WPC" 2ABcR Z23|["m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<;o;rfolWSGrfffZAeAe8.888888888888f>fffff]````J>J>J>J>rffffrrrrxffoffxffofff]]]]o````ffffffrrJ>J>J>J>lox;x;x;x;x;rrrrffWWWoSoSoSoSxGxGxGrrrrrrxfoZoZoZox;rWoSxGxfxfofrNe.}S1SSS```==`9}}`9(PPS88SSrr(P9ee\\w.e77\\\wwweeeCe.wR)EreewwwwIeenR\\\wwwxio\eEfRfIfRxe|W87y\r\rxWlRx\\]\ceIfIs`Wx\rriIe77\``rigewiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee777777777777\\\\\\\````````````rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxfx8xs8s\"m^*,:SS}z22K[*2**SSSSSSSSSS**[[[Collluldu}=Sudzudul_dzljj\2[2[KSSCVK2Q\/,Y/\KVSCE:\QuQQH2[2[2*222222222222V/lSlSlSlSlSwlClKlKlKlK=/=/=/=/z\uKuKuKuKz\z\z\z\jQlSuVuKuKjQuKdVlSlSlSlClClClCuVlKlKlKlKuQuQuQuQuQuQ}\}\=/=/=/=/SuYd/d/d/d/d/z\z\z\z\uKuK}lClClC_E_E_E_Ed:d:d:z\z\z\z\z\z\ujQ\H\H\HuVd/z\lC_Ed:jQjQuVuKz\N[*[K,C@@SSS2-}}S2ooS}2::S''KK\\:2[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR2c< c c ce"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXgn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^HJS<aa}FSFFFF}oaa}<a]XX}kaaSFSS*SSSSSSSSSS]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]XXXXX}}}}kkkX}kNF}J}}}\\VV<xx}SS}}<xVF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^!+==\Z%%7C%==========CCC1QOOOVOIV\-=VIhZVIVOEIZOlMMC%C%C7==1?7%;C#!A#bC7?=13+C;V;;5%C%C%%%n%%%%%%%%%%?#O=O=O=O=O=nXO1O7O7O7O7-#-#-#-#ZCV7V7V7V7ZCZCZCZCM;O=V?V7V7M;V7I?O=O=O=O1O1O1O1V?O7O7O7O7V;V;V;V;V;V;\C\C-#-#-#-#=VAI#I#I#I#I#ZCZCZCZCV7V7n\O1O1O1E3E3E3E3I+I+I+ZCZCZCZCZCZClVM;C5C5C5V?I#ZCO1E3I+M;M;V?V7ZCNCC7!1//===%!\\=%QQ=\%++=n77nCCn+n%CC<HYYY66^E@@@@(JEEE66;,1N11@@@A9<16%7,7(7,A6C/A1>1P7A/:,A1E12156(7(>4E/A1H>E>9(6144>986@9999999999999999999(((((((666666666666666666661111111444444444444>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A7AA>E>12HEc:14A;cA"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiijTbNXFZGZGZGjTmV1'jTePhjT_KjTqZRAWEZGeQpYjTu]qZ]@X00QTTe][Xi]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]@@@@@@@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX000000000000QQQQQQQTTTTTTTTTTTTeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejZj1jeq1eQ2#O`zEJolKHL&)o=3no P['C&P & %e8.|e P['CP& 8SF> P['CPd :SHvX pTCd 'l80lX pTC DS?3s\  PCPDS??皝4  p(AC&u![2*d[ P['CP u![2*P[e xzCX)o=3PRoe xzC&X&r!Y1)LY P['CP )o=3no P['C&P &UC%D4C P['CJP&F66 P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P r!Y1)LY P['CPBQck QuoteSingle spaced indented quote - Circv C   (  Cd  ( ( ( FTNFormats for each footnote,  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-yy8q899s89s}eyyyqyy8y8yyyys8yy88y9yyq8s8q89<88`Cqa9ǜqyq8 >ys8qg{yqyq8s8q89<88`qa9q8yq8 >ys8q{yqyq9s8q<9<8<`yyq8yq8　 >yq8ǜq{9qys938q<9<88`yy8ys8 >yq8ǜqy9qyq_yq=y^99{?^y89=y8y C~y8y=s998sǀ9=sǀ#9=q*<9189=s<?0<9q<999s<5<9q<9=<{>99q/<1<1<9<9<{<9=q1<1<19=qy9ys<==ys8s8q<9qyyy{ys08s 9={<{?6yy{y{y9<{<3`8s8q< ps8q<8s=y{=y<{yǜ9>< yǾs9y4}y?s<{|={<<={<<}v8s={<<ϼy>}v8={<=}v0q}w<0<{<9yw0=s<0 y0y0y<9<<{<v<q0y<9<<{<v<q{<=y<<<{<x8s<y 3y9={?y<9sy8x<s 4{<{=y<}8?:Xs8gqq=y<?}0?=TG`ϞqǼySEq8yyq8yc=ys=yy8qyyyy9y9y<9yǼ9s?9s{8qyqyy<9yy8qcyq8yy<9yyÀ[-cy9yyy=y?9ay<{󏀴]+y9y9y<}{y{={=s_5}q8yϼyyy<}yyyy?{==߽<9_5}s8yϼy{yyyy}xcyyy9yy<{<{y{}y}=x{y? 8 y?y={=s=y}? <@  ?x'yy={}y}ဇ  xǀ@0=}y={}{}y  3 @ ̊À-}}}yyÀ? ߀p<À-}y}yx ߉.{}y}yx ?P;@.{yy}x?/ >9.y}}x  / @.yy}p yȀ ~yʀ }sɀ }?ɀ }ʀ}ʀˀ̀̀̀wP{z?y |1y ;x 9?x a98x q9?xq9=wq99wyq99w?999w999w<199w9q98w<9q98v<998?v<998?v?<198 v<998`v81<;8`vs<9<98`vs<1<98pvs<1<;8pvs<1<;8qvwsyq<9y yyq<9y yyq<9q yyq<9aq8qs8y<   q8qs8q< f7@q8qsy=y? aO(<9yq8?}}ws<aL.1s<cL.<38q8y=y|ss?q?C?L.<38q8y=9y}qs?q ?/CaL/<39q8y=1?y|qs91 CaL/y qsys8sysx? cJPs8wyxqq<>yyss} s<yx?cJ"8gyyqq<>yy+ssy 3<yq?cJ"8gyyqq<>yy+ssy{<y&sys9z,swy s<yy8o?I#<9gq{9~?,swy s<9?,3w{ s<I#qy9?,3w{ s<y9?,3{ s<{93{ s< 9{ y8q8y08cH$s;-99q=x08cHsހ1%{-s99s=yx/88cH?-%{ǀs99s{ǟϾ߀ s99s9s|88?Go܀!B<{Ͼπs19s9s|88?G?&<{<߀sy9s8s|88aG yp@C<8<sy8< y99s|88aGy8?3πC<8s<s9<<93?{?<y99sv88a??Gy80X3<8{<<߀yy9ss98a߇Gq88s?9D<8Ǽ8 18?~F3q898v9y1<=y9q 10`? syy1s<9|}<ǀ ry3<~x?}<ǀ [y1<<yx }y? ?ry1<8}y<    ?oys3<8{}y<o ` mys3<<{y π?π`pys1<9yǼ<{y0Xyqy<90 }}3<?8ǿp^y|1~o  X}1 ϊXx#`X{?<{?<}{<?>?x#?'@X<{}q<܄ ???x~c?IX>@0Y8s8Z8s8q98yǞs9 D8s?Ds8s8q<98ys9sǀ?8s<|D8s8q s?8s<~πD8s8q<98ys9g缎D8s?A aD8s??Dps8qEps8q<99y98y8D8s8q<99yyπ|\8qwy<8ay8y8s8s19y<|gps={yqqysysy?  z8xqy{Ǽ9y<9<>pDa ƀ{8xq9{Ǽ9y<9yw>x|8yq9{<9yǜ9y`π!π xwyxq9Ǟs<9yǼ99 wqxq9s<9{Ǽs998p0q99{=q<{8y<9+0;999<{yJ8s8syJ+9sywyqy;9s=y y J+<9sywyyy>9y9s=y< }J+ü9syǼgy{y<8q9q9y= yJ*ü9ǜsy<a?K=qN3N3q,N2? N1y9990|<P,. y<8 q819yy8<8xPπ&.y<8 q?Q a`x>Q'  1 ?Q' H xnj??00@?Q_} 0g? ?Q `9  g? ? Q0! 'Б @@R   8?߀ oȏ ??`<<R ~?~0 ? ?߀ L!π! R? w ߀ 8 =DŒ x8 >  @cS D `0 ?|"SG|?c  =|S?? c ?S 8  ?S `0 ??S」WaT@@c ?ÀTp?c /Tp ` ' ?c ?T`?  ?c ??T @87 00c ~?瀃?T >?` 0c? |U a? U ~?? ? U0 /?  U ?`? ???U| <?H|?@V0l? Vo ?V ß8 V ?|W@f??~@W8?pW? W ??W ?Xc ?X ?X ???X 瀆Y ?Y? ??Y ?Y ?Z ?`Z pZ ??Z ??8?Z ?|[ |[ ??[ >?[ >\ <\ ?\ ?\ ??] ?] ?^ ??^ ?^ _ ??_ ?` ` ` ?a a b c c c d d eGfw]Opin InitЊ #  ( (     П I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I A 1 a (1)(a) i) a)@@Final Op ##  ( ( ( (  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: uBh ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < In Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 18!19 (1904), we clarified that the statute should be read as though there were a comma after the word uncoupled, so that the words without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars applies to both coupling and uncoupling. When Congress recodified the SAA in 1994, it placed a comma behind the word uncoupled. See 49 U.S.C.A. 20302(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 1995).$SBQ d   ( , , The text of 2 requires that rail cars be equipped with automatic couplers and that all couplers be sufficiently  J compatible so that they will couple on impact. Johnson  J v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 16!17 (1904). The railroad is liable for an employee's injury or death  Jt caused by a violation of the SAA. See St. Louis, I. M.  JL & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 295 (1908) ( If the railroad ... use[s] cars which do not comply with the standard, it violates the plain prohibitions of the law, and there arises from that violation the liability to make  J compensation to one who is injured by it). J  uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < We have held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA),  uB 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., makes railroads liable for a violation of the  uB SAA, see O'Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 338 U. S. 384, 391  uB: (1949), although early cases, like Johnson, supra, preceded FELA's enactment in 1908. Hiles did not assert a negligence claim under FELA.  Early SAA cases involved injuries that occurred when an employee was forced to go between the cars during  J4 coupling operations. See, e. g., Johnson, supra, at 2  J (hand crushed between cars during coupling); San Anto J nio & Aransas Pass R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476,  J 478 (1916) (foot crushed between couplers); Atlantic City  J R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 56, 58 (1916) (arm caught in drawhead between cars during coupling). Our later cases extended the reach of SAA liability beyond injuries occurring between cars during coupling to other injuries caused by the failure of cars to automatically couple.  J Affolder v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., 339 U. S. 96, "   97 (1950) (railroad employee who ran after a runaway train caused by failure to couple lost a leg when he fell  J under a car); Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay R.  J Co., 338 U. S. 430, 432!433 (1949) (plaintiff successfully boarded runaway cars that failed to couple, but was injured when the cars collided with another train);  J O'Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 338 U. S. 384, 385!386 (1949) (railworker killed when 2 runaway cars"the result of a broken coupler"collided with cars whose couplers he was adjusting). Liability in each of these cases was predicated on the failure of coupling equipment to perform as required by the SAA, and we held that the SAA creates an absolute duty requiring not only that automatic couplers be present, but also  J that they actually perform. See, e. g., Affolder, supra,  J at 98; Carter, supra, at 433!434.  9H1 d dy7III؃  2  Hiles urges that railroads have an absolute duty to outfit their cars with safe equipment and that the SAA is violated if an employee is required to go between the ends of cars to manually adjust a misaligned drawbar. We cannot agree. Hiles correctly points out that failure to perform as required by the SAA is itself an actionable wrong dependent on neither negligence nor proof of a  J defect, % uB> ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < Hiles neither pleaded nor attempted to prove at trial that Norfolk & Western acted negligently or that the drawbar was defective. see Affolder, supra, at 98!99; O'Donnell, supra, at 390, 393, but the absolute duty to which we have referred on numerous occasions is not breached as a matter of law when a drawbar becomes misaligned during the ordinary course of railroad operations.  J  In Affolder, the plaintiff was working with a crew coupling cars. The 25th and 26th cars failed to couple and, after a few more cars were added, the first 25 cars  "   began rolling down a slight incline. The plaintiff ran after the runaway cars in an attempt to board and stop them, but instead fell under a car and lost his leg. At trial, the railroad attempted to prove that the coupler at issue was not defective and that the knuckle on the coupler was closed when the coupling attempt was made.  J Following O'Donnell, we reaffirmed that the failure of equipment to perform as required is sufficient to create  J SAA liability, Affolder, supra, at 99 (quoting O'Donnell,  J supra, at 390), but we noted that failure to couple would not create liability if the coupler was not properly set: BQ H C  , , (  Of course [imposition of failuretoperform liability] assumes that the coupler was placed in a position to operate on impact. Thus, if `the failure of these two cars to couple on impact was because the coupler on the Pennsylvania car had not been properly opened,' the railroad had a good defense. 339 U. S., at  J 99. J2> uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < Justice Jackson, dissenting on other grounds, agreed: Before a failure to couple establishes a defective coupler, it must be found that it was properly set so it could couple. If it was not adjusted as such automatic couplers must be, of course the failure is not that of  uB the device. Affolder v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., 339 U. S. 96, 101 (1950).nBQ d   J  ( , , In Carter, we similarly conditioned the duty on the coupler's being properly set. 338 U.S., at 434; see  J O'Donnell, supra, at 394, n. 7 (declining to consider a situation where an adequate coupler failed to hold because it was improperly set).  J  In Affolder, we predicated failuretoperform liability on placing the coupler in a position to operate on impact. 339 U.S., at 99. We implicitly recognized that certain preliminary steps, such as ensuring that the knuckle is open, are necessary to proper performance of the coupler and that a failure to couple will not constiG  "  Ԯtute an SAA violation if the railroad can show that the coupler had not been placed in a position to automatic J ally couple. Though Affolder involved a claimed closed knuckle, its language was not so limited and, as a matter of common sense, could not have been. Hiles could not reasonably complain that an otherwise working electrical appliance failed to perform if he had neglected to plug in the power cord. Similarly, a court cannot reasonably find as a matter of law that an otherwise nondefective coupler has failed to perform when the drawbar has not been placed in a position to operate on  JH impact. We think Affolder's restriction on failuretoperform liability logically extends to every step necessary  J to prepare a nondefective coupler for coupling, see supra, at 5 (describing the ordinary process of preparing for an automatic coupling), including ensuring proper alignment  J of the drawbar.  uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < Our holding that Affolder's restriction on liability extends to misaligned drawbars suggests that, at least in this case, the absence of a failed coupling attempt is of no consequence. On this record, Hiles would not have been entitled to judgment as a matter of law even if he had been injured during a failed coupling attempt.  Hiles contends that the distinction between a closed knuckle and a misaligned drawbar makes a difference because opening a knuckle can be accomplished without going between cars but realigning a drawbar cannot. This is particularly true, Hiles argues, given that Congress' central policy in enacting the SAA was to protect the worker by obviating the necessity of going between cars. Brief for Respondent 12!13. We decline to adopt an expansive interpretation of 2 that would prohibit railroad employees from going between cars to realign slued drawbars. The language of 2, which requires couplers that both will couple and can be uncoupled without the necessity of persons going between the cars, does not easily lend itself to Hiles'P #"   interpretation. Instead, as even Hiles apparently concedes, see Brief for Respondent 19, the text of 2 only requires railroads to use a particular kind of coupler with certain attributes, and there is no question that Norfolk & Western's cars are equipped with  J8 couplers with the necessary functional characteristics.H J8 uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < Hiles reads into the legislative history a singular congressional intent to keep railroad workers from going between cars. Our construction of 2 rests on the text of the statute and our prior interpretations of that language. In any event, we think Hiles' reading of the legislative history is erroneous. For instance, Hiles selectively quotes statements made by W. E. Rodgers during Senate Committee hearings to suggest that Congress wanted to force the railroads to adopt a coupler that would keep railworkers out from between cars altogether. Brief for Respondent 14. A full reading of these statements makes clear, however, that Mr. Rodgers believed that adoption of the Janney design, as it then existed, would fully satisfy the requirements of 2. Sen. Hearings 14. Hiles' reliance on statements made by H. S. Haines, vicepresident of the American Railway Association, is similarly misplaced. See Brief for Respondent 15. Mr. Haines evidently thought that 500 existing couplers would satisfy the requirements of the proposed bill. Sen. Hearings, at 41; see Hearings on Automatic Couplers and Power Brakes before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1892). If Congress had any singular purpose in enacting 2, it was to require the railroads to equip cars with uniformly compatible automatic couplers that employees could operate without having to go between the cars. See H.R. Rep. No. 1678, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1892) ( It is the judgment of this committee that all cars and locomotives should be equipped with automatic couplers, obviating the necessity of the men going be uB tween the cars); S. Rep. No. 1049, supra n. 8, at 6 (1892) ( What the railroad employ)s need to secure greater safety in the performance of their duties is uniformity. They want all couplers alike and perfectly interchangeable). We think Congress fairly intended to prohibit the practice of placing railworkers between moving cars to guide a link into its matching coupler pocket or, worse, into an unfamiliar coupler cavity. Cf. Hearings on Automatic Couplers and Power Brakes before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1892) ( He goes in to make a coupling. He does not know the conditions that exist there. He"## can not tell whether it is a Janney or a Hinson, a Dowling, a Drexel, or some other kind of a drawbar). Contrary to Hiles' assertion, the legislative history contains no suggestion that Congress intended to prevent an employee from going between cars to ensure  uBl that the knuckle is open, that the locking pin is set, see supra, at 5, or that the drawbar is aligned.H 8 "  Ԍ Adopting Hiles' reading of 2 would require us to hold that a misaligned drawbar, by itself, is a violation of the SAA, and we are quite unwilling to do that. It is true that our failuretoperform cases made clear that the railroad will be liable for injuries caused by malfunctioning equipment, even when cars are equipped with automatic couplers. But we cannot agree that a misaligned drawbar is, as a matter of law, a malfunctioning drawbar. Historically, misaligned drawbars were an inevitable byproduct of the ability to traverse curved  Jp track and, like the closed knuckle in Affolder, are part of the normal course of railroad car operations.  We are understandably hesitant to adopt a reading of 2 that would suggest that almost every railroad car in service for nearly a century has been in violation of the  J SAA. See United Transportation Union v. Lewis, 711 F.2d 233, 251, n. 39 (CADC 1983). Our hesitance is augmented by the enforcement scheme Congress enacted with the SAA. From its beginning, 6 of the SAA provided that railroads in violation of 2 were liable for a penalty of one hundred dollars for each and every such violation. Act of Mar. 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, 45 U.S.C. 6 (1988 ed.), recodified, as amended, 49 U. S. C.A. 21302(a) (Supp. 1995). The amount of the  J@ penalty for a 2 violation has varied over the years,%@ uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < The statute currently requires the Secretary of Transportation to impose a penalty of at least $500 but not more than $10,000. 49 U.S.C.A. 21302(a)(2) (Supp. 1995). but the threat of a penalty has not. Yet Hiles points to not a single instance in which a railroad has been fined for misaligned drawbars. It is not the case that the "   Government has simply neglected to enforce the penalty  J provisions of the SAA for nearly 100 years.nJ uB@ ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < See, e.g., Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U.S.  uB 559 (1911) (1 power brake violations); Alabama Great Southern R.  uB Co. v. United States, 233 F.2d 520 (CA5 1956) (2 coupler viola uBe tion); United States v. St. LouisSan Francisco R. Co., 271 F.Supp.  uB 212 (Mo. 1967) (9 brake violation); United States v. Gulf, M. & O.  uB R. Co., 76 F.Supp. 289 (La. 1948) (2 coupler violation).n We think there is a better explanation than that the Government has failed to enforce this particular aspect of the SAA since its inception: a misaligned drawbar simply is not  J8 a violation of 2.o8 uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf <  FTN  <  XFrXFr ff Hiles' view of 2 also conflicts with regulations promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that provide for the safety of employees who go between cars to prepare rail cars for coupling, 49 CFR 218.22(c)(5) (1994), or to adjust a coupling device, 218.39(a). In its proposed rulemaking for 218.39, the FRA explained that the proposed rule would protect employees who place themselves between cars to couple air hoses or adjust coupling devices, including adjusting drawbars. 48 Fed. Reg. 45272, 45273 (1983).  Finally, relying on the railroads' experimental attempts to develop automatic realigning devices, Hiles argues that Congress' clear intent to protect railroad employees in coupling operations required the railroads to develop a mechanism for automatic realignment of a drawbar. Brief for Respondent 27. Or, in the words of  J his amicus, [t]he Legislative wisdom of Section 2 is that it is as flexible as technology. Brief for United Trans J portation Union as Amicus Curiae 17. We reject this argument, for we find no such command in the text of 2. Congress plainly instructed the railroads to install compatible and automatic couplers on all cars, at a time when this basic technology had been in existence for two decades and had received widespread testing and recognition as a feasible technology superior to what was then in primary use. In contrast, Hiles concedes thatI "   automatic realignment technology did not even exist in 1893 when Congress passed the SAA, see Brief for Respondent 26!27, and, according to Norfolk & Western, automatic realignment has never been shown to be effective. But this matters not, because Congress legislated working automatic couplers for employee safety, not employee safety by whatever method a court might deem appropriate.  The judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court is  Jp `{JReversed.