ACTIONS TAKEN AND NEEDED TO 

IMPLEMENT MANDATES AND 

ADDRESS RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING RAIL SAFETY 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Report Number: CR-2008-072 

Date Issued: August 26, 2008 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Report on Actions Taken and Needed 

to Implement Mandates and Address 

Recommendations Regarding Rail Safety 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Report Number CR-2008-072 

Date: August 26, 2008 

From: 

David Tornquist 

Assistant Inspector General for Rail and Maritime 

Program Audits and Economic Analysis 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-50 

To: Federal Railroad Administrator 

This report presents the results of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) audit of 

certain Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) actions to promote rail safety. The 

objective of this audit was to assess FRA’s progress in implementing relevant 

mandates established by Congress and recommendations made by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and our office. 

We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government 

Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. 

We reviewed 50 statutory rail safety mandates passed by Congress from 19901

through 2007, 177 recommendations made by NTSB from 1989 through 2007, and 

16 recommendations made by our office from 2003 through 2007. Exhibit A 

contains additional details on our objective, scope, and methodology. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

FRA has addressed most congressional mandates and NTSB and OIG 

recommendations regarding rail safety by issuing rules, completing studies, 

establishing oversight programs and processes, or disseminating model legislation 

to states. FRA closed 43 of 48 (90 percent) relevant congressional mandates, 133 

of 177 (75 percent) NTSB recommendations, and 12 of 16 (75 percent) of the OIG 

recommendations we examined. However, 5 congressional rail safety mandates 

 

1

 Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated, calendar year data are reported. 
2

still need to be implemented and 44 NTSB recommendations and 4 OIG 

recommendations have not been fully addressed (see table 1). 

Table 1. Number of Open Rail Safety Mandates and 

Recommendations and Time Open 

As of April 30, 2008 

Open Items 

Number of 

Open Items 

Average Time 

Open 

(in years) 

Range of Time 

Open 

(in years) 

Congressional Mandates 5* 2.2 0.3 to 2.7 

NTSB Recommendations 44 4.9 1.0 to 18.8 

OIG Recommendations 4 2.1 1.0 to 3.9 

Source: OIG Analysis. 

*

Three of these open mandates were overdue. 

The five open congressional rail safety mandates include additional measures to 

enhance the transportation of hazardous materials and improvements to the design 

and strength of rail tank cars (see Exhibit B). They have been open for an average 

of 2.2 years, ranging from 0.3 to 2.7 years. As of April 2008, three mandates were 

overdue because of delays in conducting related research; one met the initial 

statutory deadline, but still had not been completed; and one is not overdue 

because it received an extended deadline of 1 year. In addition to these five open 

mandates, we determined that 4 of the 43 closed mandates are ongoing because 

they require FRA to take periodic actions to promote safety, such as ensuring the 

appropriate enforcement of laws that protect railroad employees (see Exhibit C). 

As of April 2008, 31 of 44 (70 percent) of the open NTSB rail safety 

recommendations were classified as open acceptable or open alternative response 

(see Exhibit D). The open NTSB recommendations include the need to enhance 

passenger equipment rail car safety standards and improve the safety of tank cars 

that transport hazardous materials. They have been open for an average of 

4.9 years, ranging from 1.0 to 18.8 years. 

Finally, 4 of 16 (25 percent) OIG recommendations remained open, as of 

April 2008 (see Exhibit E). These recommendations cover areas such as 

collecting national grade crossing inventory data, reporting grade crossing 

collisions, and reducing sight obstructions at grade crossings. They have been 

open for an average of 2.1 years, ranging from 1.0 to 3.9 years. 

Although FRA has made significant progress, it can be more responsive to 

congressional mandates and recommendations regarding rail safety. Specifically, 

we found that: 
3

• FRA did not have a centralized process for tracking and monitoring its 

implementation of congressional rail safety mandates. According to FRA 

officials, to identify rail safety mandates and actions taken, they relied on the 

regulatory agenda and rulemaking process as well as files maintained by staff 

responsible for addressing rail safety legislative issues. In addition, FRA relied 

heavily on the institutional knowledge of its senior safety officials. As a result, 

information on the actions taken to implement congressional rail safety 

mandates and meet statutory deadlines was not readily available for use in 

planning needed work, establishing milestones, assessing progress, and 

reporting accomplishments.

FRA could improve its responsiveness by establishing a centralized process for 

documenting, tracking, and monitoring congressional rail safety mandates that 

includes planned and actual milestones. FRA officials told us that a 

centralized process for tracking the implementation of all open congressional 

mandates would serve three purposes. First, a tracking process would facilitate 

FRA’s planning and managing of work assignments to implement these 

mandates, particularly those that require periodic actions. Second, a tracking 

process would provide information on the resources needed to implement open 

congressional mandates for FRA’s annual budget requests. Third, a tracking 

process would provide FRA with information on its progress in implementing 

congressional mandates for reports to the Congress, public, and others. 

• FRA rarely met the statutory mandate—delegated to it by the Secretary—that 

requires the Secretary to respond to NTSB’s safety recommendations within 

90 days of issuance.2

 From 1989 through 2007, FRA missed this deadline 

83.6 percent of the time (148 of 177 recommendations). On average, it took 

FRA 198 days to respond to NTSB’s recommendations. We also found that 

FRA did not routinely provide NTSB with timetables for implementing rail 

safety recommendations with which it fully or partially concurred or updates 

on the status of open recommendations. FRA could address NTSB’s rail safety 

recommendations in a more timely manner by: (1) submitting a written 

response within 90 days and including a timetable for each recommendation 

that it plans to implement and (2) strengthening its processes for monitoring 

and tracking these recommendations. 

A complete list of recommendations made in this report can be found on page 8. 

 

2

 49 U.S.C. §1135, “Secretary of Transportation’s Response to Safety Recommendation.” 
4

FINDINGS 

FRA Implemented Many Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Over the 

Past 18 Years, but a Centralized Process Is Needed to Track and 

Monitor Results 

FRA made significant progress in closing out congressional mandates to improve 

rail safety that were established from 1990 through 2007. During this 18-year 

period, Congress established 50 rail safety mandates3

 that were included in 15 

laws and 4 reports issued by the House of Representatives (see table 3 in Exhibit 

A). Collectively, these laws and reports authorized railroad safety programs and 

made appropriations available for program operations, among other things. 

We found that FRA had closed 43 of 48 (90 percent) congressional safety 

mandates, primarily by conducting various studies of the railroads’ operating 

practices and transmitting the reports to Congress. For example, it transmitted 

reports to Congress in September 1994 on the safe transportation of hazardous 

materials by rail, in May 2000 on positive train control systems, and in 

August 2005 on the safe placement of train cars. FRA also issued final rules to 

improve train operations. For example, FRA issued rules to upgrade power brakes 

on passenger and freight trains, enhance track safety standards, and promote safety 

at grade crossings. 

Nonetheless, as of April 2008, we identified five congressional rail safety 

mandates that had not yet been implemented. These mandates had been open for 

an average of 2.2 years, ranging from 0.3 to 2.7 years. Three of the five open 

mandates had missed their statutory deadlines due to delays in conducting related 

research (see mandates 1, 2, and 4 in Exhibit B). One other open mandate met the 

initial statutory deadline through FRA’s issuance of a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to strengthen requirements for tank cars carrying poison inhalation 

hazard products, but a final rule has not been issued (see mandate 3 in Exhibit B). 

Another open mandate is not overdue because it received an extended deadline of 

1 year (see mandate 5 in Exhibit B).4

 In addition to these 5 open mandates, 4 of 

the 43 closed mandates are ongoing because they require FRA to take periodic 

actions to promote safety, such as ensuring the appropriate enforcement of laws 

that protect railroad employees (see mandates 1 through 4 in Exhibit C). 

Although FRA has implemented many congressional rail safety mandates, we 

found that FRA did not have a centralized process for documenting, tracking, and 

 

3

 We did not consider 2 of the 50 rail safety mandates relevant to our analysis because the authorized programs did not 

receive appropriations. 4

 This mandate appeared in the Explanatory Statement for the Department’s Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations Act. 
5

monitoring its implementation of such mandates. According to FRA officials, to 

identify rail safety mandates and actions taken, they relied on the regulatory 

agenda and rulemaking process as well as files maintained by staff responsible for 

addressing specific rail safety legislative issues. We observed that FRA also relied 

heavily on the institutional knowledge of its senior safety officials. As a result, 

information on the actions taken to implement congressional rail safety mandates 

and meet statutory deadlines was not readily available for use in planning work 

assignments, establishing milestones, assessing progress, and reporting 

accomplishments.

According to FRA, a centralized process for tracking the implementation of all 

open congressional mandates would serve three purposes. First, a centralized 

tracking process would facilitate FRA’s planning and managing of work 

assignments to implement these open mandates, particularly those that require the 

Secretary to take certain actions on a regular or periodic basis. For example, on a 

regular basis, the Secretary must consult with the Secretary of Labor to ensure the 

appropriate enforcement of laws that affect safe working conditions for railroad 

employees. In addition, the Secretary is required to periodically revise model 

prevention strategies and enforcement codes regarding trespassing and vandalism 

on railroad property. 

Second, a centralized tracking process would provide information on the resources 

needed to implement congressional mandates for FRA’s annual budget requests. 

It would also provide information to assist FRA in the proper allocation of 

appropriations to open mandates. Third, a centralized tracking process would 

provide FRA with information on its progress in implementing congressional 

mandates for reports to the Congress, public, and others. 

FRA Addressed Many Rail Safety Recommendations Over the Past 

19 Years, but Could Improve the Timeliness of Its Actions 

FRA made significant progress in addressing rail safety recommendations that 

resulted in NTSB closing 133 recommendations from 1989 through 2007. 

Similarly, FRA’s actions resulted in the OIG closing 12 recommendations from 

2003 through 2007. Nonetheless, the timeliness of FRA’s responses to these rail 

safety recommendations could be improved. NTSB safety recommendations 

propose a course of action for correcting a deficiency in railroad operations that 

FRA may adopt in full, in part, or decline. On the other hand, if FRA does not 

agree in full or in part to our recommendations or propose alternative solutions 

that would satisfy the intent of the recommendations, the matter is referred to the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation for resolution.5

 

5

 DOT Order 8000.1C, “Office of Inspector General Audit and Investigation Report Findings, Recommendations, and 

Followup Action,” July 20, 1989. 
6

As of April 2008, NTSB had closed 133 of 177 (75 percent) rail safety 

recommendations made to FRA from 1989 through 2007. The 133 closed 

recommendations addressed a number of safety problems such as the need to: 

(1) improve the information collected by event recorders during train accidents, 

(2) upgrade protections in passenger rail cars under normal and emergency 

operating conditions, and (3) increase the durability and reliability of rail tank cars 

that transport hazardous materials. For 18 of the 133 closed recommendations, 

NTSB did not agree with the responses provided by FRA and classified those 

recommendations as “Closed Unacceptable Action.” That is, NTSB did not agree 

with FRA’s responses, but agreed to close them. 

As of April 2008, NTSB classified 44 rail safety recommendations as open for a 

period of 1.0 to 18.8 years. These open NTSB recommendations focus on safety 

concerns such as, enhancing passenger rail car safety standards and ensuring the 

appropriate placement of tank cars carrying hazardous materials in freight train 

consists.6

 Table 2 below shows the status of each recommendation NTSB issued 

to FRA. Similarly, we classified four OIG rail safety recommendations as open 

that focus on improving grade crossing safety.

Table 2. Status of NTSB Recommendations Issued to FRA 

(1989 through 2007) 

Status - Response Number 

Open - Acceptable Response 29

Open - Await Response 7

Open - Unacceptable Response 6

Open - Acceptable Alternate Response 2

Open - Response Received 0

Subtotal Open Recommendations 44

Closed - Acceptable Action 75

Closed - Unacceptable Action 18

Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action 17

Closed - Reconsidered 11

Closed - No Longer Applicable 5

Closed - Superseded 1

Closed - Unacceptable Action/Superseded 3

Closed - Acceptable Action/Superseded 3

Closed - Exceeds Recommended Action 0

Closed - Unacceptable Action/No Response Received 0

Subtotal Closed Recommendations 133

Total Open and Closed Recommendations 177

Source: NTSB. 

 

6

 Train consists are coupled locomotives and railcars that make up trains. 
7

FRA Did Not Routinely Meet the Statutory Deadline for Submitting an Initial 

Response to NTSB’s Recommendations 

From 1989 through 2007, FRA rarely submitted an initial formal response to 

NTSB’s safety recommendations within 90 days of receipt, as required by law. 

FRA missed the statutory deadline for 148 of 177 (83.6 percent) rail safety 

recommendations. On average, it took FRA 198 days to respond initially to 

NTSB’s safety recommendations. FRA’s failure to routinely respond to NTSB’s 

recommendation in a timely manner could result in delays in safety improvements 

on our Nation’s rail lines. 

We found that FRA does not have adequate procedures to ensure that it routinely 

complies with the statutory deadline to respond to NTSB’s recommendations 

within 90 days. Establishing adequate procedures may virtually eliminate FRA’s 

delinquency in responding to rail safety recommendations. 

FRA Did Not Routinely Provide NTSB with Timetables and Updates on the 

Progress Made in Addressing Open Safety Recommendations 

The Department requires that all actions proposed in response to NTSB’s 

recommendations be pursued expeditiously. When FRA fully or partially concurs 

with a rail safety recommendation, the initial response must include an 

implementation timetable. However, our analysis of the 44 open NTSB 

recommendations found that FRA had not submitted any implementation 

timetables with its initial written response to the 25 recommendations to which it 

fully or partially concurred. This omission occurred because FRA did not have a 

procedure to ensure that an implementation timetable was submitted to NTSB, 

when required. 

Further, FRA did not routinely update—in writing—NTSB on the status of actions 

taken to address rail safety recommendations. We found that FRA’s most recent 

correspondence with NTSB on the status of 44 open recommendations was an 

average of 2 years old. Moreover, for 4 of these 44 recommendations, FRA had 

not updated NTSB on their status for nearly 6 years. According to FRA officials, 

they relied heavily on oral communications with NTSB and, to their credit, 

routinely met with NTSB to discuss the status of recommendations and actions 

taken. Nonetheless, since FRA had not consistently provided NTSB with the 

required written updates on the implementation of safety recommendations, its 

progress in implementing the open NTSB recommendations may have not been 

fully communicated to NTSB. 

FRA Made Significant Progress in Implementing OIG Recommendations 

FRA implemented 12 of 16 (75 percent) OIG rail safety recommendations made 

from 2003 through 2007. The closed recommendations primarily focused on 
8

actions to further reduce collisions between trains and motor vehicles at grade 

crossings. For example, FRA strengthened its oversight by: (1) implementing an 

action plan to conduct periodic reviews of the railroads’ grade crossing collision 

records to identify unreported collisions, (2) reconciling its grade crossing 

accident records with records maintained by the National Response Center each 

month to ensure that the railroads report all grade crossing collisions to FRA’s 

accident database, and (3) implementing an initiative to encourage states to close 

unneeded grade crossings. 

As of April 2008, 4 of 16 (25 percent) OIG recommendations remained open. 

Covering areas such as collecting national grade crossing inventory data, reporting 

grade crossing collisions, and reducing sight obstructions at grade crossings, these 

four recommendations have been open for an average of 2.1 years, ranging from 

1.0 to 3.9 years. 

Further, our 2004 recommendation to establish mandatory reporting requirements 

for railroads and states through rulemaking or legislation to improve the accuracy 

and completeness of FRA’s national grade crossing inventory data—to identify 

high-risk grade crossings and strategies to mitigate risks—has been open for 

nearly 4 years. During that time period, FRA has maintained that it lacks the 

statutory authority to require the states to report grade crossing inventory data. 

The Administration’s rail safety reauthorization bills for 1999, 2002, 2003, and 

2007 included a provision to address this recommendation. FRA officials 

considered the option of pursuing a rulemaking, but rejected it, and instead 

decided that legislation was the best way to obtain grade crossing inventory data 

from both the states and railroads. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that FRA: 

1. Establish a centralized process for documenting, tracking, and monitoring 

congressional rail safety mandates that includes planned and actual milestones. 

2. Establish procedures to ensure that NTSB receives an: 

a. initial response for each rail safety recommendation within 90 days of 

issuance and 

b. implementation timetable for each rail safety recommendation that FRA 

agrees to implement. 
9

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

A draft of this report was provided to FRA for comment on July 10, 2008. On 

July 29, 2008, FRA provided us with its formal response, which is contained in its 

entirety in the Appendix. FRA concurred with our audit results and 

recommendations, and agreed to take corrective actions. We agreed with the 

corrective actions proposed by FRA and found these actions responsive to the 

intent of our recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: FRA concurred with our recommendation to establish a 

centralized process for documenting, tracking, and monitoring congressional rail 

safety mandates. FRA agreed that a centralized process would make information 

on the actions taken to implement mandates and meet statutory deadlines more 

readily available for use in planning work assignments, establishing milestones, 

assessing progress, preparing budgets, and reporting accomplishments. FRA plans 

to use its new Microsoft SharePoint7

 tracking system to assist in its regulatory 

planning and tracking of these mandates. 

OIG Response: We consider FRA’s proposed actions reasonable. We agree with 

FRA’s recent implementation of the new Microsoft SharePoint tracking system in 

its Office of Safety. However, FRA did not provide a date for completing the full 

implementation of its new centralized tracking system for other FRA offices. 

Recommendation 2a: FRA concurred with our recommendation to establish 

procedures to ensure that NTSB receives an initial response for each rail safety 

recommendation within 90 days of issuance. FRA stated that it has revised its 

procedures for addressing NTSB safety recommendations to ensure that FRA 

submits an initial response to NTSB within 90 days. 

OIG Response: We consider FRA’s proposed actions reasonable. FRA’s new 

procedures should significantly improve the Agency’s compliance in meeting 

statutory deadlines. 

Recommendation 2b: FRA concurred with our recommendation to establish 

procedures to ensure that NTSB receives an implementation timetable for each rail 

safety recommendation that FRA agrees to implement. FRA plans to submit a 

tentative timetable with its initial response to NTSB recommendations, and will 

periodically update the timetable as circumstances and priorities change. 

 

7

 Microsoft SharePoint is an intranet-based application with the flexibility to grant access to specified individuals to 

read and edit information. 
10

OIG Response: We consider FRA’s proposed actions reasonable. However, 

FRA did not provide a target date for establishing and disseminating the 

procedure. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

In accordance with DOT Order 8000.1C, we request that FRA provide us with 

target completion dates for implementing recommendations 1 and 2b, as discussed 

above, within 30 calendar days from the date of this report. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FRA representatives during this 

audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 

(202) 366-1981 or Brenda R. James, Program Director, at (202) 366-0202. 

# 
11

EXHIBIT A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

The objective of this audit was to assess FRA’s progress in implementing 

congressional mandates and addressing recommendations made by NTSB and 

OIG regarding railroad safety. To accomplish this objective, we obtained, 

reviewed, and analyzed data on mandates that were included in 15 laws enacted by 

Congress from 1990 through 2007, NTSB recommendations issued from 1989 

through 2007, and OIG recommendations issued from 2003 through 2007. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from FRA and NTSB. 

To assess the implementation of congressional rail safety mandates, we 

interviewed appropriate officials in FRA’s Office of Safety and Office of Chief 

Counsel. We analyzed pertinent congressional documents, including FRA’s 

authorizing legislation, reauthorization legislation, annual appropriation laws, and 

other legislation as well as conference and committee reports (see table 3 below). 

To determine whether each congressional mandate had been implemented by 

FRA, we reviewed applicable documents obtained from FRA and Federal statutes, 

including the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Unified 

Regulatory Agenda, and the Federal Register. For overdue congressional 

mandates, we calculated the number of years and months that had elapsed after the 

statutory deadlines established by Congress. 

Table 3. Rail Safety Mandates Established by Congress 

(1990 through 2007) 

Name or Short Title of Legislation 

Public Law 

Number 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 

of 1990 

101-615 

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1992 

102-143, 

Title V 

Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act, 1992 102-365 

Amtrak Authorization Development Act, 1992 102-533 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 

1994 

103-311, 

Title I 

Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 103-440, 

Titles II and III 

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1996a

104-50 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

104-121, 

Title II 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
12

Name or Short Title of Legislation 

Public Law 

Number 

Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 104-134 

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2000b

106-69 

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003c 108-7 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005 

109-59 

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban 

Development, The Judiciary, the District of Columbia, 

and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006d

109-115 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 

Act of 2007 

110-53 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008: Division K, 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 

110-161 

Source: FRA and OIG. 

a

 Mandate established in House Report 104-286, October 20, 1995. 

b

 Mandate established in House Report 106-355, September 30, 1999. 

c

 Mandate established in House Report 108-10, February 13, 2003. 

d

 Mandate established in House Report 109-153, June 24, 2005. 

To evaluate the status of NTSB recommendations issued to FRA, we met with 

NTSB officials and obtained a listing of open recommendations addressed to FRA. 

We also met with FRA officials and obtained a listing of NTSB recommendations 

that were classified as open. (The oldest open NTSB recommendation was issued 

to FRA on July 14, 1989.) To validate the open NTSB rail safety 

recommendations, we analyzed NTSB’s recommendation database and compared 

it to documentation obtained from FRA, identifying the number of open and 

closed recommendations addressed to FRA from 1989 through 2007.

To further assess the status of NTSB recommendations, we reviewed all 

correspondence between NTSB and FRA concerning the open recommendations. 

We also reviewed correspondence between NTSB and FRA on recommendations 

classified as “Closed Unacceptable Action,” to determine the reason for FRA 

opting not to implement the recommendation. We calculated the number of years 

that elapsed from the time the recommendation was issued to the day FRA 

submitted an initial response to NTSB. For closed recommendations, we also 

calculated the number of years that elapsed from the time the recommendation was 

issued to the day that NTSB closed the recommendation. For open 

recommendations, we calculated the number of days the recommendation had 

been classified as open. 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
13

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

To identify open OIG recommendations addressed to FRA, we searched the 

Transportation Inspector General’s Reporting System. We included OIG 

recommendations issued to FRA from 2004 through 2007. (The oldest open OIG 

recommendation was issued to FRA on June 16, 2004.) We met with FRA 

officials to identify the actions taken to address each of the open 

recommendations. We also identified the actions needed to complete the response 

to each recommendation and a target date for completion. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States, from November 2007 through April 2008. 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. 
EXHIBIT B. OPEN CONGRESSIONAL RAIL SAFETY MANDATES ESTABLISHED FROM 19

# 

Short Title, Public Law Citation, and Enactment Date Section Open Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

1 Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 P.L. 101-615 November 16, 1990 

15 Amended Section 116(b) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (Title 49, U.S.C. App. 1813) 

Due Date: The Railroad Transportation Study was 

submitted to Congress on September 22, 2005, but after nearly 3 years this mandate has not been completed.

Within 24 months after the enactment of this section, taking into consideration the findings of the Railroad Transportation Study conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall amend existing regulations as deemed appropriate to provide for the safe transportation by rail of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel by various methods of rail transportation, including by dedicated train. Note: In our October 20, 2005 report, we reported the Railroad Transportation Study as 14.8 years overdue. The mandate to amend existing regulations could not be undertaken until that study was completed. 

The Department’s FY Appropriations Act incthat FRA plans to use additional research to aconditions for the transspent nuclear fuel. FRspend no more than abto complete the necessand expects to issue a proposed rulemaking (FY 2009.

Exhibit B. Open Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Through 2
# 

Short Title, Public Law Citation, and Enactment Date Section Open Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

2 Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users P.L. 109-59 August 10, 2005 

Title IX, Section 9005 Amended Title 49, U.S.C. by adding new Section 20155 

Due Date: August 10, 2006, Overdue by 1.7 years.

(a) (1) FRA shall validate a predictive model to quantify the relevant dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident conditions within 1 year after the date of enactment of this section. 

The Volpe National TrSystems Center conduto assess the effects of of train accidents on tafirst phase consisted of a physics-based model the kinematics of rail cderailment. The seconconsisted of developindynamic structural anaThe third phase consisassessing the damage cpunctures and fractureis preparing a final repthree phases of its rese

3 Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users P.L. 109-59 August 10, 2005 

Title IX, Section 9005 Amended Title 49, U.S.C. by adding new Section 20155 

Due Date: Rulemaking was initiated on May 31, 2006

(which was 9 months before the February 10, 2007 

statutory deadline), but after nearly 2 years, it has not been completed.

(a)(2) Initiate a rulemaking to develop and implement appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars within 18 months of the date of enactment of this section. 

On April 1, 2008, FRA PHMSA jointly issued require tank cars carryinhalation hazard prodchlorine and anhydrouto be equipped with puresistance protection stto prevent penetration 25 miles per hour for sand 30 miles per hour collisions. The commeended on June 2, 2008

Exhibit B. Open Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Through 2
# 

Short Title, Public Law Citation, and Enactment Date Section Open Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

4 Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users P.L. 109-59 August 10, 2005 

Title IX, Section 9005 Amended Title 49, U.S.C. by adding new Section 20155 

Due Date: August 10, 2006, Overdue by 1.7 years.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, FRA shall conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the impact resistance of the steels in the shells of pressure tank cars constructed before 1989. Not later than 6 months after completing the analysis, FRA shall transmit a report, including recommendations for reducing any risk of catastrophic fracture and separation of such cars, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

In July 2007, the SouthResearch Institute (a suto FRA’s contractor—National TransportatioCenter) produced a draresearch report on its wanalyzing and testing pcar steels and provided Office of Research and Development for reviecomments. FRA plans draft report to Southwerevisions. The expectefor completing and pubfinal research report is September 2008.

5 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Division K, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 P.L. 110-161 December 26, 2007 

Division K, Explanatory Statement submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations 

Due Date for Schedule: March 25, 2008.

Due Date for Report: June 23, 2009 (as agreed by 

Committee staff), instead of the original deadline of June 23, 2008.

The Explanatory Statement on the Department’s FY 2008 Appropriations Act stated that the amended bill included $200,000 to hire an independent consultant to evaluate FRA’s use of penalties as an enforcement mechanism instead of $300,000 as proposed by the Senate. The Appropriations Committees directed FRA to report within 90 days on the schedule of the evaluation and to provide the independent consultant’s comprehensive report within 180 days on the evaluation’s findings along with FRA’s comments on the evaluation. 

On December 26, 2007appropriated funds to cmandate, which were ato FRA by OMB in FeOn March 13, 2008, FRstaff of the AppropriatCommittees. Subsequprovided a tentative evschedule to the commiFRA’s Office of Chief Office of Safety plan tclosely to ensure that a contract would be execevaluation.

OIG Analysis. 

Exhibit B. Open Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Through 2
EXHIBIT C. ONGOING CONGRESSIONAL RAIL SAFETY MANDATES ESTABLISHED 

FROM 1990 THROUGH 2007 

# 

Short Title, Public 

Law Citation, and 

Enactment Date Section Ongoing Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

1 Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 P.L. 103-440 November 2, 1994 

213 Amended subchapter II of Chapter 201 of Title 49, U.S.C. by adding new section 20149 

The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Labor on 

a regular basis to ensure that all applicable laws affecting 

safe working conditions for railroad employees are appropriately enforced to ensure a safe and productive working environment for the railroad industry. 

FRA and the Departme(DOL) have overlappinjurisdiction for occupaand health issues in the industry. As a result, Fregularly consults with Occupational Safety anAdministration (OSHAworkplace-related saferailroad employees and rulemakings that affecconditions in the rail inexample, FRA’s accidregulations were updatconform to OSHA’s rereporting requirements (68 FR 10108). FRA awith the DOL Mine SaHealth Administration regarding coordinating MSHA’s safety prograneeded. 

Exhibit C. Ongoing Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Throug
# 

Short Title, Public 

Law Citation, and 

Enactment Date Section Ongoing Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

2 Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 P.L. 103-440 November 2, 1994 

219 Amended subchapter II of Chapter 201 of Title 49, U.S.C. by adding new section 20151; § 20151(a) 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary, in consultation with affected parties, shall evaluate and review current local, State, and Federal laws regarding trespassing on railroad property and 

vandalism affecting railroad safety and develop model prevention strategies and enforcement laws to be used for consideration of State and local legislatures and governmental entities. The first such evaluation and review shall be completed within 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act. The Secretary shall revise such model prevention strategies and enforcement codes periodically. 

FRA reviewed existing regulations regarding tand vandalism, as part to develop model state FRA compiled these laregulations, along with laws regarding grade csafety, and published tCompilation of State LRegulations Affecting HGrade Crossings (SecoAugust 1995). FRA haperiodically reviewed state laws and revised compilation publicatioEdition, January 2000Edition, October 2002time in 2008, FRA wilcontract to update this 

Exhibit C. Ongoing Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Throug
# 

Short Title, Public 

Law Citation, and 

Enactment Date Section Ongoing Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

3 Debt Collection Act 

of 1996 P.L. 104-134 April 26, 1996 

Sec. 31001(s)(1) (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) 

After making the initial adjustments required by this Act, 

Federal agencies must review and adjust the minimum and the maximum civil penalty per violation for regulations they administer by amending the regulations periodically. 

On May 28, 2004, FRA 

final rule to adjust the and maximum civil peviolations of hazardouregulations and a final the minimum and aggrmaximum civil penalty violations of all FRA rregulations, respective

(69 FR 30590 and 69 FOn October 28, 2004, c

the existing regulationpublished (69 FR 6281

On September 6, 2007

published its final rule ordinary maximum civviolations of all FRA rregulations (72 FR 511

Exhibit C. Ongoing Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Throug
Exhibit C. Ongoing Congressional Rail Safety Mandates Established From 1990 Throug

# 

Short Title, Public 

Law Citation, and 

Enactment Date Section Ongoing Congressional Mandate Actions Tak

4 Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 P.L. 110-53 August 3, 2007 

Section 1526 of the 9/11 Commission Act amended Title 49 U.S.C. § 28101 

Development and Dissemination to States of Model Legislation on “Scam Railroads.” Not later than November 2, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation must develop and make available to States model legislation to address the problem of entities that claim to be railroad carriers in order to establish and run a police force when the entities do not in fact provide railroad transportation. In developing the model State legislation, the 9/11 Commission Act directed the Secretary to solicit the input of the States, railroad carriers, and railroad carrier employees. The Act also directed the Secretary to review and, if necessary, revise such model State legislation periodically. 

In September 2007, FRletter to state governorrepresentatives of railrrailroad employees reqsuggestions for a modeaddress the problem of railroads”—organizatipurporting to be railroaemploying railroad polyet offering no means transportation. FRA’s enclosed a copy of its state legislation on the commissioning of railrand asked for ideas on improve it. By NovemFRA reviewed the respreceived, revised the mlaw, and transmitted it supporting documents 

OIG Analysis 
EXHIBIT D. OPEN NTSB RAIL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 1989 THROUGH 200

# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

1 12/31/92 R-92-022 Open 15.3 years. NTSB recommended that FRA develop 

and promulgate, with PHMSA, requirements for the periodic testing and inspection of rail tank cars that help to ensure the detection of cracks before they propagate to critical length. These requirements are to establish inspection intervals that are based on the defect size detectable by the inspection method used, the stress level, and the crack propagation characteristics of the structural component (requirements based on a damage-tolerance approach). 

Open - Acceptable Response. PHMSA pu

final rule in September 1995, to increase tfrequency of required testing and inspectiotank cars, based on accumulated and averamileage, and to authorize adjustment of inintervals, based on damage-tolerance analaddress damage-tolerance, FRA sponsored research projects. In July 2007, FRA told would work to expedite completion of the projects. A technical study providing a badamage-tolerance approach is under final additional studies are underway to supporof the probability of detection curves and of these methods to rail tank car substruct

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

2 08/28/97 R-97-015 Open 10.7 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

all passenger cars have either removable windows, kick panels, or other suitable means for emergency exiting through the interior and exterior passageway doors where the door could impede passengers exiting in an emergency and take appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective action until these measures are incorporated into minimum Passenger Car Safety Standards. 

Open - Acceptable Response. On May 12

FRA issued Passenger Equipment Safety Sfor rail passenger service that addressed kpanels for trains traveling 125 to 150 mile(Tier II passenger equipment). However, regulations did not address kick-out paneltraveling at or less than 125 miles per houpassenger equipment). In 1999, egress thrand windows was addressed for Tier I pasequipment and on February 1, 2008, FRA final rule that further addressed egress reqThe Railroad Safety Advisory CommitteeEmergency Preparedness Task Force revieremaining safety issues and, through the PSafety Working Group, reported recommefor removable panels in certain interior doCommittee action on February 20, 2008. FRA’s Small Business Innovative Researccontinues to research the viability of integremovable panels/windows capable of meFederal glazing standards into end-frame d

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

3 08/28/97 R-97-017 Open 10.7 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

all passenger cars contain reliable emergency lighting fixtures that are each fitted with a self-contained independent power source and incorporate the requirements into minimum Passenger Car Safety Standards. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA’s Pass

Equipment Safety Standards for rail passeservice, which were published in the Fedeon May 12, 1999, addressed emergency lipassenger cars ordered on or after September 8, 2000, or those placed into sethe first time on or after September 9, 200Subsequently, FRA worked with the AmePublic Transportation Association to deveindustry standards to improve emergency pathway markings, including survivability systems. On February 20, 2008, the PasseSafety Working Group presented proposelanguage to the Railroad Safety Advisory that would incorporate the new standards reference. 

4 09/16/98 R-98-056 Open 9.6 years. NTSB recommended that FRA include 

in the Passenger Car Safety Standards a requirement for positive seat securement systems to prevent the disengagement and undesired rotation of seats in all new passenger cars purchased after January 1, 2000, and require the incorporation of such a system into existing passenger cars when they are scheduled for overhaul. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA’s Pass

Equipment Safety Standards for rail passeservice, which were published in the Fedeon May 12, 1999, addressed seat securempassenger cars, but did not address rotatinissues. Amtrak had previously improved locking mechanism, but the rotation of somcontinues to occur. FRA's Office of ReseDevelopment plans to help to develop alteseat-locking designs and test prototype seasecurement systems in cooperation with Ainclusion in future regulations. FRA and Naccident investigations have not establishebetween seat rotation and passenger injuri

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

5 01/13/00 R-00-001 Open 8.3 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

establish, with assistance from experts on the effects of pharmacological agents on human performance and alertness, procedures or criteria by which train operating crewmembers who medically require substances not on the Department's list of approved medications may be allowed, when appropriate, to use those medications when performing their duties. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2002, NT

officials met with members of FRA's RailAdvisory Committee to discuss concerns wrecommendations R-00-001 through R-00that meeting, NTSB clarified the intent of recommendations R-00-001 through R-002007, the Railroad Safety Advisory CommMedical Standards Working Group was esto address these recommendations and othfor-duty concerns. The Working Group cdevelop recommendations for a proposed FRA to issue in 2009. 

6 01/13/00 R-00-002 Open 8.3 years. NTSB recommended that FRA develop, 

then periodically publish, an easy-to-understand source of information for train operating crewmembers on the hazards of using specific medications when performing their duties. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2002, NT

officials met with members of FRA's RailAdvisory Committee to discuss concerns wrecommendations R-00-001 through R-00that meeting, NTSB clarified the intent of recommendations R-00-001 through R-002007, the Railroad Safety Advisory CommMedical Standards Working Group was esto address these recommendations and othfor-duty concerns. The Working Group cdevelop recommendations for a proposed FRA to issue in 2009. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

7 01/13/00 R-00-003 Open 8.3 years. NTSB recommended that FRA establish 

and implement an educational program targeting train operating crewmembers that, at a minimum, ensures that all crewmembers are aware of the source of information described in NTSB recommendation R-00-002 regarding the hazards of using specific medications when performing their duties. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2002, NT

officials met with members of FRA's RailAdvisory Committee to discuss concerns wrecommendations R-00-001 through R-00that meeting, NTSB clarified the intent of recommendations R-00-001 through R-002007, the Railroad Safety Advisory CommMedical Standards Working Group was esto address these recommendations and othfor-duty concerns. The Working Group cdevelop recommendations for a proposed FRA to issue in 2009. 

8 01/13/00 R-00-004 Open 8.3 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

establish, in coordination with the Department, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, comprehensive toxicological testing requirements for an appropriate sample of fatal highway, railroad, transit, and marine accidents to ensure the identification of the role played by common prescription and over-the-counter medications. FRA was to review and analyze the results of such testing at intervals not to exceed every 5 years. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2002, NT

officials met with members of FRA's RailAdvisory Committee to discuss concerns wrecommendations R-00-001 through R-00that meeting, NTSB clarified the intent of recommendations R-00-001 through R-00was already testing for benzodiazepines anbarbiturates, in addition to the “SAMSA 5groups and alcohol in its post-accident proFRA also conducted blind testing of extansamples to determine the prevalence of othuse in the population of accident-involved employees. FRA presented those results tand the Railroad Safety Advisory CommitMedical Standards Working Group in supneed to include therapeutic drug use manathe forthcoming medical standards NPRMFRA plans to issue a NPRM in 2009 to amCFR Part 219 to routinely authorize testinaccident specimens for drugs other than cosubstances. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

9 03/12/01 R-01-002 Open 7.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA evaluate, 

with the assistance of PHMSA, the Association of American Railroads, and the Railway Progress Institute, the deterioration of pressure relief devices through normal service and then develop inspection criteria to ensure that the pressure relief devices remain functional between regular inspection intervals. FRA was to incorporate these inspection criteria into the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations. 

Open - Acceptable Response. The Associ

American Railroads task force collected oinspection reports on pressure relief devicPHMSA plans to consider regulatory chanthe Tank Car Committee completes its revdata. 

10 06/12/01 R-01-006 Open 6.9 years. NTSB recommended that FRA facilitate 

actions necessary for the development and implementation of positive train control systems on main line tracks, establishing priority requirements for highrisk corridors such as those where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA encou

rapid deployment of positive train control within the rail industry. On March 7, 200issued a final rule that adopted a performaapproach to the review and qualification ocontrol technology. FRA approved the RaSafety Program Plans that the major railrousing to develop positive train control systhe Burlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayElectronic Train Management System ProPlan (configuration I in December 2006). addition, FRA closely monitors the procesprogress of the implementation of these syprovides support to the rail industry, as ne

11 09/24/01 R-01-017 Open 6.6 years. NTSB recommended that FRA modify 

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 219.201(b), as necessary to ensure that the exemption from mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol testing for those involved in highway-rail grade crossing accidents does not apply to any railroad signal, maintenance, and other employees whose actions at or near a grade crossing involved in an accident may have contributed to the occurrence or severity of the accident. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In August 2

extensive revision of Title 49 of the Code Regulations, Section 219.201(b), concludebefore NTSB issued this recommendationFRA agreed that the exemption portion of and drug testing regulation should be narrits present universal exclusion of all railroemployees from post-accident toxicologicwhen highway-rail grade crossing accidenTo address this issue, FRA plans to furtheSection 219.201(b) in 2009. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

12 02/15/02 R-02-001 Open 6.2 years. NTSB recommended that FRA, for all 

railroads that install new or upgraded grade crossing warning systems that include crossing gates and that are equipped with event recorders, require that the information captured by event recorders include the position of the deployed gates. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA has no 

requiring the railroads install event recordhighway-rail grade crossing signal systemcontemplating opening Title 49 of the CodFederal Regulations, Part 234 (Grade CroSignal System Safety), for possible rulemlater than December 2008. 

13 11/27/02 R-02-024 Open 5.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA develop 

a standard medical examination form that includes questions regarding sleep problems and require that the form be used, pursuant to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 240, to determine the medical fitness of locomotive engineers; the form should also be available for use to determine the medical fitness of other employees in safety-sensitive positions. 

Open - Acceptable Response. On 

September 21, 2006, FRA tasked its RailrAdvisory Committee with establishing staprocedures for determining the medical fitduty of personnel engaged in safety-criticafunctions. The Medical Standards Workinpreparing a standard form, including sleep questions. 

14 11/27/02 R-02-025 Open 5.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

that any medical condition that could incapacitate, or seriously impair the performance of, an employee in a safety-sensitive position be reported to the railroad in a timely manner. 

Open - Acceptable Response. On 

September 21, 2006, FRA tasked its RailrAdvisory Committee with establishing staprocedures for determining the medical fitduty of personnel engaged in safety-criticafunctions. A proposed rule is being develspecifically address these concerns. 

15 11/27/02 R-02-026 Open 5.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

that, when a railroad becomes aware that an employee in a safety-sensitive position has a potentially incapacitating or performance-impairing medical condition, the railroad prohibit that employee from performing any safetysensitive duties until the railroad's designated physician determines that the employee can continue to work safely in a safety-sensitive position. 

Open - Acceptable Response. On 

September 21, 2006, FRA tasked its RailrAdvisory Committee with establishing staprocedures for determining the medical fitduty of personnel engaged in safety-criticafunctions. FRA will issue regulations baswork completed by the Railroad Safety ACommittee. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

16 08/15/03 R-03-012 Open 4.7 years. NTSB recommended that FRA, in 

cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration, develop and implement an accurate passenger and crew accountability system for all longdistance, overnight, and reserved passenger trains that will immediately provide an accurate count and identity of the people on board the train in case of emergency at any time during the trip. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA entere

agreement with the Transportation SecuritAdministration and Amtrak to fund a studthe Volpe National Transportation Systemexamine what available technologies exist an accurate passenger train manifest. In December 2005, FRA published a report tconcluded an improved passenger manifespossible, but the costs would be very subsbenefits would be questionable. 

17 11/06/03 R-03-021 Open 4.5 years. NTSB recommended that FRA revise 

the language of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 238.113(a)(1), to reflect that appropriate exterior instructional signage describing the emergency removal procedure be required at emergency windows on all levels of a multiple-level passenger rail car. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2003, th

Emergency Preparedness Task Force (withRailroad Safety Advisory Committee) waaddress this recommendation and other hitopics related to systems, procedures, and On August 24, 2006, a NPRM was issued Passenger Train Emergency Systems, inclevacuation systems. The final rule was puFebruary 1, 2008. 

18 03/15/04 R-04-001 Open 4.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

all railroads with continuous welded rail track include procedures (in the programs that are filed with FRA) that prescribe on-the-ground visual inspections and nondestructive testing techniques for identifying cracks in rail joint bars before they grow to critical size. 

Open - Acceptable Response. On Octobe

FRA published a regulation in the Federal that required railroads establish a program periodic visual inspection of joint bars in cwelded rail track by January 1, 2007. Howregulation did not require non-destructive joint bars on a periodic basis. FRA stated was insufficient engineering data to estableffectiveness of non-destructive testing tecapplied to joint bars in the service environFRA and the Association of American Ra(through the Transportation Technology Care working on non-destructive testing tecthat may be useful in the future. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

19 03/15/04 R-04-004 Open 4.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA conduct 

a comprehensive analysis to determine the impact resistance of the steels in the shells of pressure tank cars constructed before 1989. At a minimum, the safety analysis should include the results of dynamic fracture toughness tests and/or the results of nondestructive testing techniques that provide information on material ductility and fracture toughness. The data should come from samples of steel from the tank shells from original manufacturing or from a statistically representative sampling of the shells of the pre-1989 pressure tank car fleet. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In 2005, SA

LU required FRA to conduct a comprehenanalysis to determine the impact resistancsteels in the shells of pressure tank cars cobefore 1989. To address this SAFETEA-Lrequirement and NTSB’s recommendationSouthwest Research Institute is preparing FRA on testing methods to address the imresistance of tank shells. A task force is ebegin steel testing once the methods are evNTSB did not agree with the task force's dgather steel samples from only pre-1989 tthey are scrapped and not from tank cars rin service. 

20 03/15/04 R-04-006 Open 4.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA validate 

the predictive model FRA is developing to quantify the maximum dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident conditions. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA spons

ongoing programs to evaluate train forces with derailments. On March 30, 2007, FRits research findings at a public meeting osafety. The Volpe National TransportatioCenter prepared a formal report on the resfindings, which were incorporated into a Nwas jointly issued by PHMSA and FRA oApril 1, 2008. This NPRM was issued to the crashworthiness protection of rail tank designed to transport poison inhalation haproducts. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

21 03/15/04 R-04-007 Open 4.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA develop 

and implement Tank Car Design-Specific Fracture Toughness Standards, such as a minimum average Charpy value, for steels and other materials of construction for pressure tank cars used for the transportation of the Department’s Class 2 hazardous materials, including those in "low temperature" service. The performance criteria must apply to the material orientation with the minimum impact resistance and take into account the entire range of operating temperatures of the tank car. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA concl

the results of the research reported under Rdid not support taking specific actions relatesting for tank car steel toughness. HoweNPRM that was jointly issued by PHMSA on April 1, 2008, addressed concerns regause of non-normalized steels and focused improving the crashworthiness protection cars designed to transport poison inhalatioproducts. 

22 02/03/05 R-05-002 Open 3.2 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 225 (Railroad Accidents/Incident: Reports Classification, and Investigations) that derailments caused by rail cracks originating from bond wire attachments be reported with a specific cause code and that information on the methods and locations of those wire attachments be provided in the accident narrative. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA is pre

NPRM to revise Title 49 of the Code of FRegulations, Part 225, which will include Appendix C of the train accident cause coFRA’s Guide for Preparing Accident/IncidReports. 

23 08/25/05 R-05-005 Open 2.7 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

emphasize to its track inspectors the importance of enforcing a railroad's continuous welded rail program as a part of the Federal Track Safety Standards and verify that inspectors are documenting noncompliance with the railroad’s program. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In April 20

revised its Track Safety Standards CompliManual by including comprehensive instruinspectors on how to effectively apply the for continuous welded rail. On February 2the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee mdiscussed proposed regulatory changes thafurther clarify FRA’s track safety standard

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

24 11/23/05 R-05-009 Open 2.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA develop 

guidelines for locomotive engineer simulator training programs that go beyond developing basic skills and teach strategies for effectively managing multiple concurrent tasks and atypical situations. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA agree

developing guidelines for locomotive engidevelopment that would contribute to goosituational awareness was worthy of consiboth as a further contribution to the qualitexisting training programs and as a means benchmarking the various programs. Howhas not identified the resources needed to action and does not plan to undertake it unresources are identified. 

25 12/12/05 R-05-017 Open 2.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

determine the most effective methods of providing emergency escape breathing apparatuses for all crewmembers on freight trains carrying hazardous materials that would pose an inhalation hazard in the event of unintentional release and require railroads to provide these breathing apparatus to their crewmembers along with appropriate training. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA contin

conduct a study to address all aspects of threcommendation. The study includes the emergency escape breathing apparatuses ahow the equipment should be used, what twould be required for its use, and the coststudy was expected to be completed in Mahowever, in February 2008, FRA required contractor to make significant revisions ana draft final report for review in the near fassigned staff to this study, but no report dbeen specified. 

26 06/07/06 R-06-007 Open 1.9 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

railroads to implement for all power-assisted switch machines, regardless of location, a formal commissioning procedure and a formal maintenance program that includes records of inspections, tests, maintenance, and repairs. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA stated 

would conduct an internal review of the rausage and practices concerning power-assswitch machines in other than signaled terdetermine whether regulations are needed

27 07/20/06 R-06-014 Open 1.8 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

railroads to use scientifically-based principles when assigning work schedules for train crewmembers, which consider factors that impact sleep needs, to reduce the effects of fatigue. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA stated 

lacked the statutory authority to implemenrecommendation. In February 2007, the Stransmitted to Congress the Administratiosafety reauthorization bill, which included to confer the authority. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

28 07/20/06 R-06-015 Open 1.8 years. NTSB recommended that FRA establish 

requirements that limit train crewmember limbo time to address fatigue. 

Open - Acceptable Response. FRA stated 

lacked the statutory authority to implemenrecommendation. In February 2007, the Stransmitted to Congress the Administratiosafety reauthorization bill, which included to confer the authority. 

29 10/25/06 R-06-019 Open 1.5 years. NTSB recommended that FRA extend 

its Track Safety Standards to all classes of track having concrete crossties. The Track Safety Standards should address, at a minimum, the following: limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete crosstie pad wear limits, missing or broken rail fasteners, loss of appropriate toeload pressure, improper fastener configurations, and excessive lateral rail movement. 

Open - Acceptable Response. In April 20

created a task force to study the safety aspconcrete crossties. The task force's purpodetermine a recommended course of actioconcrete crosstie safety advisory. Findinginitial effort were transferred to the RailroAdvisory Committee and its Track Safety Working Group continues to examine this a view towards preparing a proposed rule. 

30 02/03/05 R-05-001 Open 3.2 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 213 (Track Safety Standards), that rail cracks originating from bond wire attachments be identified as rail defects and that information be collected on the methods and locations of those attachments. 

Open - Acceptable Alternative Response. 

agreed that it was important to track rail coriginating from bond wire attachments in interest of prevention and for identifying tthe problem. However, FRA suggested an approach to NTSB’s recommendation and collection of information on the methods alocations of bond wire attachments. FRA new defect code to its Railroad Inspection Personal Computer. In April 2007, FRA aits Track Safety Standards Compliance Mprovide guidance to field inspectors concebond welds. In addition, the Railroad SafAdvisory Committee has agreed to review attachment methods. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

31 12/12/05 R-05-014 Open 2.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

that, along main lines in non-signaled territory, railroads install an automatically activated device, independent of the switch banner that will, visually or electronically, compellingly capture the attention of employees involved with switch operations and clearly convey the status of the switch both in daylight and in darkness. 

Open - Acceptable Alternative Response. 

strongly supported NTSB’s interest in redrisk of train accidents caused by an improhand-operated switch, but suggested an alapproach. FRA initiated a joint project wiBurlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Coimplement the Switch Position Monitoring which detects an improper switch point aland conveys information automatically to dispatcher. FRA is aggressively encouragrailroads to deploy similar technology. NSouthern Railway Company and CSX Transportation, Inc. are implementing simtechnology. 

32 12/21/06 R-06-024 Open 1.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

immediately require all rail passenger car seat backs be secured to the seat assembly. 

Open - Await Response. FRA concluded 

intent of NTSB’s recommendation had bebased on its review of the requirements of safety regulations. On January 30, 2008, Fletter to the American Public TransportatiAssociation to advise the commuter railropassenger seat backs must be secured in awith the standards. In March 2008, FRA to NTSB requesting this recommendation reclassified as Closed Acceptable Action. awaiting a response from NTSB. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

33 12/21/06 R-06-025 Open 1.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA revise 

the language in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 238.233, to define seat to include all components of the seat assembly, such as seat cushions and seat backs, that could become dislodged when subjected to accelerations specified in that section. 

Open - Await Response. FRA concluded 

intent of NTSB’s recommendation had bebased on its review of the requirements of safety regulations. On January 30, 2008, Fletter to the American Public TransportatiAssociation to advise the commuter railropassenger seat backs must be secured in awith the standards. In March 2008, FRA to NTSB requesting this recommendation reclassified as Closed Acceptable Action. awaiting a response from NTSB. 

34 12/21/06 R-06-026 Open 1.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

all rail passenger car seat assemblies be dynamically tested to withstand the accelerations specified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 238.233, and require both upward and downward vertical acceleration tests. 

Open - Await Response. FRA stated that 

requirements of Title 49 of the Code of FeRegulations, Section 238.233 are consisterecommendation. In March 2008, FRA seto NTSB requesting this recommendation reclassified as Closed Acceptable Action. awaiting a response from NTSB. 

35 12/21/06 R-06-027 Open 1.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA establish 

crashworthiness standards for passenger car body floor structure systems. 

Open - Await Response. FRA stated that 

establishing crashworthiness standards for structure would not provide any increase isafety. In March 2008, FRA sent a letter trequesting this recommendation be reclassClosed Acceptable Action. FRA is awaitiresponse from NTSB. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

36 04/25/07 R-07-001 Open 1.0 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

railroads ensure that the lead locomotives used to operate trains on tracks not equipped with a positive train control system are equipped with an alerter. 

Open - Await Response. In October 2007

a letter to NTSB requesting this recommenreclassified as Open Acceptable Action. Fawaiting a response from NTSB. FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory CommittLocomotive Standards Working Group retentative agreement to require alerters on locomotives used in road service and a recommendation for retrofit is being consiFurther, the Association of American Railadopted an alerter standard for freight locoafter consulting with the Working Group. 

37 04/25/07 R-07-002 Open 1.0 years. NTSB recommended that FRA assist 

PHMSA in developing regulations to require that railroads immediately provide to emergency responders accurate, real-time information regarding the identity and location of all hazardous materials on a train. 

Open - Await Response. In October 2007

a letter to NTSB requesting this recommenreclassified as Open Acceptable Action. Fawaiting a response from NTSB. FRA regulations require that information identity and location of hazardous materiamaintained for the benefit of emergency reHowever, (with FRA’s encouragement), thAssociation of American Railroads issued offering to provide hazardous materials inon the top 25 commodities to local emergeresponse organizations to assist in training preparing for emergencies. In addition, (wencouragement), CSX Transportation, IncChemtrec established a real-time informatthat provides car content and train consist information on a “one-call” basis. FRA cevaluate this process to determine if additiregulations are necessary. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

38 04/25/07 R-07-003 Open 1.0 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

the installation of a crash- and fire-protected locomotive cab voice recorder, or a combined voice and video recorder, (for the exclusive use in accident investigations and with appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings) in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments. The recorder should have a minimum 2-hour continuous recording capability, microphones capable of capturing crewmembers' voices and sounds generated within the cab, and a channel to record all radio conversations to and from crewmembers. 

Open - Await Response. In October 2007

a letter to NTSB requesting this recommenreclassified as Open Acceptable Action. Fawaiting a response from NTSB. FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committcontinues to identify options for addressinsafety recommendation. 

39 07/14/89 R-89-048 Open 18.8 years. NTSB recommended that FRA assist 

and cooperate with PHMSA in amending Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 179, to require that closure fittings on tank cars carrying hazardous materials be designed to maintain their integrity in accidents that are typically survivable by the rail tank car. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. FRA, PH

the rail industry are continuing to work toimplement NTSB’s recommendation. FRworking with the Association of American Tank Car Committee to assist PHMSA in new requirements—top fitting protection hazardous materials tank cars—for cars buDecember 31, 2008. FRA continues to realternative top fitting protection strategies

40 03/21/02 R-02-005 Open 6.1 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

railroads to conduct ultrasonic or other appropriate inspections to ensure that rail used to replace defective segments of existing rail is free from internal defects. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. On Marc

FRA issued Safety Advisory 2006-02 in dresponse to NTSB’s recommendation. Thof this advisory was to reduce the number defects that occur when second-hand rail irecommend practices for testing, classifyireusing second-hand rail. However, NTSB like FRA’s advisory revised to recommenrailroads conduct ultrasonic or other approinspections to ensure that all rail used as rrail is tested and determined to be free frodefects. FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory continues to develop a regulatory proposathis recommendation. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

41 06/13/03 R-03-001 Open 4.9 years. NTSB recommended that FRA 

promulgate new or amended regulations that will control the use of cellular telephones and similar wireless communication devices by railroad operating employees while on duty so that such use does not affect operational safety. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. FRA’s R

Safety Advisory Committee developed a dpractices operating rule for the industry, wapproved for voluntary adoption by all marailroads, the vast majority of commuter rand the American Short Line and RegionaAssociation. FRA plans to develop a SafeAdvisory to present this rule to the rail indclarify its intent, and further enhance its effectiveness.

42 11/23/05 R-05-010 Open 2.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

train crews call out all signal indications over the radio, including clear signals, at all locations that are not equipped with automatic cab signals with enforcement of a positive train control system. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. FRA’s R

Safety Advisory Committee continues to aNTSB's concerns, although results of an econducted by FRA did not indicate a feasiof implementing the intent of this recomm

43 12/12/05 R-05-016 Open 2.4 years. NTSB recommended that FRA require 

railroads implement operating measures, such as positioning tank cars toward the rear of trains and reducing speeds through populated areas, to minimize impact forces from accidents and reduce the vulnerability of tank cars transporting chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, and other liquefied gases designated as poisonous by inhalation. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. On April 

PHMSA and FRA jointly issued a NPRM the crashworthiness protection of rail tank designed to transport poison inhalation haproducts. This NPRM included operationrestrictions for trains hauling rail tank cars poison inhalation hazard products, among requirements. In particular, it proposed a per hour speed restriction in dark territory existing tank cars transporting poison inhahazard products. 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
# 

Issue 

Date Rec. No. Open NTSB Recommendation NTSB Classification and Actions Take

44 06/29/06 R-06-010 Open 1.8 years. NTSB recommended that FRA prohibit 

the use of after-arrival track warrants for train movements in dark (non-signaled) territory not equipped with a positive train control system. 

Open - Unacceptable Response. FRA’s R

Safety Advisory Committee continues to aNTSB’s recommendation. Its Operating RWorking Group met with NTSB staff whiafter-arrival track warrants. FRA prepared rule strictly limiting use of after-arrival trawarrants that is under active discussion by Operating Rules Working Group. 

OIG Analysis 

Exhibit D. Open NTSB Rail Safety Recommendations From 1989 Through 2007 
EXHIBIT E. OPEN OIG RAIL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2003 THROUGH 2007 

# 

Issue 

Date 

Report Title and 

No. Open OIG Recommendation Actions Taken 

1 06/16/04 Audit of the 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Program MH-2004-065 

Open 3.9 years. The Department should 

promote mandatory reporting requirements for railroads and states through rulemaking or legislation to improve the accuracy and completeness of FRA's national grade crossing inventory data, to identify high-risk crossings and strategies to mitigate risks. The data should also be used to monitor the effectiveness of the new action plan’s strategies, identify needed changes, and make adjustments, as necessary. FRA and the Federal Highway Administration should work cooperatively to accomplish mandatory inventory reporting. 

FRA stated that it lacked the authority to require reports from the states on the characteristics of grade crossings and needed Congress to grant that authority. Proposed language that would grant the Department the authority to require states and railroads to submit reports to FRA on the characteristics of grade crossings was included in the Administration’s rail safety reauthorization billthat were transmitted to Congress in 1999, 2002, 2003, and most recently in February 2007. As of April 2008, the proposed language had not been enacted. 

2 11/28/05 Audit of Oversight 

of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Safety Regulations MH-2006-016 

Open 2.4 years. FRA should clarify 

accident reporting to the National Response Center by requiring railroads to report any grade crossing collision resulting in a fatality at the scene or within 24 hours of the accident. 

In January 2008, FRA officials stated that they would clarify existing National Response Center reporting requirements by adding language limiting the railroads responsibility for calling in fatalities to those that occur within the first 24 hours of a collision. During 2008, FRA plans to include this clarification in a NPRM on miscellaneous amendments to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 225, on Accident/Incident Reporting. 

Exhibit E. Open OIG Rail Safety Recommendations From 2003 Through 2007 
Exhibit E. Open OIG Rail Safety Recommendations From 2003 Through 2007 

# 

Issue 

Date 

Report Title and 

No. Open OIG Recommendation Actions Taken 

3 05/03/07 The Federal 

Railroad Administration Can Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety by Ensuring Compliance With Accident Reporting Requirements and Addressing Sight Obstructions MH-2007-044 

Open 1.0 years. FRA should strengthen 

safety oversight by ensuring that the railroads comply with mandatory requirements to report each grade crossing collision to FRA by issuing a violation and assessing a civil penalty each time a railroad fails to submit a grade crossing collision report in accordance with Federal requirements, on a consistent basis. Moreover, FRA should assess higher civil penalties against each railroad that repeatedly fails to report crossing collisions. 

On December 5, 2006, FRA issued proposed statements of agency policy (proposed schedules of civil penalties for rail safety violations) that included a line-item increasing the dollar amount othe civil penalty ordinarily assessed against a railroad for failing to report a reportable accident/incident, including a grade crossing collision. Under this proposal, the guideline fine fofailing to report a grade crossing collision would increase from $2,500 to $5,000. In addition, the guideline penalty for a willful violation of this requirement would increase from $6,500 to $9,000In September 2007, FRA issued a final rule increasing the ordinary maximum civil penalty for rail safety violation from $11,000 to $16,000, based on inflation. As a result, FRA continues to further revise its December 2006 proposed penalty schedules. 

4 05/03/07 The Federal 

Railroad Administration Can Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety by Ensuring Compliance With Accident Reporting Requirements and Addressing Sight Obstructions MH-2007-044 

Open 1.0 years. FRA should work with 

the Federal Highway Administration to develop model legislation for states to improve safety by addressing sight obstructions at grade crossings that are equipped solely with signs, pavement markings, and other passive warnings. 

FRA officials stated that they have prepared an initial draft of model legislation for states to improve safety by addressing sight obstructions at grade crossings with passive (non-automated) warning signs. 

OIG Analysis 
41

EXHIBIT F. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.

Name Title 

Brenda R. James Program Director 

Wendy M. Harris Project Manager 

Thomas E. Lehrich Chief Counsel 

Harriet E. Lambert Writer-Editor 

Exhibit F. Major Contributors to This Report 
42

APPENDIX. MANAGEMENT COMMENTS 

Thank you for your memorandum of July 10, 2008, transmitting the Office of the 

Inspector General’s (OIG) draft report and inviting our comments. We at the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) appreciate not only the work and insight of your staff in 

developing and preparing this report, but also their unfailing courtesy and cooperation 

dealing with FRA’s staff throughout the audit. FRA’s responses to the draft 

recommendations are provided below, and FRA’s comments on the rest of the draft 

report are attached. 

OIG’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO FRA 

“1. Establish a centralized process for documenting, tracking, and monitoring 

congressional rail safety mandates that includes planned and actual milestones.” 

FRA’s Response to Recommendation 1: FRA concurs with this recommendation. FRA 

agrees that the current process for documenting, tracking, and monitoring congressional 

rail safety mandates can be improved. FRA agrees that a centralized process will make 

information on the actions taken to implement congressional rail safety mandates and 

meet statutory deadlines more readily available for use in planning work assignments, 

establishing milestones, assessing progress, preparing budgets, and reporting 

accomplishments. 

Appendix. Management Comments 
43

FRA plans to use its new Microsoft SharePoint tracking system to help implement this 

recommendation. SharePoint is an intranet-based application with the flexibility to 

specify access for reading and editing. The Office of Safety has just begun to use the 

platform for safety regulatory planning and tracking, and mandates assigned to other 

offices will also be incorporated. 

“2. Establish procedures to ensure that NTSB receives an: 

“a. initial response for each rail safety recommendation within 90 days of issuance 

and 

“b. implementation timetable for each rail safety recommendation that FRA agrees 

to implement.” 

FRA’s Response to Recommendation 2.a.: FRA concurs with this recommendation. 

Effective immediately, FRA has revised its current procedures for handling NTSB safety 

recommendations. Under these new procedures, upon the Office of Safety’s receipt, on 

or after the effective date of the procedures, of an NTSB safety recommendation, a 

memorandum will be issued under the signature of the Director, Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, addressed to the specific divisional staff director (Staff 

Director) who holds responsibility for addressing the particular safety recommendation. 

Upon receipt of the memorandum, the divisional staff director or his or her delegate will 

have 60 days to draft and return the initial response to the Office of Safety Assurance 

and Compliance’s NTSB Liaison Officer. Upon receipt of the initial draft from the 

appropriate staff director, the NTSB Liaison Officer will finalize the response and input 

the response into the system for final approval of the draft of FRA’s initial response to 

the NTSB recommendation within FRA and for dissemination of FRA’s initial response 

to the recommendation to NTSB. 

In addition, each month the Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and 

Program Implementation will hold a “stand up” meeting with the relevant parties (the 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development, the 

Director of the Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, the NTSB Liaison Officer, 

and the relevant Staff Directors) to discuss how the agency will respond to the NTSB 

recommendations. This meeting will be held in conjunction with the monthly meetings 

on the status of waivers and block signal applications. A passcode will be provided to 

all the attendees so that those on travel can participate in the meeting. FRA’s NTSB 

Liaison Officer will issue a monthly report that includes each overdue FRA initial 

response to an NTSB recommendation; the monthly report will be used for the monthly 

“stand up” meetings. FRA will continue to track the initial letters in FRA’s CCM 

database or an alternative database, issue appropriate management reports, and follow 

up. 

Appendix. Management Comments 
44

Appendix. Management Comments 

FRA’s Response to Recommendation 2.b.: FRA concurs in Recommendation 2.b. but 

with explanation. FRA endeavors to include in its responses to the Board information 

regarding the general timetables for proposed actions. However, it must be recognized 

that the actual milestones as executed may differ substantially because of factors outside 

FRA’s control such as the following— 

a. In many cases actions suggested by the Board need to be considered within a 

larger context, and imperatives associated with the larger issues involved may 

affect schedules. For example, intervening statutory mandates sometimes 

divert staff and other resources to competing priorities, and economic and 

alternatives analysis may indicate that some other form of action is appropriate 

or that no known alternative action is supportable. 

b. Recent Office of Management and Budget guidance has further complicated 

the planning and clearance process for regulatory development, and the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation retains the discretion to approve or 

disapprove even non-significant regulatory actions. 

c. Transitions in presidential administrations introduce delays in the form of 

regulatory freezes (in effect throughout the Federal Government for significant 

rules after November 1, 2008), and perhaps for some category of actions as a 

new administration enters. 

For these reasons, FRA maintains contact with the Board through a variety of channels 

to apprise the Board of the status of planned actions, to ensure, when possible, 

participation by key Board staff (particularly within the Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee process), and to ensure that Board recommendations, like other safety 

opportunities, are handled within a proper framework of agency priorities. Accordingly, 

FRA will enclose with the agency’s initial response to a Board recommendation a 

tentative timetable looking forward insofar as possible and will periodically update the 

timetable as circumstances clarify or in response to altered priorities.