Railway Safety Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2026
Bottom line
The Railway Safety Act of 2026 proposes comprehensive new federal regulations to enhance rail safety, particularly for hazardous materials transport, by increasing operational requirements, inspection mandates, and emergency response capabilities.
What it actually does
This bill significantly overhauls rail safety regulations, primarily focusing on trains transporting hazardous materials. It mandates new safety requirements for 'high-hazard trains,' including speed limits, electronic train consist information sharing, and emergency response plans. The bill also addresses train length, blocked highway-rail grade crossings, and mandates more frequent and thorough inspections for railcars and locomotives. Crucially, it establishes a minimum 2-person crew size for most freight trains, increases penalties for safety violations, accelerates the phase-out of older tank cars, and creates a new federal program to provide immediate financial assistance to communities responding to significant hazardous materials incidents.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical response to recent high-profile derailments involving hazardous materials, aiming to prevent future tragedies and protect communities. They contend that the current regulatory framework is insufficient and that measures like mandatory 2-person crews, enhanced defect detection, and accelerated tank car upgrades are essential to improve safety, ensure timely emergency response, and hold railroads more accountable for violations. Proponents emphasize the need for real-time information sharing with first responders and robust federal oversight.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly from the rail industry, are likely to argue that many of the proposed regulations are overly prescriptive, economically burdensome, and may not significantly enhance safety in a cost-effective manner. They might contend that existing safety protocols and ongoing industry investments are sufficient, and that mandates like 2-person crews could hinder operational efficiency and technological innovation. Concerns may also be raised about the feasibility of accelerated tank car phase-out schedules and the potential for increased costs to be passed on to consumers or impact freight movement.
The bill is moderately long and contains numerous technical amendments to existing federal code and regulations. An informed reader would require significant time to fully grasp its implications, especially given the extensive regulatory changes it mandates.
Section 102, amending 49 U.S.C. 20155
Enhanced Safety Requirements for High-Hazard Trains
This section redefines 'high-hazard train' to include a broader range of hazardous materials and quantities, such as 20 or more tank cars of flammable liquid, or even one car of toxic by inhalation material. It mandates new speed limits for all trains (50 mph maximum) and for high-hazard trains in high-threat urban areas (40 mph unless tank cars meet specific safety standards). It also requires Class I railroads to generate real-time electronic train consist information, share commodity flow reports with state and tribal emergency response commissions, and develop comprehensive hazardous materials emergency response plans consistent with the 'One Plan' format.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these measures are vital to prevent catastrophic derailments and ensure that communities and first responders are adequately prepared for hazardous materials incidents. They contend that current definitions and speed limits are insufficient and that real-time data is crucial for effective emergency response.
Critics contend
Railroads may argue that these requirements impose substantial costs and operational inefficiencies, potentially slowing down freight movement. They might also contend that some information sharing requirements could pose security risks if not handled with extreme care.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances enhanced public safety and emergency preparedness against potential increases in operational costs and transit times for railroads. There's also a tension between transparency for first responders and the need to protect sensitive security information.
Section 108, amending 49 U.S.C. 20154
Mandatory 2-Person Freight Train Crew Size
This section, titled the 'Safe Freight Act of 2026,' mandates that most freight trains operated by Class I railroads must have a minimum 2-person crew, consisting of a qualified conductor and a qualified locomotive engineer. Exceptions are provided for non-main line operations, certain locomotive movements, and operations that already had fewer than a 2-person crew at least one year before the bill's enactment, unless the Secretary determines they don't achieve an equivalent safety level. However, high-hazard trains and trains longer than 7,500 feet are explicitly ineligible for these exceptions.
Section 109, amending 49 U.S.C. 21301
Increased Penalties for Rail Safety Violations
This section significantly increases the civil penalties for violations of rail safety regulations. The minimum penalty is raised to $5,000 (from $1,000) and the maximum to $1,000,000 (from $25,000) for general violations. For small businesses, the range is $1,000 to $200,000. If a violation results in death, serious injury, imminent hazard, or substantial property destruction, the maximum penalty can reach $5,000,000 ($500,000 for small businesses). Penalties can be doubled for repeated violations or deliberate indifference. It also extends the statute of limitations for hours of service violations and clarifies that each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense.
Section 110
Accelerated Phase-Out of Older Tank Cars for Flammable Liquids
This section mandates that starting December 31, 2027, no railroad tank car, regardless of its construction date, may be used to transport Class 3 flammable liquids (with some exceptions) unless it meets or exceeds the DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R safety specifications. This accelerates the phase-out schedule for older, less robust tank cars. The Secretary is required to revise existing regulations to conform to this new deadline. The Comptroller General is also tasked with reviewing manufacturing and retrofit capacity to assess if the deadline is feasible, with a provision for the Secretary to delay the phase-out to December 31, 2028, if capacity is insufficient or interstate commerce would be significantly impacted.
Section 204, amending 49 U.S.C. 5116
Emergency Response Assistance Program for Hazardous Materials Incidents
This section establishes a new federal emergency response assistance program to provide immediate financial aid to communities (states, territories, tribes, political subdivisions, and public emergency response organizations) responding to 'significant hazardous materials transportation incidents.' The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with FEMA and EPA, will define and declare such incidents. Up to $10,000,000 can be released from the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund if the responsible party does not have an acceptable reimbursement plan within 14-21 days. Funds can be used for replacing damaged personal protective equipment, overtime pay, operational costs, and baseline health assessments for responders. The responsible party is liable to reimburse the Fund, with discretion for small businesses.
Section 105
Enhanced Railcar, Locomotive, and Brake System Inspections
This section prohibits railroads from limiting the time employees need to complete safety inspections. It mandates amendments to pre-departure inspection requirements for Class I railroads, ensuring designated inspectors are available at specific locations and that all freight cars are inspected as soon as practicable. It also requires new regulations for periodic freight car inspections (every 5 years after an initial 6-year period), similar to those for locomotives and passenger cars, to be performed by qualified inspectors. Daily locomotive inspections by qualified mechanical inspectors are added for Class I railroads. The Secretary is required to conduct audits of inspection compliance every 5 years for Class I railroads and annually for a limited number of Class II/III railroads, with provisions for addressing deficiencies and ensuring cooperation.
Section 107, amending 49 U.S.C. 20173
Mandatory Defect Detection Systems and Standards
This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a program for research, development, testing, and evaluation of defect detection systems (e.g., hot bearing detectors). It mandates a rulemaking to require Class I railroads to submit and implement risk-based defect detector network plans within 1 and 3 years, respectively, after the final rule is issued. These plans must detail detector types, spacing (e.g., averaging 15-20 miles for hot bearing detectors on main lines, with specific requirements near urban areas), performance standards, alert procedures, data sharing, and employee training. The Secretary will review and approve these plans, conduct biannual compliance reviews, and can assess civil penalties for non-compliance or failure to act on alerts. It also establishes a formula grant program to assist commuter railroads with installing defect detection technology.
This clause rescinds existing requirements related to tank car safety for hazardous materials other than Class 3 flammable liquids, specifically paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 174.310(a) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 102(b)(1), amending 49 U.S.C. 20155
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice when updating a comprehensive regulatory framework, where some older, less relevant, or superseded provisions are removed as new ones are introduced. It's not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Proponents might argue that these specific requirements are either outdated, redundant with new, more comprehensive regulations, or were found to be ineffective for non-flammable hazardous materials, and their removal streamlines the regulatory landscape.
Case against: Critics might express concern that removing any existing safety requirements, even if seemingly minor or specific to certain materials, could inadvertently create gaps in safety oversight or reduce protections for certain types of hazardous materials transport.
Estimated impact: The impact is a slight reduction in specific regulatory burdens for non-flammable hazardous materials, potentially offset by the broader new requirements for 'high-hazard trains' which may still cover these materials under different criteria.
This 'Rule of Construction' explicitly states that nothing in Section 105 (Inspections) may be construed to provide the Secretary of Transportation with authority to interpret, revise, alter, or apply a collectively bargained agreement, nor any authority over collective bargaining, collectively bargained agreements, or any aspect of the Railway Labor Act. It also states it does not alter existing agreements or abridge procedural rights under them.
Section 105(h)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope and limits of new federal authority, especially when it might intersect with existing labor law or agreements. It's a protective measure for existing collective bargaining rights.
Case for: Proponents (especially labor unions) would argue this is essential to protect the integrity of collective bargaining agreements and ensure that new safety regulations do not undermine worker protections or negotiated terms of employment. It prevents federal overreach into labor-management relations.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such a provision, as it clarifies existing legal boundaries. However, some might argue that it could limit the flexibility of federal regulators to implement safety changes if they conflict with existing agreements, potentially slowing down safety improvements.
Estimated impact: Ensures that new inspection requirements are implemented without disrupting or overriding existing collective bargaining agreements, preserving the rights and responsibilities established under the Railway Labor Act.
These clauses establish lower maximum civil penalties for rail safety violations when the person committing the violation is a 'small business concern' (as defined in 13 CFR part 121), including Class III railroads. For general violations, the maximum is $200,000 (compared to $1,000,000 for larger entities). For violations resulting in death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, the maximum is $500,000 (compared to $5,000,000).
Section 109(a)(2)(B) and (3)(B), amending 49 U.S.C. 21301(a)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to mitigate the disproportionate impact of regulations and penalties on smaller entities, acknowledging their more limited resources. It's a measure to ensure fairness and avoid crippling small businesses.
Case for: Proponents argue that small businesses, including many Class III railroads, operate with significantly fewer resources than Class I railroads. Imposing the same maximum penalties could lead to bankruptcy for minor infractions, which is not the intent of safety regulation. Tailored penalties ensure accountability without undue burden.
Case against: Critics might argue that safety standards should apply equally to all operators, regardless of size, and that a lower maximum penalty for small businesses could create a perception of lesser accountability for safety failures, even if the actual risk is lower.
Estimated impact: Provides financial relief and protection for small railroad operators from potentially crippling penalties, while still increasing their accountability compared to previous law.
This clause specifies that for grants under Section 5116 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Emergency Response and Preparedness), the contributions of a State or Tribe toward the costs of an activity may be in the form of 'in-kind contributions'.
Section 203(d)(3), amending 49 U.S.C. 5116(d)
Why it matters:This is a common and generally uncontroversial provision in federal grant programs, designed to increase accessibility for states and tribes that may have limited cash resources but can contribute through services, equipment, or personnel. It's standard practice to facilitate participation.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing in-kind contributions makes federal grants more accessible to states and especially tribes, which may struggle to meet cash matching requirements. This flexibility ensures that more jurisdictions can participate in critical hazardous materials preparedness and response training.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision. Some might argue, generally, that cash matches ensure a higher level of financial commitment, but the benefits of increased participation usually outweigh this concern.
Estimated impact: Increases the flexibility and accessibility of hazardous materials emergency response grants for states and tribes, potentially leading to broader participation in preparedness activities.