Has Taken Multiple Actions to Support Preparedness for Rail 

Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials but Could Improve 

Oversight of Information Sharing 28

Conclusions 36

Recommendation for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Transportation 46

Appendix III GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 48

Tables

Table 1: The National Fire Protection Association’s Levels of 

Professional Competence for Responders to Hazardous 

Materials Incidents 15

Table 2: Spending (in Millions) on Training Local Emergency 

Responders on Hazardous-Materials Rail Accidents, as 

Reported by Five of Seven Class I Railroads, 2011 to 

2015 24

Table 3: Emergency Responders and Others Trained (in 

Thousands) on Hazardous- Materials Rail Accidents by 

Class I Railroads, as Reported by All Seven Class I 

Railroads, 2011 to 2015 24

Table 4: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Training and 

Materials Related to Emergency Preparedness for Rail 

Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials 28

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Table 5: Recently Introduced Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Grant Programs Related to Emergency Preparedness for 

Rail Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials 31

Figures

Figure 1: Volume of Crude Oil Transported by Rail, January 2010 

to June 2016 6

Figure 2: Responsibilities of Key Actors in Responding to a 

Hazardous-Materials Rail Accident 11

Figure 3: Portion of First Responders in Selected Counties Who 

Are Trained at Various Levels of Professional 

Competence for Responding to Hazardous Materials 

Accidents, as Reported by Local Emergency Planners 16

Figure 4: Significant Factors That Discourage Emergency 

Responders’ Participation in Training, Exercises, and 

Drills, according to Local Emergency Planners in Select 

Counties 17
Page iii GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

ASLRRA American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know

Act of 1986 

ERG Emergency Response Guidebook

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HMEP Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grants

HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations 

LEPC local emergency planning committee

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

SERC state emergency response commissions

SERTC Security and Emergency Response Training Center

TRANSCAER Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency

Response

TRIPR Transportation Rail Incident Preparedness and

Response training

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 17, 2016

The Honorable Peter DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. DeFazio:

Each year, freight railroads safely transport thousands of commodities, 

including hazardous materials, across the country. However, over the last 

several years, accidents involving crude oil, a hazardous flammable 

liquid, have occurred. For example, in June 2016 a derailment occurred 

near Mosier, Oregon, resulting in 47,000 gallons of crude oil being 

released near the Columbia River Gorge. Furthermore, in July 2013, a 

derailment in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, resulted in the deaths of 47 people 

and extensive damage to the city’s downtown area. These accidents have 

occurred as railroads have increasingly been used to transport crude oil 

from certain regions, such as North Dakota and Montana, where the 

Bakken shale deposit lies. According to the Energy Information 

Administration, monthly shipments of crude oil transported by rail climbed 

from about 1-million barrels in January 2010 to nearly 36-million barrels in 

October 2014. Although rail shipments of crude oil have declined overall 

recently as domestic production levels have slowed, questions have been 

raised about the ability of railroads and local emergency responders to 

prepare for and take protective actions in the immediate aftermath of a 

serious accident, particularly in rural areas where there may be fewer 

resources to respond.

In light of these questions, the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

issued—and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has since 

enforced—an Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order (Emergency 

Order) in May of 2014 requiring railroads transporting large volumes of 

Bakken crude oil to notify states about their estimated operations in an 

effort to enhance local emergency responder preparedness.1 Also within 

DOT, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) has lead responsibility for ensuring the safe movement of 

 1

DOT, Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order, DOT-OST-2014-0067 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 7, 2014). This Emergency Order affects railroads that operate trains transporting 

1,000,000 gallons or more of Bakken crude oil.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

hazardous materials across all transportation modes by issuing and 

enforcing safety regulations, including requirements for carriers and 

shippers to provide emergency response information and report accidents 

involving hazardous materials. PHMSA coordinates with FRA in 

developing and interpreting hazardous-materials transportation 

regulations related to rail transportation and FRA enforces these 

regulations.

You asked us to review efforts to enhance preparedness for accidents 

involving the transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by 

rail. This report examines: (1) the factors that selected local emergency 

planners reported as affecting preparedness for rail accidents involving 

hazardous materials, (2) the actions that Class I and selected other 

railroads reported taking to support local emergency planners’ 

preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials, and (3) the 

actions that DOT has taken to support state and local emergency 

planners’ preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials 

and additional actions, if any, that DOT could take. The scope of our 

review was limited to emergency planning and preparedness for rail 

accidents involving hazardous materials, and did not focus on other 

phases of emergency response for an accident, such as mitigation and 

clean-up activities, which are largely the responsibility of federal agencies 

other than DOT.2

To inform all of our objectives, we reviewed relevant literature about rail 

accidents involving hazardous materials and the response to such 

accidents, including journal articles and reports, as well as prior GAO 

reports on the transportation of hazardous materials by rail.3 We also 

 2

The Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland 

Security works with state and local stakeholders to implement the National Incident 

Management System, a comprehensive, national approach to incident management that 

is applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across functional disciplines and the full 

spectrum of potential incidents, hazards, and impacts, regardless of size, location, or 

complexity. FEMA also manages the Emergency Management Performance Grant 

program that assists local, tribal, territorial, and state governments in enhancing and 

sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. The Environmental Protection 

Agency and U.S. Coast Guard are the lead agencies for responding to hazardous 

materials substance releases for inland and coastal zones, respectively. 

3

GAO, Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation is Taking Actions to 

Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety, 

GAO-14-667 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2004) and GAO, Rail Safety and Security:

Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security, but Risk-Based Plan Needed, 

GAO-03-435 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2003).
Page 3 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

reviewed relevant statutes, such as the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act of 20154 and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)5 and regulations, such 

as the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)6 to determine 

requirements for DOT and railroads related to transporting hazardous 

materials by rail, as well as requirements for federal agencies, states, and 

localities regarding emergency planning and reporting related to 

hazardous materials. In addition, we interviewed officials at DOT 

(including FRA and PHMSA officials), the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National 

Transportation Safety Board to understand the roles and responsibilities 

of federal, state, and local stakeholders in emergency preparedness and 

response to rail accidents involving hazardous materials.

To identify views of selected local emergency planners on factors that 

affect preparedness, we conducted structured interviews with, and 

provided a questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of 25 local 

emergency planners, primarily from local emergency planning committees 

(LEPC)—the groups responsible for implementing emergency response 

plans and managing preparedness activities. We identified LEPCs to 

interview that were located in the three urban and three rural counties that 

had the highest volumes of hazardous materials in each of the five 

PHMSA regions and were able to contact LEPCs in 25 of the 30 counties.

To estimate the volumes of crude oil and other hazardous materials 

transported by rail, we used the Surface Transportation Board’s 2013 

Waybill Sample, the most recent data at the time of the review. These 

data contain information on the origin and destination for a nationally 

representative sample of rail shipments. To determine the reliability of the 

data, we reviewed the documentation provided by the Surface 

Transportation Board on how the sample was taken and did electronic 

testing to ensure that we received the complete file. We determined that 

the data used in this report were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our 

review. We received completed questionnaires from emergency planners 

in 24 of 25 counties and interviewed all 25 across 17 states. We then 

conducted an analysis of responses provided by these officials to the 

 4

Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015).

5

Pub. L. No. 99-499, title III, 100 Stat. 1613, 1728 (1986). 

6

49 C.F.R. pts 171-180.
Page 4 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

questionnaire and structured interview questions. Because our work was 

based on a nonprobability sample of counties, the information we 

obtained and present in this report should not be regarded as an 

exhaustive list of factors local emergency planners may consider as 

affecting preparedness for rail incidents involving hazardous materials. 

Similarly, the information and perspectives that we obtained from these 

local emergency planners are not generalizable to other local planners or 

counties. Furthermore, we interviewed representatives from associations 

representing local emergency responders, such as the International 

Association of Fire Chiefs. We also reviewed training standards for first 

responders to understand hazardous materials training levels.

To understand the actions selected railroads have taken to support 

emergency preparedness, we developed a questionnaire and 

administered it to all seven Class I railroads and six smaller regional and 

short line railroads, known as Class II and Class III railroads 

respectively.7 The Class II and Class III railroads were selected because 

they operate in counties where we conducted structured interviews with 

local emergency planners and to obtain variation in railroads operating in 

urban and rural counties. We sent our questionnaire to two Class II 

railroads and four Class III railroads, and received responses from both 

Class II railroads and two Class III railroads. We also interviewed officials 

from 5 of 7 Class I railroads, the Association of American Railroads 

(AAR), and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and 

Transportation Workers. Because our work was based on a 

nonprobability sample of Class II and Class III railroads, the results of the 

questionnaires with the smaller railroads cannot be generalized to the 

entire population of Class II and Class III railroads.

To understand DOT’s actions to support preparedness for rail accidents 

involving hazardous materials and additional actions, if any, it could take, 

we reviewed pertinent FRA and PHMSA documents related to these 

actions, including training materials and guidance, grant program 

documentation, and documentation on efforts to oversee the 

implementation of requirements for railroads to share information on train 

 7

Railroads are classified into three classes based primarily on annual operating revenues. 

According to the Surface Transportation Board, as of 2015, Class I railroads are those 

with annual operating revenues of at least $457.9 million, Class II railroads are those with 

annual operating revenues of less than $457.9 million but in excess of $36.6 million, and 

Class III railroads are those with annual operating revenues of $36.6 million or less. 49 

C.F.R. § 1201.1-1. Class II freight railroads typically operate over 350 to 900 miles of track 

and Class III freight railroads typically operate over less than 350 miles of track. 
Page 5 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

contents and movements. We compared the agencies’ efforts to oversee 

the implementation of information-sharing requirements for railroads with 

pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

8 We 

also interviewed emergency planners from 17 selected state emergency 

response commissions (SERC) on the use of PHMSA grants to support 

preparedness and response efforts.9 These SERCs were chosen 

because their state coincided with the geographic location of the local 

emergency planners we selected. Because our work was based on a 

nonprobability sample, the information and perspectives we obtained from 

these state emergency planners is not generalizable to other state 

planners. See appendix I for a more detailed description of our objectives, 

scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to November 2016 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In the past several years, rail has increasingly been used to ship crude 

oil, a flammable liquid. Even though crude oil shipments by rail have 

declined in the past year, from January 2010 to October 2014 shipments 

increased over 30 times, peaking at almost 36 million barrels or about 

51,000 rail carloads in October 2014 (see fig. 1).10 This increase is due to 

pipeline capacity constraints in certain areas of the country, including the 

Bakken shale region in North Dakota.11 As shipments of crude oil have 

increased, the number of rail accidents involving crude oil has also 

 8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014). 

9

We were unable to interview SERC officials in one of the states in which we conducted 

interviews with local emergency planners. However, we interviewed SERC officials in 

another state where we pre-tested our questionnaire and structured interview guide. 

10Hazardous materials comprise a small portion of commodities shipped by rail—about 2 

million out of 14 million annual carloads shipped by U. S. railroads in 2015.

11See GAO, Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation is Taking Actions 

to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety, 

GAO-14-667 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2014). 

Background
Page 6 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

increased, even as rail accidents involving all hazardous materials have 

declined.12 From 2006 to 2010, there were 19 rail incidents involving 

crude oil, 4 of which were designated by PHMSA as serious rail 

incidents—compared with 399 crude oil rail incidents from 2011 to 2015—

21 of which were designated by PHMSA as serious.13 Serious accidents 

can involve derailments, collisions, and release of materials. Depending 

on the commodities a train is carrying, releases can involve not only 

crude oil, which is flammable, but also a variety of chemicals such as 

sodium hydroxide which can irritate the eyes and burn the skin.

Figure 1: Volume of Crude Oil Transported by Rail, January 2010 to June 2016

 12According to AAR, overall accidents that involved a hazardous material release declined

66 percent between 2000 and 2014.

13PHMSA’s Incident Reports Database designates some incidents as more serious than 

others. PHMSA’s definition of a “serious incident” is one that involves (a) a fatality or major 

injury caused by the release of a hazardous material, (b) the evacuation of 25 or more 

employees or responders or any number of the general public as a result of release of a 

hazardous material or exposure to fire, (c) a release or exposure to fire which results in 

the closure of a major transportation artery, (d) the alteration of an aircraft flight plan or 

operation, (e) the release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging, (f) the 

suspected release of a Risk Group 3 or 4 infectious substance, (g) the release of over 

11.9 gallons or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant, or (h) the release of a bulk 

quantity (over 119 gallons or 882 pounds) of a hazardous material.
Page 7 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

The railroad industry is dominated by the seven largest railroads, known 

as Class I railroads, which transport the majority of rail freight—including 

hazardous materials—across a network of 200,000 miles of track, mostly 

in rural areas. In addition, numerous Class II and hundreds of Class III 

railroads have essential roles in moving freight, typically linking rural 

communities to the larger railroad network.14 According to DOT, about 18 

percent of all Class I carload freight originates or terminates on a Class II 

or Class III railroad, often called “first mile” and “last mile” movements.

Federal, state, and local entities all play a role related to emergency 

preparedness for rail accidents involving crude oil and other hazardous 

materials. For example, DOT oversees compliance with safety regulations 

applicable to the rail transportation of hazardous materials. Specifically, 

PHMSA—through its Office of Hazardous Materials Safety—issues 

regulations that apply to shippers and railroads transporting hazardous 

materials, like crude oil.15 PHMSA also provides grants to states to fund 

training for local responders. As mentioned previously, DOT issued an 

Emergency Order in May 2014 that requires railroads planning to operate

trains transporting 1-million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil to notify 

states of the expected movement along the routes. The Emergency Order 

focused on ensuring that state and local emergency responders know the 

frequency and number of Bakken crude-oil trains moving through their 

jurisdictions. FRA provides regulatory oversight for both passenger and 

freight rail, issuing and enforcing safety regulations.16 FRA enforces its 

own regulations and the HMR, through its inspections and audits 

conducted by FRA officials and state partners in some states. In addition, 

 14Class I railroads collectively accounted for more than 90 percent of annual railroadfreight revenues in 2012. In addition, approximately 560 smaller short-line and regional 

railroads, known as Class II and Class III railroads may transport hazardous materials 

over shorter distances.

15Hazardous materials are defined in DOT regulation as a group or class of materials that 

the Secretary of Transportation determines may pose an unreasonable risk to health and 

safety or property when transported in commerce in a particular amount and form. There 

are nine classes of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids and 

combustible liquids, such as petroleum crude oil and ethanol. The other classes are: 

explosives (Class 1); gases (Class 2); flammable solid, spontaneously combustible, and 

dangerous when wet (Class 4); oxidizer and organic peroxide (Class 5); poison (toxic) and 

poison inhalation hazard (Class 6); radioactive (Class 7); corrosive (Class 8); and 

miscellaneous (Class 9).

16These include requirements governing track, signal and train control systems, highwaysrail-grade-crossing warning systems, mechanical equipment including locomotives and 

cars, and railroad-operating practices. 49 U.S.C. § 20103.
Page 8 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

state officials, local emergency planners, and the railroads also play 

specific roles in planning and preparing for emergencies, specifically:

• Based on EPCRA, each state is required to establish a SERC that 

acts as the emergency-planning focal point and that is responsible for 

designating emergency-planning districts and appointing LEPCs for 

each district.17 The SERC supervises the activities of the LEPCs. 

LEPC membership includes representatives from police, fire, civil 

defense, health, transportation (including rail), environmental 

agencies, among others. These entities plan, gather, and share 

information about emergency preparedness and arrange for 

emergency responders’ training.

• Local emergency-planning agencies prepare local emergency plans

that include emergency response plans, training requirements for 

emergency responders (e.g., police officers, firefighters, and 

emergency medical technicians), and other vital hazardous material 

response information.18 Local emergency-planning agencies may also 

prepare commodity flow studies.19 Most U.S. firefighters are 

volunteers.20

• Under DOT’s Emergency Order, the railroads support emergency 

responders by providing SERCs with information about expected 

movements of trains carrying Bakken crude oil. In addition, since 

1996, railroads that ship oil in containers exceeding 3,500 gallons 

must prepare response plans that document that they have trained 

personnel, placed equipment, and established procedures to respond 

to an oil spill.21 PHMSA has recently proposed in coordination with 

 17EPCRA established authorities for emergency planning and preparedness and 

emergency release notification reporting, among other things. Pub. L. No. 99-499, 100 

Stat. 1613, 1729(1986). 

18EPA officials told us that because LEPCs develop local emergency response plans that 

include transportation routes, it is important that SERCs share the information they receive 

from railroads. 

19“Commodity flow studies” describe the types and amounts of hazardous materials 

transported through a specified geographic area—such as a single community, a large 

urban area, a region, or a state—and the modes of transportation.

20According to the National Fire Protection Association, in 2014, 69 percent of the 1.1 

million U.S. firefighters nationwide were unpaid volunteers, and communities of 25,000 in 

population or less were more likely to have predominantly volunteer firefighters. NFPA, 

U.S. Fire Department Profile—2014 (January 2016).

2149 C.F.R. Part 130.
Page 9 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

FRA, expanding the oil-spill response-planning requirements to 

require railroads to obtain FRA approval for more detailed, 

comprehensive oil-spill response plans for high-hazard flammable 

trains carrying petroleum oil.

22

Recently enacted legislation may change the responsibilities of some 

stakeholders. In December 2015, President Obama signed into law the 

FAST Act,

23 which requires DOT to codify and expand the information 

sharing requirement relative to the existing Emergency Order’s 

notification requirements for trains carrying 1-million gallons or more of 

Bakken crude oil.24 In accordance with the FAST Act, in July 2016 

PHMSA proposed regulations (the same as mentioned above) to require 

railroads to share information on a monthly basis about high-hazard 

flammable trains’ operations with state (i.e., SERC) and tribal emergency 

response commissions. “High hazard flammable trains” are those that 

transport (1) 20 or more tank cars loaded with a Class 3 flammable liquid 

in a continuous block or (2) a total of 35 or more tank cars carrying such 

materials.25 The FAST Act also directs DOT to require railroads to 

provide, through the applicable fusion center,26 emergency responders 

with real-time access to information about the train’s hazardous materials 

shipments in the case of a train accident.

While planning is conducted by a range of participants, local emergency 

responders and railroad train crews are typically first on the scene in the 

immediate aftermath of this type of accident. Firefighters, police, and 

emergency medical technicians assess and secure the scene, as 

described in figure 2. For example, local and sometimes regional officials 

may be responsible for advising the public on taking shelter-in-place 

 2281 Fed. Reg. 50068 (July 29, 2016).

23Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312. 

24The Emergency Order indicates that a train comprised of approximately 35 tank cars 

would carry 1-million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil, assuming each tank car 

contains 30,000 gallons of crude oil. 

25Pub. L. No. 114-94, §§ 7302(b)(6) and 7303(a)(3).

26Fusion centers are state and local agencies that provide multidisciplinary expertise and 

situational awareness to inform decision making at all levels of government. They conduct 

analysis and facilitate information sharing while assisting law enforcement and homeland 

security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism. 

For more information on fusion centers, see GAO, Information Sharing: DHS Is Assessing 

Fusion Center Capabilities and Results, but Needs to More Accurately Account for 

Federal Funding Provided to Centers, GAO-15-155 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 2014).
Page 10 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

actions or conducting evacuations of affected populations.27 In addition, 

assuming they are not affected by an accident, railroad train crews are 

expected to provide local emergency responders with information about 

the type and quantity of hazardous materials on the train, the position of 

the train’s contents, and the emergency contact information (referred to 

as hazardous materials documentation), as described in figure 2. 

According to the HMR, railroads are required to provide notice of certain 

hazardous materials accidents28 to the National Response Center.29

 27Emergency response to rail incidents follows the approach established by the National 

Incident Management System, which was established by the Department of Homeland 

Security and which provides a common standard for overall incident management. 

2849 C.F.R. § 171.15.

29The National Response Center is the sole federal point of contact for reporting oil and 

chemical spills and serves as the communications and operations center for the National 

Response Team, which is led by EPA. The National Response Center is continuously 

manned by the U. S. Coast Guard to provide a single point of contact for receiving and 

disseminating information in the event of a pollution incident. 
Page 11 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Figure 2: Responsibilities of Key Actors in Responding to a Hazardous-Materials Rail Accident
Page 12 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

After the initial response, local emergency responders and railroads as 

well as state and federal agencies have various responsibilities for 

mitigating and investigating an accident (see fig. 2 above).30

• Mitigation: According to AAR, railroads have hazardous materials

accident management personnel and employ hazardous materials 

response contractors and environmental consultants that provide spill 

response tools and equipment. Federal and state environmental 

agencies are responsible for assisting this effort and monitoring and 

evaluating the environmental damage. States are required to notify 

EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, which may send representatives to 

the accident scene to assist in or direct response activities resulting 

from a hazardous materials release or discharge.31

• Investigation: FRA monitors train accidents and investigates their 

causes and compliance with existing safety laws and regulations. Per 

its discretion, the National Transportation Safety Board investigates 

some railroad accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at 

preventing future accidents.

Training is a key aspect of planning and preparing for emergency 

response and mitigation. Federal regulations require that firefighters and 

other responders receive hazardous-materials emergency response 

training. When such training is provided, federal statutes regarding 

occupational health and safety indicate that it must be based on training 

standards set by a recognized, standard-setting organization, such as the 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).32 NFPA standards detail the 

specific knowledge that trainees must have to be considered competent

to provide varying levels of response to hazardous materials accidents, 

as we describe later in this report. Additionally, DOT officials stated that 

 30In this report, we use the term “mitigation” to describe activities such as cleaning up and 

assessing a hazardous-materials accident scene. According to the National Incident 

Management System, mitigation involves actions to reduce or lessen the impact of 

hazards and threats.

31The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more 

commonly called the National Contingency Plan, is the federal government’s plan for 

responding to both oil spills and hazardous substances releases. The lead federal 

agencies for responding to hazardous materials substance releases under the National 

Contingency Plan are EPA for inland zones and the U.S. Coast Guard for coastal zones. 

EPA proposed changes to the National Contingency Plan in January 2016 to align the 

plan with the National Incident Management System.

32Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590 (1970). 

29 C. F. R. § 1910.120(q) and 40 C. F. R. § 311.
Page 13 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute serves as the national focal 

point for the development and delivery of emergency management 

training to enhance the capabilities of state, local, and tribal government 

officials, volunteer organizations, FEMA’s disaster workforce, federal 

agencies, and the public and private sectors to minimize the impact of 

disasters and emergencies.

Local emergency planners from almost all of the counties we contacted 

reported that their emergency responders participated in training, 

exercises, or drills (“training”) to prepare for responding to rail hazardous 

materials incidents. Specifically, emergency planners from 21 of 22 

counties33 (13 urban and 8 rural) indicated that emergency responders 

had participated in rail hazardous materials classroom or hands-on 

training and 20 reported their emergency responders had participated in 

rail hazardous materials exercises or drills. About half of the emergency 

planners (13 of 22) reported that their emergency responders had 

received rail hazardous-materials training by independent study or 

webinar. Hazardous materials training may be provided by state or local 

emergency management agencies, colleges and associations with 

specialized programs, chemical producers, and railroads, among others. 

As discussed later, PHMSA provides grants to states to fund training for 

local responders. Also, as noted earlier, FEMA’s Emergency 

Management Institute serves as a national focal point for emergency 

management training.

 33We provide information about the number of county respondents in this section 

because, although we interviewed emergency planners from 25 counties (14 urban and 11 

rural), and received questionnaires from 24 counties; not all questions were answered.

Selected Emergency 

Planners Reported

That Responder 

Training and 

Railroads’ Information 

Sharing Affect 

Preparedness

Emergency Planners 

Reported That Responder 

Training for Rail 

Hazardous Materials

Accidents Is Useful, but 

Some Encounter 

Impediments to 

Participating in Training
Page 14 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Most local emergency planners reported that the rail hazardous-materials 

training was useful for helping their emergency responders prepare for 

and respond to rail hazardous materials incidents. Local emergency 

planners from 18 counties (9 urban and 9 rural) reported that such 

training was very useful, 4 reported it was somewhat useful, and 3 

reported they were uncertain about its usefulness. Some emergency 

planners told us that training that involved “hands on” experience was 

particularly helpful because it facilitated direct interaction with devices and 

props that emergency responders would not normally encounter except in 

a real-world incident. Other emergency planners told us that training 

provides a way for emergency responders to interact face to face with 

some of the stakeholders they might normally encounter in an incident, 

such as railroad hazardous materials experts and personnel from other 

fire departments. Such interaction can facilitate relationships among 

stakeholders by increasing familiarity and building trust. For example, one 

local emergency planner told us that the first responders from his county 

attended a railroad-sponsored hazardous materials exercise that was 

coincidentally held a week before a hazardous materials train derailment. 

The emergency planner noted that when the accident happened, 

responders were already familiar with the railroad and stakeholders, 

familiarity that facilitated cooperation and trust.

Local emergency planners reported on the percentage of their first 

responders who received various levels of hazardous-materials response 

training, from basic to more advanced. Generally, as discussed below, a 

greater percentage of these first responders received basic training than 

received more advanced levels of training, according to responses to the 

questionnaires we received. As described previously, there are federal 

requirements that firefighters and other responders receive hazardousmaterials emergency response training, and when such training is 

provided, it must adhere to federal requirements and must be based on 

training standards set by a recognized, standards-setting organization, 

such as the NFPA.34 NFPA’s standards identify the types of training 

needed to achieve professional competence at four levels, from 

“awareness”, the most basic level, to “incident commander,” the most 

advanced (see table 1).

 34Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590 (1970).

29 C. F. R. § 1910.120(q) and 40 C. F. R. § 311
Page 15 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Table 1: The National Fire Protection Association’s Levels of Professional 

Competence for Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents

Level Definition 

Awareness First responders with awareness level training are expected to detect 

the presence of the hazardous materials, protect themselves, call for 

trained personnel, and secure the scene. 

Operational First responders trained at this level must meet the National Fire 

Protection Association’s awareness level training as well as any 

additional competency designed to allow the responder to implement 

or support actions to protect nearby persons, the environment, or 

property from the effects of the release.

Technician Responders trained at this level must use a risk-based response 

process by which they analyze a problem involving hazardous 

materials, select applicable decontamination procedures, and control 

a release using specialized protective clothing and control equipment.

Incident 

commander

Individuals with this level of training are responsible for all incident 

response activities, including the development of strategies and 

tactics as well as ordering and distributing resources.

Source: National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of 

Mass Destruction Incidents, 2013 edition. | GAO-17-91

Local emergency planners from most counties (20 of 22) reported that 

more than 60 percent of their first responders were trained at the 

awareness level, which enables first responders to recognize that they 

are dealing with a hazardous materials incident and call for trained 

response personnel. However, emergency planners from few (6 of 23) 

counties reported that more than 60 percent of their first responders were 

trained at the operational level, which allows first responders to take 

defensive action in the event of a hazardous materials release.35

Emergency planners from even fewer counties reported emergency 

responders trained at the technician and incident command levels, a 

finding that is to be expected given that these advance levels of 

competency require additional hours of training and certification (see fig. 

3).

 35According to the National Volunteer Fire Council, operational level training is the ideal 

level for training first responders to properly conduct a defensive response by taking 

actions to protect nearby persons, the environment, and property from the release of the 

hazardous material.
Page 16 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Figure 3: Portion of First Responders in Selected Counties Who Are Trained at 

Various Levels of Professional Competence for Responding to Hazardous Materials

Accidents, as Reported by Local Emergency Planners

Note: The number of total surveys may vary because a county may not have answered a question in 

a way in which we could analyze the response.

Local emergency planners in select urban and rural counties reported that 

various obstacles impede their emergency responders’ participation in 

training activities—activities that would help prepare them to take 

defensive action to a rail accident involving hazardous materials. Factors 

such as dedicating time for training, taking unpaid time off of work, and 

being able to get off from their regular duties may discourage participation 

in training (see fig. 4).
Page 17 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Figure 4: Significant Factors That Discourage Emergency Responders’ 

Participation in Training, Exercises, and Drills, according to Local Emergency 

Planners in Select Counties

Local emergency planners from 23 counties reported that the leading 

factor discouraging participation in rail hazardous-materials training was 

the time commitment to attend a training activity. As one emergency 

planner put it, despite the fact that the state developed a variety of rail 

hazardous materials training and exercises for a county’s emergency 

responders, the ability to make use of the training opportunities ultimately 

rests on emergency responders’ being able to attend without neglecting 

other professional and personal responsibilities. Local emergency 

planners from rural counties with largely volunteer firefighter workforce 

(i.e., unpaid) reported the dilemma of having to take unpaid leave from 

their primary workplace to attend training. One emergency planner told us 

that some training providers recognize this limitation and try to schedule 

training for periods when volunteers may be more available, such as 

evenings and weekends. However, even when training is offered during 

weekends or non-work hours, emergency planners told us that it can be 

difficult to get participants because of family commitments and other 

responsibilities. Along this same line, FRA officials told us that 

communities can be unwilling to send employees to training because they 

do not want the employees to be away from their professional duties, 

despite the fact that the cost of the training itself may be covered by other 

entities, such as a railroad, and free to the employer.
Page 18 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Local emergency planners reported another obstacle to participating in 

training is that of backfill—the situation where a replacement worker 

needs to cover the shift of the person attending training. As indicated 

above, 12 of 23 emergency planners reported that emergency responders 

sometimes are not able to get off their regular duties to attend training 

because, for example, a replacement cannot be found. Emergency 

planners reported that backfill can be difficult and expensive. According to 

one emergency planner from an urban county, most fire departments 

operate with the bare minimum workforce so sending anyone away to 

training has a big impact on the budget because the county may need to 

pay existing staff overtime to work an additional shift. One described 

backfill as being cost prohibitive, noting that replacing absent workers can 

cost up to three times as much as the cost of the training itself. 

Emergency planners also told us that a consequence of such obstacles is 

that fire departments are not able to train their entire force at one point in 

time and that their responders have varying levels of training. Whether 

the workforce is comprised of volunteers or career fire fighters, planners 

told us that sending their entire force to training is cost prohibitive and 

otherwise impractical. In addition, an emergency planner illustrated this 

by stating that in a recent railroad scenario-based exercise, only one shift 

participated.

Most emergency planners viewed their emergency responders as 

prepared to take defensive actions, such as evacuating affected 

populations, sheltering in place, and setting up an incident command post 

in the event of a rail hazardous materials accident. Emergency planners 

from 22 of 25 counties reported their emergency responders as very (9 

counties) or somewhat (13 counties) prepared for taking such actions. 

Emergency planners told us that there were differences in preparedness 

level within their counties, stating that some jurisdictions place a higher 

priority on preparedness than others. One emergency planner indicated a 

distinction between urban and rural locations, explaining that urban areas 

may have a heightened awareness to hazardous materials by rail 

because of the steady presence of trains on their rails. Other planners 

attributed a greater level of preparedness to a heightened awareness of 

rail accidents in recent years and to increased training. In a related issue, 

local emergency planners from all selected counties reported having 

mutual aid agreements—pre-established agreements in which first 

responders call for assistance from other fire departments—in place. 

Such agreements can increase a county’s preparedness since they 

increase the resources (and in some instances expertise level) available 

for immediate response.
Page 19 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Local emergency planners from most of the selected counties reported 

that railroads and SERCs have provided them with a variety of 

information for planning and preparing for hazardous materials accidents 

and that this information is useful. The types of information provided 

include:

• Railroads’ emergency-response-planning guides: Emergency 

planners from two-thirds of the counties (16 of 24) reported railroads 

operating in their jurisdictions provided them a copy—or copies if 

provided by multiple railroads—of their emergency-response-planning 

guides. (Emergency planners from 8 counties reported that they had 

not been provided guides.) Railroads’ emergency-response-planning 

guides may include information about critical railroad contacts and 

railroad incident response guidelines. Emergency planners from most 

of the counties that received guides described the guides as being 

useful or very useful for preparing for a potential rail accident because 

they contained information about what the railroads’ response 

activities would be. One planner told us that a guide typically includes 

information that can be readily incorporated into a local entity’s own 

hazardous-materials response plan. Emergency planners from three 

counties told us about deficiencies with the guides and one noted that 

the information was not particularly useful because the plan 

referenced the national rail network rather than the locality and 

focused more on pollution response than on life safety planning. 

Another told us that the plans had information that was redacted or 

included such strict non-disclosure statements as to prevent 

incorporating it into local emergency-planning documents.

• Hazardous materials information: Local emergency planners from 

most counties (22 of 24) reported having been provided information 

about hazardous materials transported through their areas, including 

a few that told us their SERCs provided them with information about 

Bakken crude-oil shipments. In addition, most (14 of 20) indicated 

having no difficulty getting information. (As discussed below, 

emergency planners from six counties indicated they had difficulty 

getting information.) According to DOT, besides obtaining information 

about planned Bakken crude-oil shipments through the May 2014 

Emergency Order, bona fide emergency responders are able to obtain 

information on other types of hazardous materials moving through 

Emergency Planners from 

Most Counties Reported 

That Information from 

Railroads and SERCs Is 

Useful for Hazardous 

Response Planning and 

Preparedness
Page 20 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

their community by requesting the information from the railroad.36

Emergency planners from 11 counties reported that railroads provided 

such information upon request, 6 reported that railroads voluntarily 

provided them with such information, and some reported they 

received information from SERCs and other entities such as the U.S. 

Coast Guard or the Army Corps of Engineers. Some emergency 

planners reported receiving information from multiple sources. 

Emergency planners from 17 counties reported finding the information 

somewhat to very useful and 4 not useful for planning and preparing 

for potential accidents involving hazardous materials transported by 

rail. One local emergency planner told us that having this information 

in advance of an accident helped in putting the appropriate response 

plans in place when a derailment involving ethanol and propane 

occurred. Some local emergency planners described incorporating the 

hazardous materials information into plans and guidance, such as 

emergency response plans, commodity flow studies, and county 

hazardous-materials plans. One said the information was used to fine 

tune the hazardous materials team’s training exercise by focusing on 

the use of fire suppression foam since the information indicated an 

uptick in the volume of crude oil shipments. In addition, some 

emergency planners reported discussing the information with local 

emergency responders in order to increase their awareness of 

hazardous materials shipments.

Emergency planners from some (6 of 20) counties reported difficulty 

getting information about hazardous materials shipments from the 

railroads or SERCs. In describing the behaviors that impeded information 

sharing, one emergency planner told us that the railroad was reluctant to 

release information because it considered the information security 

sensitive. Another noted that the formal process for requesting 

information from railroads gets bogged down, perhaps because it is 

administered by a different office than the personnel with whom informal 

relationships were developed.

With respect to DOT’s Emergency Order related to railroads transporting

Bakken crude oil, emergency planners from 9 of 25 counties told us that 

the Emergency Order improved their access or had other positive 

outcomes, while 11 of 25 counties told us that the Emergency Order had 

 36In its Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials, AAR establishes industry-accepted operating procedures and recommends that 

railroads provide information on hazardous commodities to bona fide requesters, including 

emergency planners and response agencies. AAR, Circular OT-55P (Jan. 19, 2016).
Page 21 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

little or no impact on their ability to access hazardous materials

information. Emergency planners from five counties told us that the effect 

of the Emergency Order was unclear. Of the emergency planners who 

told us that the Emergency Order improved access to information from 

the railroads, one told us that the railroad not only provided information 

about Bakken crude shipments but information about the 10 most shipped 

commodities as well. Other positive outcomes were related to providing a 

broader view of hazmat shipments and improving situational awareness. 

Emergency planners reporting little or no impact explained that in some 

situations they had adequate access to information prior to the 

Emergency Order. A couple of planners told us that the Bakken crude 

information is very generic and provides only generalities that they could 

ascertain just as readily by observing the train traffic. One emergency 

planner told us that the information is already accessible because at least 

one state provides the Bakken crude-oil information on its website for the 

public to access and review.

The hazardous materials information described above is used by local 

emergency planners from railroads and other entities to develop 

commodity flow studies. As mentioned previously, these studies describe 

the types and amounts of hazardous materials transported through a 

specified geographic area and the modes of transportation. Ten 

emergency planners told us that information provided by commodity flow 

studies were particularly useful as comprehensive reference guides. 

According to one emergency planner, a commodity flow study helps 

responders focus on the right response based on the potential hazard. A 

recent transportation study found that local emergency planners use this 

information as part of their all-hazards-planning process, in which 

understanding the risks posed by transporting hazardous materials 

through a community is a key component.37

Local emergency planners in the 24 counties who responded to this 

question told us that once a rail accident involving hazardous materials 

has occurred the most important information for first responders is the 

type and volume of hazardous materials involved—information that is 

found in the train’s hazardous materials documentation. In addition, 

emergency planners from five counties reported it was useful to know the 

 37Transportation Research Board, Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program 

Report 3: Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

(Washington, D.C.: 2011).

Emergency Planners 

Reported That Information 

on Hazardous Materials 

Shipments Is Important for 

Response
Page 22 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

order of the train cars. Train crews are required to make train 

documentation showing the current position of each rail car in the train 

immediately available to first responders in the event of an accident.38

As discussed in more detail later, AAR has developed a smart phone 

application and railroads are beginning to make it available to assist 

responders in identifying train cars’ contents. Nearly all emergency 

planners in urban counties (13 of 14) and about half of the planners from 

rural counties (6 of 11) reported being familiar with this application. 

Emergency planners from 15 counties reported that their responders 

have access to the AskRail application, and 12 found it to be very useful. 

However, some emergency planners described some concerns about the 

adequacy of cellular connectivity. Emergency planners in one urban 

county told us they had a preference for a hard copy of a train’s 

hazardous materials documentation because of the difficulty of reading 

such detailed information on a cell phone.

Although not required by DOT, all seven Class I railroads we surveyed 

reported that they have provided training in the past 5 years to local 

emergency responders related to emergency preparedness for and 

response to rail accidents involving hazardous materials. Class I railroads 

reported directly providing or funding a variety of training, including 

classroom and hands-on training delivered at designated training sites 

and brought to responders’ locations, as well as scenario-based 

discussions and full-scale emergency preparedness exercises. For 

example, one Class I railroad told us that it provides training to fire 

 3849 C.F.R. § 174.26(a) states that trains crews must maintain documents that reflects the 

current position of each rail car containing a hazardous materials and update it to indicate 

changes.

Class I Railroads and 

Selected Class II and 

III Railroads Reported 

Supporting 

Preparedness for Rail 

Accidents Involving 

Hazardous Materials

Class I Railroads 

Reported Increasing 

Training and Support of 

Emergency Responders in 

Recent Years
Page 23 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

departments using props such as tank cars. Five Class I railroads 

reported targeting training resources to communities based on such 

things as the type of hazardous materials being transported in their area, 

the volume of such materials, and the train routes. Six Class I railroads 

told us that awareness- and operational-level training comprised from 50 

to 80 percent of the training they offer. Railroads told us that they 

advertise their training to emergency planners and responders in a variety 

of ways, including: (1) directly to local fire departments, LEPCs, and 

county emergency management agencies; (2) to emergency responder 

organizations, conferences, and training organizations; and (3) to state 

agencies, including SERCs, emergency management agencies, and 

states’ fire marshal offices. All seven Class I railroads reported providing 

at least part of their training through third-party organizations, such as 

Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response 

(TRANSCAER) or the Security and Emergency Response Training 

Center (SERTC), which are industry recognized and known for providing 

hazardous material planning and preparedness training.39

Class I railroads reported having significantly increased their training 

related to hazardous materials in terms of dollars spent since 2011. 

According to data provided by five Class I railroads, their combined total 

spending on training increased from about $1.5 million in 2011 to $4.6 

million in 2015—an increase of more than 200 percent (see table 2 

below). AAR officials attributed the increase in spending in part to a 

response to a call to action by the Secretary of Transportation in January 

2014, after which Class I railroads provided $5 million to develop 

additional curriculum specifically on emergency response to crude oil 

derailments and train first responders.40 In addition, AAR officials told us 

that Class I railroads significantly increased their hazardous materials

training efforts over the last several years in part because of the 

 39All seven Class I railroads we interviewed reported providing training through 

TRANSCAER, a voluntary national outreach effort that focuses on assisting communities 

prepare for and respond to hazardous materials transportation incidents, including railroad 

incidents. Other railroads reported they provide tuition support for responders to attend 

training at SERTC. SERTC is a training center located in Pueblo, Colorado and is 

operated by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of AAR. It focuses 

on training railroad officials, emergency responders, and others to safely handle accidents 

involving tank cars carrying hazardous materials.

40U.S. DOT Secretary Foxx issued this “Call to Action” in response to accidents involving 

crude oil shipments by rail in the U.S. and Canada, calling on rail company executives, 

associations, shippers, and others to discuss how stakeholders can prevent or mitigate 

the consequences of rail accidents that involve flammable liquids.
Page 24 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

tremendous increase in the volume of Bakken crude oil shipped by rail 

and high-profile accidents, such as the one in Lac Mégantic, Quebec.

Table 2: Spending (in Millions) on Training Local Emergency Responders on 

Hazardous-Materials Rail Accidents, as Reported by Five of Seven Class I 

Railroads, 2011 to 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$1.5 $1.5 $1.9 $5.9 $4.6

Source: GAO analysis of Class I railroad questionnaires. | GAO-17-91

Note: This table includes information from five of the seven Class I railroads. We did not include 

information for two Class I railroads because they either provided incomplete data or no data on 

training expenditures. In addition, it was beyond the scope of this engagement to independently 

validate this information.

Relatedly, railroads reported having trained more responders since 2011. 

The seven Class I railroads reported training more than 40,000 first 

responders and other emergency officials in 2015, an increase of over 80 

percent from 2011 (see table 3 below).

Table 3: Emergency Responders and Others Trained (in Thousands) on HazardousMaterials Rail Accidents by Class I Railroads, as Reported by All Seven Class I 

Railroads, 2011 to 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

22.2 23.8 27.6 35.9 40.9

Source: GAO analysis of Class I railroad questionnaires. | GAO-17-91

Note: “Others” includes emergency response contractors, police officers, emergency medical 

services, emergency planning personnel, and state and federal responders. In addition, it was beyond 

the scope of this engagement to independently validate this information.

Class II and III railroads can also provide training on preparing for and 

responding to hazardous materials rail accidents. Of the four Class II and 

III railroads we surveyed, two reported providing training to local 

emergency responders.41 According to officials from the American Short 

Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), its member railroads 

reach out to local emergency responders and have offered training on 

hazardous materials in response to recent accidents. However, according 

to ASLRRA officials, Class II and III railroads generally have fewer 

resources than Class I railroads to provide training to emergency 

 41Of the 2 Class II railroads that said they provide training to local emergency providers, 

neither one was able to provide information about whether the number of emergency 

providers trained had increased or decreased in recent years. 
Page 25 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

responders and others. The officials told us that frequently the most 

effective way for Class II and III railroads to provide training to local 

emergency responders is for them to collaborate with Class I railroads. 

For example, an official from one short-line holding company (i.e., a 

company with a controlling interest in multiple Class II and III railroads) 

we interviewed told us that one of its railroads recently partnered with a 

Class I railroad to gain access to tank car training equipment so that 

responders along its line could undergo training on how to respond to an 

accident involving a tank car.

All Class I railroads reported complying with the Emergency Order by 

reporting the Bakken crude-oil shipment information to the relevant 

SERCs. The Class I railroads also told us that they maintain accurate 

hazardous materials documents, an HMR requirement, with most doing 

so through paper records and new electronic systems. As discussed later, 

FRA officials told us that that the agency contacted railroads to confirm 

that the railroads shared the information about Bakken crude-oil 

shipments and did not find evidence that any railroad failed to comply.

In addition to responding to these DOT requirements, Class I and 

selected Class II and III railroads described taking the following actions in 

the area of information sharing to support emergency responders’ 

preparedness and response for rail accidents involving hazardous 

materials:

• Providing additional information about hazardous materials: All seven 

Class I railroads reported they also provide additional information—

upon request from bona fide emergency planners and responders—

on hazardous materials shipped by rail through their communities. 

Two of the smaller railroads (one Class II and one Class III) reported 

they provide information on hazardous materials. This practice follows 

industry-accepted operating procedures that railroads provide 

information on hazardous commodities, as well as work to improve 

community awareness, emergency planning, and incident response to 

rail hazardous-materials accidents. 42 The seven Class I railroads 

reported receiving between 17 and 225 such requests from LEPCs in 

2015. Two of the four smaller railroads (one Class II and one Class III 

railroads) reported receiving one to five requests in 2015. While five of 

 42AAR, Recommended Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 

Circular OT-55P (Jan.19, 2016). 

Class I and Selected 

Class II and Class III 

Railroads Report 

Providing More 

Information Than Required 

to States and Conducting 

Community Outreach
Page 26 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

the Class I railroads reported an increase in requests over the last 3

years and three reported an increase of 100 percent or greater, the 

number of requests appears low relative to the number of counties 

and communities through which these materials are transported. For 

example, in 2015, six of the railroads received requests from less than 

a third of counties where they own track, with the seventh railroad 

receiving requests equaling just over a third. While the Class I 

railroads reported that they actively advertise the availability of the 

hazardous materials information to bona fide entities, AAR officials 

agreed that the number of requests was low, but did not know the 

reason why.

• Making emergency response information available electronically: All 7 

Class I railroads reported they make information on train’s contents 

available electronically to emergency responders via smart phone 

applications, such as AAR’s AskRail application or their own mobile 

application. AAR officials said that AskRail—the system used by all 

seven Class I railroads—offers access to emergency response 

information similar to that on a train’s hazardous materials 

documents.43 AAR officials reported that from the initial rollout in 

October 2014 through March 2016, 13,000 responders had been 

invited to download the AskRail application and 6,500 had done so. 

However, not all responders have access to this application, as 

discussed previously.44 According to AAR, future iterations of the 

application could include making it available on other platforms, such 

as web-based devices. The four Class II and III railroads reported that 

they do not provide electronic information on train contents; one Class 

II and one Class III reported that they had not received requests to do 

so.

• Conducting community outreach: Six of seven Class I railroads told us 

about various methods to contact emergency-planning and response 

agencies regarding preparedness for a rail accident, such as by letter, 

Internet, telephone, providing an emergency response planning guide, 

or through presentations, training, or training materials or LEPC 

meetings. Five railroads told us that they contact all communities 

along their railroad, covering between 10 percent and 100 percent of 

 43AAR officials also noted that the application provides access to the Emergency 

Response Guidebook (ERG) to assist responder’s understanding of train contents and 

emergency response procedures in absence of the hazardous materials documents.

44One Class I railroad, in addition to using the AskRail application, has its own web-based 

tool, which it stated was designed to provide emergency responders with access to the 

contents of a train’s cars in real-time and offers additional information.
Page 27 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

the communities along their respective lines each year; another said it 

does not have enough resources under its current program to contact 

all communities but is developing a digital program to improve 

contact. Furthermore, all seven Class I railroads reported engaging in 

relationship-building activities with communities, such as participating 

in LEPC meetings or meetings with local and state officials and 

training events such as classes and table top exercises. One Class II 

and one Class III railroad reported they contact emergency 

responders to discuss their preparedness for a rail accident and 

another (Class II) indicated it planned to begin an outreach program 

this year. The fourth railroad (Class III) did not conduct outreach 

except by making its emergency response guide available upon 

request.

• Developing emergency response planning guides: All seven Class I 

railroads reported that they had developed emergency responseplanning guides that include information for communities. However, 

most of the seven railroads restrict access to their respective 

emergency response planning guides or do not produce it in written 

form. Only one of the Class I railroads reported sending the guide to 

all communities along its lines without being requested to do so and 

provided a means to order the guide on its website. Two other 

railroads told us that they made their guides available on their 

websites, while three railroads told us that they shared them at 

training events and one said the guide was also available through 

other communications. One railroad said it provides this information 

orally, but does not share it in written form. Two of the four Class II 

and III railroads (one Class II and one Class III) reported having 

emergency-planning guides that responders must request and the 

other two (one Class II and one Class III) did not have guides. As we 

discussed above, local emergency planners from most of the counties 

we contacted found these guides, when provided, useful in planning 

and preparing for hazardous materials accidents.
Page 28 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

DOT has taken multiple actions to improve emergency preparedness for 

rail accidents involving hazardous materials, with some of the actions 

recent and focused specifically on rail-transported Bakken crude oil. For 

example, DOT enforces the requirement that train crews maintain 

accurate hazardous materials documentation detailing shipments’ 

contents and containing other information that is critical for emergency 

responders in an accident. In addition, as previously discussed, DOT 

issued an Emergency Order in May 2014 requiring railroads expecting to 

carry large volumes of Bakken crude oil to notify officials in states along 

the routes. DOT’s contact with SERCs has expanded in recent years as 

DOT fulfills its regulatory role of ensuring railroads followed the 

Emergency Order. DOT expects to expand the information-sharing 

requirements further with proposed regulations (consistent with the FAST 

Act) to include all high-hazard flammable train operations, not just trains 

carrying crude oil from Bakken sources, steps that will affect its oversight 

of railroads’ actions moving forward. Although DOT is working to finalize 

these regulations, it is not clear that the information that railroads are 

currently required to share with SERCs on shipments of Bakken crude oil 

is consistently reaching local first responders.

PHMSA has produced a variety of training and other materials for 

emergency planners and responders, most of them in the past 2 years, 

intended to improve emergency preparedness for rail accidents involving 

hazardous materials in general and Bakken crude oil in particular (see 

table 4).

Table 4: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Training and Materials Related to Emergency Preparedness for Rail Accidents 

Involving Hazardous Materials

DOT activity Description

Transportation Rail Incident Preparedness 

and Response (TRIPR) training

In April 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

released an online training program designed to be used by instructors to prepare first 

responders to manage rail incidents involving flammable Class 3 hazardous liquids.a

TRIPR’s curriculum covers all phases of emergency response from pre-incident planning 

and preparedness to clean-up and post-emergency operations and incorporates 

interactive scenarios and videos. The training is available free by downloading it from the 

PHMSA web-site, and instructors are able to modify the modules to suit their specific 

needs.

DOT Has Taken 

Multiple Actions to 

Support 

Preparedness for Rail 

Accidents Involving 

Hazardous Materials 

but Could Improve 

Oversight of 

Information Sharing

PHMSA Has Developed 

Training Materials and 

Published Guidance 

Related to Rail Accidents 

Involving Hazardous 

Materials
Page 29 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

DOT activity Description

Commodities Preparedness and Incident 

Management Reference Sheet for 

Petroleum Crude Oil

In September 2014, PHMSA introduced this reference sheet that summarizes best 

practices for emergency response operations for incidents specifically involving crude oil. 

Developed in conjunction with FRA and industry stakeholders, the reference sheet 

describes planning, preparedness, and response principles and can be used as an 

incident management guide for a rail incident involving crude oil. 

Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) The ERG is a guidebook that provides emergency responders with information to help 

manage the first 30 minutes of an incident involving hazardous materials. Updated every 

4 years, most recently in 2016, the ERG contains information that decodes hazardous 

materials placards, identifies critical properties of hazardous materials (e.g., whether 

poisonous by inhalation), and other information that helps responders make 

determinations about how best to respond. In 2013, PHMSA introduced a mobile 

application that makes the ERG available for download on multiple software platforms.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. | GAO-17-91

a

There are nine classes of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids and combustible 

liquids, such as petroleum crude oil and ethanol. The other classes are: explosives (Class 1); gases 

(Class 2); flammable solid, spontaneously combustible, and dangerous when wet (Class 4); oxidizer 

and organic peroxide (Class 5); poison (toxic) and poison inhalation hazard (Class 6); radioactive 

(Class 7); corrosive (Class 8); and miscellaneous (Class 9).

Although we did not ask local emergency planners from selected counties 

about their specific experiences with the TRIPR training or the crude-oil 

reference sheet, we did inquire about their views about the usefulness of 

the ERG. Local emergency planners from all of the counties we contacted 

who provided a response reported that the ERG was useful—with all but 

one (23 of 24) finding it very useful. Local emergency planners from a few 

counties also told us that the guide is particularly useful for the initial first 

response and contains information not commonly known, but critical, for 

responding to hazardous materials accidents.

PHMSA administers the Hazardous Materials Grant Program, which 

distributes a series of grants that support state and local emergencyresponse planning and training activities related to the transportation of 

hazardous materials for all modes, including rail.45 Established by the 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, this 

program is funded by registration fees collected from shippers and 

carriers that transport hazardous materials and consists of three types of 

grants, the largest of which are Hazardous Materials Emergency 

 45The Hazardous Materials Grant Program is a fee-based program. Currently, small 

businesses pay $275 annually and larger businesses pay $2,600 annually, both including 

a $25 administrative fee. These fees provide funding for training and planning grants, 

monitoring and technical assistance, curriculum development, and staffing costs. 

PHMSA and FRA Provide 

Grants to Support 

Emergency Preparedness
Page 30 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Preparedness (HMEP) planning and training grants.46 In fiscal year 2015, 

PHMSA awarded $19.9 million in these grants to states, territories, and 

Native American tribes, allowing them to be used to design and 

implement planning and training programs according to need.47 For 

example, SERCs can use the HMEP funds to conduct commodity flow 

studies, support training exercises, or to send responders to hazardous 

materials conferences or provide grants to LEPCs for the similar 

activities.48 The Hazardous Materials Grant Program also includes (1) 

Hazardous Materials Instructor Training grants ($3.3 million in fiscal year 

2015) to train instructors who then are able to train hazardous materials 

employees in their area and (2) Supplemental Public Sector Training 

grants ($927,000 in fiscal year 2015), which support trainer instruction for 

hazardous materials response educators.49

Some state and local emergency planners have reported that HMEP 

grants—which can be used in a variety of ways as previously discussed—

have helped them to improve their emergency preparedness. State 

emergency planners we interviewed stated that they have used a portion 

of their HMEP grant allocation for state-wide activities in addition to 

making funds available to LEPCs or tribal organizations. For example, in 

2015, DOT reported that one state emergency planner said funds were 

recently used to conduct a state-wide study of hazardous materials 

 46According to PHMSA, each state’s governor or counterparts within territories or tribes 

designate an agency to receive their HMEP grant funds, such as the state emergency 

management agency or SERC that is responsible for completing an annual application to 

PHMSA requesting funds for proposed activities. PHMSA evaluates the applications to 

ensure that they support the program’s mission. PHMSA determines the level of funding 

for each applicant using formulas for planning and training funds with the exception of 

Native American Tribes, for which there is a separate formula. 

47In total, PHMSA has awarded approximately $182 million in HMEP planning and training 

grants since 1993.

48The FAST Act included changes to PHMSA’s HMEP grant program including expanding 

the program’s performance period from one-year to multi-year use and, according to 

PHMSA officials, allowing grantees more time to plan how to use their allocations. 

Emergency planners from 9 of the 17 states we spoke with said this expanded funding 

window will provide flexibility for selecting projects and targeting funds. In addition, the 

FAST Act merges the program’s historically separate training and planning allocations into 

a single allotment for each grantee. Prior to fiscal year 2016, each grant allocation was 

comprised of two specific allocations: training and planning. Pub. L. No. 114-94, §7203, 

129 Stat. 1589.

49In July 2016, PHMSA announced the issuance of $2.7 million in Hazardous Materials 

Instructor Training grants to 6 grantees and one $932,000 Supplemental Public Sector 

Training grant for fiscal year 2016. 
Page 31 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

travelling through the state’s communities in 2014, while another state 

used its funds to train 3,100 emergency responders about hazardous 

materials preparedness. Local emergency planners from 8 of 24 counties 

reported that they have received HMEP funding from their SERCs in the 

past few years and that the funds improved their ability to plan, prepare 

for, and respond to rail accidents involving hazardous materials.

PHMSA and FRA have also recently introduced other grant programs that 

support state and local emergency preparedness efforts (see table 5).

Table 5: Recently Introduced Department of Transportation (DOT) Grant Programs Related to Emergency Preparedness for 

Rail Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials

Grant program, DOT agency Description

Community Safety Grant Program, PHMSA This grant program was established in 2015 by the FAST Act to provide $1 million to 

non-profit organizations to fund community outreach and training related to the safe 

transport of hazardous materials. This program is to be funded annually.a

Assistance for Local Emergency Response 

Training program, PHMSA

This $5.9 million grant program was established in September 2015 and funded by 

unused and recovered funds from PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Emergency 

Preparedness grant program. The grants are to be used to train volunteer or rural 

emergency responders to prepare for incidents involving rail shipments of flammable 

liquids. Although PHMSA is authorized to fund the grant program in 2016, officials stated 

that they do not plan to fund a second round of grants until they assess the results of the 

2015 grant awards.b

Safe Transportation of Energy Products by

Rail Program, FRA

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 made $10 million 

available to support state projects that improve railroad grade crossing and track safety 

on routes that transport crude oil, ethanol, and other flammable energy products. In 

February 2016, FRA announced grant awards for 9 projects in 8 states.c

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. | GAO-17-91

a

Pub. L. No. 114-94, § 7301, 129 Stat. 1312, 1594 (2015).

b

The Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training grants were introduced after the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 113-235) allowed 

PHMSA to use money recovered from prior year’s HMEP grants to fund them. In 2016, PHMSA 

approved ALERT grants to the University of Findlay (All Hazards Training Center), the International 

Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Center for Rural Development.

c

Pub. L. No. 113-235, div. K, § 153. 128 Stat. 2130, 2718 (2014). A DOT official told us that FRA has 

obligated the funds for three of the awarded projects and continues to work on obligating the funds for 

the remainder of the projects awarded.
Page 32 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

As previously discussed, DOT has required that train crews operating 

trains carrying hazardous materials maintain information on the nature 

and location of those materials that can be shared with responders at the 

scene, should an accident occur. As railroads continue to ship large 

quantities of crude oil and other hazardous materials across the nation, 

emergency responders need to be aware of the location and the nature of 

the hazardous materials present at the scene of an accident so they are 

able to be properly equipped to protect themselves and their community. 

As discussed earlier, local emergency planners from the 24 counties who 

provided a response told us that the type and quantity of hazardous 

materials are the most important pieces of information for first responders 

at the scene of an accident. The HMR requires that a train crew carry 

hazardous materials documentation including both “shipping papers”50—

information about the hazardous materials being carried and the shipper’s 

emergency contact information—and the train’s “consist”51—a document 

detailing the current position and contents of the cars carrying hazardous 

materials.52 According to officials from AAR, this documentation is the 

official record of the order of a train’s cars and its contents, and train 

crews will update this copy as the train’s order or contents change along 

its route. DOT officials explained that the HMR also requires train crews 

 5049 C.F.R. Part 172, subpt. C.

51The FAST Act also directs DOT to require railroads to provide hazardous materials train 

consist information to include faster, real-time access by first responders after an accident. 

DOT officials told us that they are in the process of developing a rulemaking that will 

include this requirement for public comment. Pub. L. No. 114-94, § 7302, 129 Stat. 1312, 

1594.

5249 C.F.R. §§ 174.26(a) and (b). 49 C.F.R. §§ 174.26(a) states that trains crews must 

maintain documents that reflects the current position of each rail car containing a 

hazardous material and update it to indicate changes; 49 C.F.R. § 174.26(b) states that a 

crew transporting hazardous materials must maintain information on the material(s) and 

emergency response information.

DOT Has Established 

Information Sharing 

Requirements for 

Railroads but Could Better 

Understand Whether 

Shipping Information Will 

Reach Local Emergency 

Planners

Hazardous Materials 

Documentation Requirements 

for Trains
Page 33 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

to provide their hazardous material documentation to the local emergency 

responders in the event of an accident to help them identify the location of 

hazardous materials on a train and inform appropriate defensive 

response actions (e.g., wearing proper protective equipment and 

establishing a safe perimeter). FRA conducts inspections to determine 

railroads’ compliance with safety regulations including those related to 

hazardous materials documentation. FRA officials told us that as part of 

FRA’s routine inspections of railroads’ compliance with safety regulations, 

inspectors collect information on whether or not train crews are in 

possession of the required hazardous material documentation and 

whether the documentation is accurate. If the documentation is not 

accurate or is missing, FRA may cite the railroad for failing to comply with 

the requirements by citing a defect or issuing a violation and assessing 

fines.

As previously discussed, in the wake of railroad accidents involving crude 

oil, DOT issued the Emergency Order in 2014 to improve information 

sharing between railroads and emergency planners by requiring railroads 

to provide advance notification of Bakken crude oil train movements 

through states. Prior to the Emergency Order , railroads could provide 

information about the types of hazardous materials moving through local 

communities to bona fide emergency response authorities upon request, 

as described previously. Thus, unless they requested information, state 

and local emergency planners may not have known if, or how many such 

trains carrying large quantities of Bakken crude oil were moving through 

their jurisdiction until after an accident was reported. However, the 

Emergency Order has since required each railroad transporting 1-million 

gallons or more of Bakken crude oil in a single train to provide the 

following information in writing to the SERC for each state in which it 

operates such a train:

• a reasonable estimate of the number of high-hazard flammable trains 

expected to travel through each county within a state per week;

• the routes of these high-hazard flammable trains;

• a description of the materials shipped;

• all applicable emergency-response information; and

• a point of contact at the railroad.

Furthermore, the Emergency Order requires railroads to update this 

information whenever their reported volumes vary by more than 25 

percent, and calls on SERCs—entities that the Emergency Order 

indicates are best situated—to convey the information about shipments of 

Information Sharing 

Requirements for Trains 

Carrying Bakken Crude Oil and 

Other Flammable Liquids
Page 34 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Bakken crude oil to LEPCs in affected counties. This basic information 

was meant to inform local emergency responders about the presence of 

trains carrying Bakken crude oil.

By issuing the Emergency Order, DOT required railroads to take action to 

assist emergency responders in preparing for rail accidents involving 

crude oil by providing information important for local emergency 

preparedness. Specifically, the Emergency Order explained that it is 

essential that local responders be well informed about the presence of 

trains carrying Bakken crude oil because they are typically the first to 

arrive on the accident scene. Similarly, it states that local responders 

should be as well informed as possible prior to an accident involving a 

train carrying Bakken crude oil, and, without the requirement established 

by the Emergency Order, local emergency responders may not know to 

prepare for potential accidents involving these trains. Furthermore, as 

previously discussed, our review found that local emergency planners find 

this type of information useful. Specifically, local emergency planners 

from 17 of 21 counties reported that information about hazardous 

materials shipments was useful for planning and preparing for accidents. 

For example, local emergency planners told us that the type of 

information that is most useful for planning and preparing for a potential 

rail accident involving hazardous materials includes information about the 

type of hazardous material (including hazard classification and toxicity 

level), quantity of hazardous material, route of the shipments, and railroad 

emergency contact’s name and phone number.

However, the extent that this information actually reaches local 

emergency planners is not clear. FRA officials said the agency contacted 

railroads and SERCs to confirm that railroads had shared the required 

information within 30 days of the Emergency Order’s issuance in 2014, 

and then again in 2015, and did not find any evidence that any railroad 

had failed to comply. However, FRA officials told us that they did not 

collect information about whether the SERCs distributed the information 

to local planners. In 2015, PHMSA gathered some limited information 

from states about their efforts to distribute the information to local 

emergency planners and determined that some states did not share the 

information. Specifically, PHMSA participated in discussions with state 

officials from 48 states and the District of Columbia as part of an EPA-led 
Page 35 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

initiative in January 2015.53 Among the topics discussed was the extent to 

which state agencies passed the Bakken crude oil shipment information 

to local communities. According to PHMSA officials, although states 

indicated that they shared the railroad-provided information with local 

communities, some states indicated the information was heavily redacted. 

PHMSA officials also learned that some states did not provide any 

information to local communities because of varying interpretations about 

whether and how much information could be made publicly available. The 

extent that this occurred is unclear, however, because neither PHMSA 

nor FRA took steps to systematically collect additional information from 

SERCs about whether they disseminated the information required by the 

Emergency Order.

This lack of clarity notwithstanding, in July 2016, PHMSA proposed 

expanding the information-sharing requirement so that railroads would 

have to provide advance notification for all high hazard flammable trains 

and would continue to make the SERC the information focal point 

consistent with the FAST Act.54 PHMSA’s proposed rulemaking effectively 

codifies the Emergency Order but broadens it by requiring railroads to 

provide monthly reports to SERCs on high-hazard flammable trains, 

which carry other flammable liquids besides Bakken crude oil. The 

impending broadening of the Emergency Order is likely to expand its 

applicability beyond only states through which Bakken crude oil is 

transported by rail, and affect more railroads. The Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government state that agencies should design and 

implement control activities so that they are aligned with their objectives 

and review control activities after any significant changes to activities to 

determine that the changes are designed and implemented 

appropriately.55 As FRA is responsible for enforcing PHMSA’s regulations 

 53In January 2015, PHMSA participated in conference calls with 48 states in the lower 

continental U.S. and the District of Columbia to address emergency response to rail 

accidents involving crude oil. This activity was hosted by EPA and attended by other 

federal agencies, including DOT, FRA, and FEMA. The interagency team held discussions 

with states to collect information on preparedness efforts for responding to, and mitigating 

the impacts of, crude-oil-by-rail incidents.

54The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking broadens the notification requirement of the May 

2014 Emergency Order to the movement of high hazard flammable trains which is defined 

in the FAST Act as a single train transporting 20 or more tank cars loaded with a Class 3 

flammable liquid in a continuous block or a single train transporting 35 or more tank cars 

loaded with a Class 3 flammable liquid throughout the train consist. Pub. L. No. 114-94 § 

7302(b)(6), 129 Stat. 1312, 1596. 

55GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 36 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

in the rail mode, the proposed new reporting requirement would represent 

an expansion in FRA’s activities and oversight; therefore, it will be 

important to determine if the activities are properly implemented.

Given the proposed expansion of the Emergency Order, this may be an 

opportune time for DOT to consider how it can determine whether the 

information-sharing requirements will reach their intended audience. 

Although increasing the number of trains to which this requirement will 

apply may increase the administrative burden to railroads—and, to a 

lesser extent, FRA—the agency is currently unaware whether SERCs 

have disseminated railroad-provided information to local emergency 

planners—information that can facilitate preparedness—as intended. 

However, PHMSA’s January 2015 conversations with state officials 

demonstrated a shared-interest in enhancing preparedness to rail 

accidents and a willingness to share information with federal partners. 

Without an understanding of the extent to which the required railroadprovided information has been received by local emergency planners, it is 

unclear whether requiring railroads to share this information has the 

potential to improve emergency preparedness for a rail accident. 

Furthermore, without information on how consistently SERCs share 

information, it is possible that some LEPCs will not receive information 

on, and be unaware of, large shipments of flammable materials that 

would help them improve their preparedness for a potential accident. 

Finally, DOT has implemented a requirement without ensuring that the 

information reaches the intended audience—the emergency planners in 

local communities.

DOT has recently taken actions to enhance emergency preparedness in 

light of recent accidents involving Bakken crude oil. For example, DOT 

issued the Emergency Order to increase awareness of large shipments of 

Bakken crude oil. However, the extent to which local emergency planners 

in affected communities have received the information about these 

shipments is unclear because DOT has not taken steps to understand 

whether SERCs provided the information to local emergency planners, 

who in turn could use the information in preparing for potential rail 

accidents involving hazardous materials. Without knowing whether the 

states provided the information, it is unclear whether requiring railroads to 

share this information has improved emergency preparedness for such 

accidents. DOT has proposed regulations codifying the Emergency Order 

in accordance with the FAST Act. This proposal would expand the 

requirement for railroads to share information on planned large shipments 

of other hazardous materials with affected SERCs. However, without a 

Conclusions
Page 37 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

process for understanding whether SERCs are providing the information 

to local planning entities, DOT cannot be assured that the information will 

ultimately reach the communities where it is needed or would be useful in 

preparing local responders for rail accidents involving selected hazardous 

materials. Furthermore, the agency may be missing an opportunity to 

optimize this requirement in a way that the information provided best 

meets the needs of emergency responders. Given that the expanded 

information-sharing requirement will likely include more railroads and 

hazardous materials shipments, monitoring whether emergency planners 

receive this information will become even more important in the future.

To continue the agency’s efforts to improve state and local emergency 

preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation:

• after the rulemaking is finalized, develop a process for regularly 

collecting information from SERCs on the distribution of the railroadprovided hazardous-materials-shipping information to local planning 

entities.

We provided a draft of this product to DOT, the Department of Homeland 

Security, EPA, NTSB, and the Surface Transportation Board for their 

review and comment. We received written comments from DOT, which 

are reprinted in appendix II.

DOT concurred with our recommendation to develop a process for 

regularly collecting information from SERCs on the distribution of railroadprovided hazardous-materials-shipping information to local planning 

entities. DOT also highlighted recent actions it has taken to improve the 

ability of communities to prepare for and respond to accidents involving 

the transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials, including 

the publication of proposed regulations in July 2016 that would require 

railroads to share information on high-hazard flammable train operations 

with SERCs and tribal emergency response commissions in accordance 

with the FAST Act. DOT also plans to issue regulations, also in 

accordance with the FAST Act, requiring Class I railroads that transport 

hazardous materials to generate and share real-time electronic consist 

information with applicable fusion centers. Finally, in October 2016, DOT 

awarded $20.4 million in HMEP grants to states, territories, and Native 

American tribes to enhance their ability to respond to hazardous materials 

incidents.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 38 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

The Department of Homeland Security and EPA provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated in the report, as appropriate. NTSB 

and the Surface Transportation Board reviewed our report, but did not 

provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Our objectives were to examine: (1) the factors selected local emergency 

planners report as affecting their preparedness for rail accidents involving 

hazardous materials; (2) the actions that Class I and selected other 

railroads report taking to support local emergency planners’ preparedness 

for rail accidents involving hazardous materials; and (3) the actions that 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken to support state and 

local emergency planners’ preparedness for rail accidents involving 

hazardous materials and additional actions, if any, that DOT could take. 

The scope of the work was limited to emergency planning and 

preparedness for rail incidents involving hazardous materials, and did not 

focus on other phases of emergency response to an accident, such as 

mitigation and investigation, that are largely the responsibility of other 

federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Coast Guard.1

To inform all of our objectives, we reviewed relevant literature, including 

journal articles and reports about rail accidents involving hazardous 

materials and the response to such accidents, as well as prior GAO 

reports on the transportation of hazardous materials by rail.2 We also 

reviewed relevant laws, such as the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015,

3 the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA),

4 and regulations, such 

as the Hazardous Materials Regulations,

5 to determine requirements for 

 1

For example, FEMA works with state and local stakeholders to implement the National 

Incident Management System, a comprehensive, national approach to incident 

management that is applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across functional disciplines 

and the full spectrum of potential incidents, hazards, and impacts, regardless of size, 

location, or complexity. FEMA also manages the Emergency Management Performance 

Grant program that assists local, tribal, territorial, and state governments in enhancing and 

sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. EPA and the U.S. Coast 

Guard are the lead agencies for responding to hazardous materials substance releases 

for inland and coastal zones, respectively. 

2

GAO, Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation is Taking Actions to 

Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety, 

GAO-14-667 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2004) and GAO, Rail Safety and Security: 

Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security, but Risk-Based Plan Needed, 

GAO-03-435 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2003). 

3

Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015).

4

Pub. L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613, 1729 (1986). 

5

49 C.F.R. pts. 171-180

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

DOT and railroads related to transporting hazardous materials by rail, as 

well as requirements for federal agencies, states, and localities regarding 

emergency planning and reporting related to hazardous materials. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) within DOT; FEMA; EPA; and the National Transportation 

Safety Board to inform our understanding about the roles and 

responsibilities of federal, state, and local stakeholders in emergency 

preparedness and response to rail accidents involving hazardous 

materials.

To identify views of selected local emergency planners on factors that 

affect their preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials, 

we conducted structured interviews with, and provided a questionnaire to 

a nonprobability sample of 25 local emergency planners, primarily from 

local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) affiliated with county 

agencies—the groups responsible for developing and implementing 

emergency response plans and managing preparedness activities. We 

developed a questionnaire and structured interview guide based on our 

analysis of information gathered from interviews with stakeholders—such 

as Class I railroads, National Volunteer Fire Council, a state emergency 

response commission (SERC), and two LEPCs, among others—who 

were knowledgeable about emergency preparedness and hazardous 

materials rail accidents. We reviewed the National Fire Protection 

Association training standards for first responders to hazardous materials 

accidents to understand the levels of hazardous materials training for 

responders.6 After developing and pre-testing a questionnaire and 

structured interview guide with local emergency planners and responders 

in 2 counties, we administered the questionnaires and conducted 

structured interviews with a nonprobability sample of local emergency 

planners, primarily from LEPCs, and conducted an analysis of openended questions provided by these officials in response to the 

questionnaire and structured interview questions. For some open-ended 

questions, we conducted a more detailed content analysis, and for other 

questions, we summarized the results or provided examples of 

responses.

 6

National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of 

Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents, 2013 

edition.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

We selected LEPCs as the primary contacts for our questionnaire and 

interviews because (1) they are responsible for implementing 

requirements established in EPCRA, including the development of 

emergency response plans that identify transportation routes of extremely 

hazardous substances; (2) because they include representatives from 

local emergency responders;

7 and (3) because the DOT Emergency 

Order required railroads to report Bakken crude oil information to SERCs, 

based on the idea that they are best positioned to convey the information 

to LEPCs in affected counties.8

To arrive at samples of local emergency-planning officials, we used 

Geographical Information System software to analyze all rail lines across 

the 48 contiguous states, the location of county lines, and the estimated 

amount (in tons) and routes of hazardous materials transported in 2013, 

based on the Surface Transportation Board’s Carload Waybill Sample.9

(The 2013 Waybill Sample was the most recent at the time of our review.) 

To determine the reliability of the data, we reviewed the documentation 

provided by the Surface Transportation Board on how the sample was 

taken and did electronic testing to ensure that we received the complete 

file. Because the waybill data only contain origins, destinations, and 

selected transfer points, we used the TRAGIS routing model developed 

by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to estimate the rail routes for 

hazardous materials and determined that the data were reliable for the 

purposes of identifying counties with high volumes of hazardous materials 

and crude oil transported by rail. Using this analysis, we identified the 10 

counties with the highest volumes of crude oil and other hazardous 

materials transported by rail within each of the five PHMSA regions in four 

categories: (1) urban counties with carloads of crude oil, (2) rural counties 

with carloads of crude oil, (3) urban counties with carloads of hazardous 

materials other than crude oil, and (4) rural counties with carloads of other 

hazmat. From this list, we identified 30 counties (three urban and three 

rural in each of the five PHMSA regions) to interview and were able to 

contact local emergency planning officials from LEPCs in 25 of the 30 

 7

Pub. L. No. 99-499, title III, 100 Stat. 1613, 1728 (1986) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 11001).

8

We contacted LEPCs in most of the counties we selected, but in one case a state did not 

have LEPCs, so we contacted the emergency management office for the county that had 

responsibilities for implementing EPCRA reporting requirements. 

9

The Carload Waybill Sample created by STB is a statistically representative sample of 

commodity flows in the U.S. In generating the tables for our selection process, we 

excluded counties with less than 400 carloads per year to protect confidentiality of waybill 

data.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

counties. (Five counties did not respond to our requests for interviews.) 

We received completed questionnaires from 24 of 25 counties and 

interviewed local emergency planners from 25 counties—specifically at 

least two urban and at least two rural counties across all but one PHMSA 

region10 for a total of 25 local emergency planners across 17 states.11

Because our work was based on a nonprobability sample of counties, the 

information we obtained and present in this report should not be regarded 

as an exhaustive list of factors local emergency planners may consider as 

affecting preparedness for rail incidents involving hazardous materials. 

Similarly, the information and perspectives that we obtained from these 

local emergency planners are not generalizable to other local planners or 

counties.

We identified the 17 SERCs to interview based on the location of the four 

urban and four rural counties that had the highest volumes of hazardous 

materials in each of the 5 PHMSA regions we selected.12 Finally, we 

interviewed representatives from associations representing local 

emergency responders, such as the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the International 

Association of Fire Fighters about factors affecting preparedness.

To understand the actions Class I and selected other railroads report 

having taken to support local emergency planners’ preparedness for rail

accidents involving hazardous materials, we developed a questionnaire 

and administered it to all seven Class I railroads and to six smaller 

regional and short line railroads, known as Class II and Class III 

railroads.13 We interviewed 5 of 7 Class I railroads (selected in no priority 

 10We obtained a response from only one rural county in PHMSA’s southern region.

11Because the STB Carload Waybill Sample contains confidential information, we do not 

reveal the locations of the counties that had the highest volumes of hazardous materials 

transported by rail. 

12We were unable to interview SERC officials in one of the states in which we conducted 

interviews with local emergency planners. However, we interviewed SERC officials in 

another state where we pre-tested our questionnaire and structured interview guide. 

13Railroads are classified into three classes based primarily on annual operating 

revenues. According to the Surface Transportation Board, as of 2015, Class I railroads are 

those with annual operating revenues of at least $457.9 million, Class II railroads are 

those with annual operating revenues of less than $457.9 million but in excess of $36.6 

million, and Class III railroads are those with annual operating revenues of $36.6 million or

less. 49 C.F.R. § 1201.1-1. Class II freight railroads typically operate over 350 to 900 

miles of track and Class III freight railroads typically operate over less than 350 miles of 

track. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

order but which could be scheduled soonest) to develop an 

understanding of the types of training and other resources railroads 

provide to local emergency responders.14 We developed the 

questionnaire based on our analysis of information gathered from 

interviews with stakeholders—such as five of seven Class I railroads, the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR), American Short Line and 

Regional Railroad Association, a SERC, two LEPCs, and FRA, among 

others—who were knowledgeable about hazardous materials information 

sharing, emergency preparedness and response training, community 

awareness efforts, and railroad response to hazardous materials 

accidents. The Class II and Class III railroads were selected using the 

Surface Transportation Board’s 2013 Carload Waybill sample to identify 

those railroads that operate in counties where we conducted structured 

interviews with local emergency planners and to obtain variation in 

railroads operating in urban and rural counties. We sent our questionnaire 

to two Class II railroads and four Class III railroads and received 

responses from both Class II railroads and two Class III railroads. 

Because our work was based on a nonprobability sample of Class II and 

Class III railroads, the results of the questionnaires with the smaller 

railroads cannot be generalized to the entire population of Class II and 

Class III railroads. We also reviewed AAR’s Recommended Railroad 

Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials15 and 

railroad documents such as emergency planning guides, examples of 

reports railroads sent to emergency planners, responder requests for 

information about hazardous commodities transported in their 

communities, and training and outreach material provided to local 

emergency responders such as the Transportation Community 

Awareness and Emergency Response training program. We also 

interviewed officials from AAR, the American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association, and the International Association of Sheet Metal, 

Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers about railroad requirements and 

actions for emergency preparedness and response to hazardous 

materials accidents, such as the development of electronic applications 

that can be used by emergency responders to identify commodities in the 

event of a hazardous materials accident. We also reviewed information 

on railroad websites, which are used to provide information to 

 14We also obtained written responses to our interview questions from another Class I 

railroad.

15AAR, Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials, Circular OT-55P (Jan. 19, 2016). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

communities about hazardous materials and railroad response to 

accidents.

To understand DOT’s actions to support preparedness for rail accidents 

involving hazardous materials and additional actions, if any, it could take, 

we reviewed pertinent FRA and PHMSA documents related to these 

actions, including training materials and guidance, grant program 

documentation, and documentation on efforts to oversee the 

implementation of requirements for railroads to share information on train 

contents and movements related to the May 2014 Emergency 

Restriction/Prohibition Order16 (Emergency Order). We also reviewed 

comments the agency received related to the Emergency Order as part of 

its Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational 

Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains rulemaking.17 We compared 

the agency’s efforts to oversee implementation of information-sharing 

requirements for railroads with pertinent Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government and identified criteria about how agencies 

should review internal control activities to ensure they are implemented 

properly, particularly after a program change.18 In addition, we analyzed 

information obtained from interviews with local emergency planners on 

how they used the information provided by railroads and with emergency 

planners from SERCs, including information provided in response to the 

Emergency Order, and their views on the usefulness of the information to 

support preparedness and response efforts. We also reviewed PHMSA 

guidance on Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) 

planning and training grants, Hazardous Materials Instructor Training 

grants, and Supplemental Public Sector Training grants. We analyzed 

information obtained from interviews with SERC emergency planners on 

how they used the PHMSA’s HMEP grants. These stakeholders were 

chosen because their state coincided with the geographic location of the 

local emergency planners we selected, as discussed above. We also 

interviewed PHMSA and FRA officials about recent DOT actions to 

support emergency preparedness and response to rail hazardous 

materials accidents, such as the development of the crude oil reference 

sheet, the Transportation Rail Incident Preparedness and Response 

 16DOT, Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order, DOT-OST-2014-0067 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 7, 2014).

1780 Fed. Reg. 26644 (May 8, 2015). 

18GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

training program, and the Assistance for Local Emergency Response 

Training and Community Safety Grants grant programs.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 through November

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 46 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 47 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments
Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

Page 48 GAO-17-91 Hazardous Materials Rail Shipments

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov

In addition to the individual name above, Nancy Lueke (Assistant 

Director), Chris Keisling, Gail Marnik (Analyst in Charge), David Hooper, 

John Mingus, Joshua Ormond, Jaclyn Nelson, Amy Rosewarne, Kelly 

Rubin, Jim Russell, and Chad Williams made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100161)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.