Industry witnesses tell House panel performance-based rail rules would let technology improve safety

At a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, industry witnesses told the panel that federal rail safety rules should move from prescriptive mandates to performance-based standards to allow operators flexibility while maintaining safety. The committee chairman opened by saying, "Purpose of safety regulations should be to achieve safety outcome in the most efficient means possible."

Mr. Jeffers, an industry witness, told the panel the railroad industry is long-established and governed by a body of federal rules that in some cases have not kept pace with modern technology. "We're a 200 plus year old industry in the originally federal federally regulated industry, And, we've got the we've got the code of federal regulations to to support that. We still have regulations on the books from the steam engine era over 50 years old, and what that does, what that results in when they aren't updated, when they don't evolve with, with the railroad, with the evolution of technology and innovation is lock you into perhaps a backwards looking operating practice that may or may not result in the highest level of safety," he said. He added that regulators should focus on "the outcome you're seeking. The safety outcome you're seeking versus the input you're providing."

Mr. Baker, another industry witness, told the committee that a one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach can be inappropriate across the industry's range of operators. "A regulation that would work for a 20,000 person fortune 500 company with 13 different unions probably makes no sense for a 5 person company with 1 locomotive and maybe 1 union. And so I think common sense would tell you in that scenario, a performance based outcome based regulation would make more sense than a prescriptive government telling you exactly how to do it," he said.

The witnesses described performance-based or outcomes-based regulation as a framework that sets a safety standard but allows multiple technical or operational paths to meet it, enabling adoption of new technologies and operating practices without being locked into legacy requirements. The committee did not adopt any regulatory changes during the hearing; the exchange was part of an exploratory discussion about regulatory approaches to improve safety and accommodate innovation.