HR 7338 Introduced – RSAC Codification
Earlier this month Rep Sykes (D,OH) introduced HR 7338, the Railroad Safety and Accountability Act. The bill would codify the establishment and operation of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) which was established by DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 1996. It would amend 49 USC by adding a new §20122, Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. The bill would authorize “such funds as would be necessary” from the Highway Trust Fund for the operations of the RSAC.
The RSAC was effectively terminated in August of 2025 as part of the Administration’s efforts to recraft advisory committees to reflect their policy agendas. In January 2026, the FRA announced the reestablishment of the Charter for the RSAC in the Federal Register. There are not yet any members appointed to the ‘new’ RSAC.
Maintain the RSAC
Subsection (a) of the proposed §20122 would require the FRA to maintain the RSAC “for the purpose of providing advice and recommendations to the Administrator regarding the development of railroad safety regulatory programs, including the issuance of new regulations, review and revision of existing regulations, and identification of non-regulatory alternatives for improving railroad safety.” The RSAC duties would include:
Providing a forum for collaborative rulemaking and regulatory program development with respect to railroad safety,
Developing, through collaborative processes involving all segments of the railroad community, regulatory standards and mutually satisfactory solutions on railroad safety regulatory issues for recommended adoption by the Administrator, and
Identifying and assessing the facts and data underlying any real or perceived railroad safety problems, identifying cost-effective solutions to such problems based upon agree-upon facts, and identifying, if applicable, regulatory changes necessary to guide and implement such solutions.
Subsection (c) requires that the RSAC to be composed of “of not fewer than 1 representative from each major stakeholder group of the Federal Railroad Administration”. It goes on to list the various groups that would be represented. While ‘rail passenger organizations’ are listed, there is no similar requirement for freight rail shipper organizations to be represented.
Subsection (f) would require the FRA Administrator to meet quarterly with the RSAC to:
Consult with the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee regarding the development of railroad safety regulatory programs of the Federal Railroad Administration,
Advise the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee on emerging issues, statutory requirements, and other identified needs with respect to railroad safety, and
Receive and discuss the views and recommendations of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee in determining regulatory priorities of the Federal Railroad Administration.
While subsection (h) would generally require the RSAC to be governed by 5 USC Chapter 10, Federal Advisory Committees, it specifically exempts the RSAC from §1013’s charter renewal requirements.
Moving Forward
Sykes is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill is assigned for consideration. This means that there could be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. While the provisions of this bill would appear to be relatively uncontroversial, I suspect that there may be some Administration push-back because of a perceived criticism of how they mistreated the previous RSAC. Still, I expect that this bill would receive some level of bipartisan support were it to be considered, but I am not confident that it would be sufficient to allow the bill to be considered by the full House under the suspension of the rules process.
Commentary
Advisory committees like RSAC provide regulatory agencies with an invaluable tool to help them develop workable regulatory schemes to deal with a wide variety of safety and security issues. The varied backgrounds and agendas of the members provide the parent agency with a variety of perspectives that are not available in-house. This helps those agencies avoid unanticipated problems with the publish and comment process of regulatory development.
Perhaps it is time for Congress to consider how it could tap into that wealth of information in the development of legislation. Not only would such organizations provide a broader base of operational knowledge than is typically available to congressional staff, but they would have a firmer understanding of how statutory requirements could be effectively crafted into legislation. Instead of Congress trying to standup Congressional Advisory Committees, they could amend 5 USC Chapter 10 to include a process for Congress to tap into executive branch advisory committees for statutory development, perhaps through taskings through the Congressional Research Service. Or, lacking the will to change Chapter 10, perhaps Committees could add such taskings to the typical reporting requirements in appropriation or authorization bill committee reports.