Federal Comments

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) request for comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR) related to monthly reporting requirements on freight train length and tonnage by Class I railroads. Specifically, the proposed information collection would require Class I freight railroads to provide the FRA, on a monthly basis, with data regarding the total number of trains operated and the total number of cars in those trains, as well as the total trailing tonnage in specified train length categories. TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions representing the totality of rail labor, including both passenger and freight rail workers. We therefore have a vested interest in this ICR. Additionally, we endorse the comments of our affiliate, the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD).

The length and weight of freight trains have dramatically increased in recent years due to the rail industry’s adoption of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR). A recent fact sheet from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) illustrates that maximum train length increased by roughly 40% between 2010 and 2022. Similarly, rail unions have reported trains operating in the western United States that are up to four and five miles long. Rail workers have long-standing safety concerns related to train length, including radio and End of Train (EOT) device communication issues; increased blocked crossings; additional in-train forces that make it difficult to keep trains intact; insufficient training for Very Long Trains (VLT) crews; and decreased maintenance standards. We therefore strongly support the FRA’s proposal to gather train length and tonnage data from Class I freight railroads.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding the Canadian National (CN) Railway Company’s petition to extend its waiver of compliance from the provisions of §236.377, Approach locking; §236.378, Time locking; §236.379, Route locking; §236.380, Indication locking; and §236.281, Traffic locking, to extend the periodic testing schedules from at least once every two years to at least once every four years. TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions representing the totality of rail labor. For the reasons outlined below, we respectfully request that the FRA deny CN’s petition. Additionally, TTD endorses the comments of our affiliate, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS).

In its petition, CN is requesting an extension of its initial waiver, first granted in 2012 and most recently extended in 2018, that allows for the verification and testing of signal locking systems controlled by microprocessor-based equipment through the use of alternative procedures every four years. As BRS notes in its comments, continuing to grant this request bypasses several safety checks that validate signal control systems. First, the alternative methods of verification currently in place under this waiver, using the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Checksum/Universal Control Number (UNC), are not an adequate substitute for required field verification testing. These methods cannot reliably discover errors that would otherwise be identified through the required means of testing and verification as established under federal regulations.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the certification of train dispatchers. TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions, including those representing train dispatchers, and we therefore have a vested interest in this rulemaking. We applaud the FRA for proposing this rule and strongly support the implementation of certification requirements for train dispatchers. We ask the FRA to consider the recommended changes to the proposed rule outlined below and urge the agency to expeditiously finalize this regulation. Additionally, we endorse the comments of our affiliates, the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD).

Background on Congressional and FRA Action on Dispatcher Certification

Certification of certain rail crafts or classes of employees is not a new concept in the rail industry. In fact, the FRA has been discussing certification requirements for the past few decades. As the FRA notes in section III, paragraph 2 of the NPRM, Congress mandated in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 that anyone operating a train, including locomotive engineers, be certified. The FRA subsequently finalized the necessary regulations for locomotive engineers in 1991, over three decades ago, and those regulations are now contained in Part 240 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice of proposed rulemaking governing the certification of rail signal employees. TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions, including those representing signal employees, and we therefore have a vested interest in this rulemaking. We applaud the FRA for proposing this rule and strongly support the implementation of certification requirements for signal employees. We respectfully ask the FRA to consider the recommended changes to the proposed rule outlined below and urge the agency to expeditiously finalize this regulation. Additionally, we endorse the comments of our affiliates, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD).

Background on Congressional and FRA Action on Signal Employee Certification

Certification of certain rail crafts or classes of employees has been a topic of discussion within the FRA for several decades. As the FRA notes in section III, paragraph 2 of the NPRM, Congress mandated in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 that anyone operating a train, including locomotive engineers, be certified. The FRA subsequently finalized the necessary regulations for locomotive engineers in 1991, over three decades ago, and those regulations are now contained in Part 240 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding the Association of American Railroads’ (AAR) petition for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers) and 49 CFR part 242 (Qualification and Certification of Conductors). TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions, including those representing the totality of rail labor, and we therefore have a vested interest in this petition. For the reasons outlined below, we ask the FRA to grant this waiver while continuing to push the Class I railroads to join the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS). Additionally, we endorse the comments of our affiliates, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division (SMART-TD).

The Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) is an important tool that allows rail workers to report safety incidents, or “close calls,” to the FRA that do not meet the mandated reporting threshold.[1] C3RS is designed to shield reporting employees from disciplinary action related to a close call event, where an Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU) is in place, in order to ensure accurate reporting and provide a more complete representation of the rail operating environment. The system can provide invaluable information about safety concerns and hazards previously unreported to the FRA due to gaps in reporting requirements, and has the potential to vastly improve the safety of our rail system. Increased data collection will allow the FRA and the Class I railroads to address known and emerging safety concerns and strengthen safeguards for rail workers and the communities surrounding rail lines.

The undersigned labor organizations are pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF) petition to extend its waiver from 49 CFR 232.213 to continue operating extended haul trains for distances of up to 1,702 miles, beyond the limit of 1,500 miles as stated in the regulation. Our unions represent BNSF freight rail workers across various crafts and therefore have a vested interest in this matter. For the reasons outlined below, we ask that the FRA deny BNSF’s petition to extend its waiver.

Current regulations stipulate that extended haul trains are permitted to move up to, but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between brake tests and inspections.[1] In addition, current rules require that equipment with defective or insecure power brakes only be moved from the place at which the defect or insecurity was first discovered to the nearest available place at which the repairs can be made.[2] BNSF is petitioning the FRA to extend its waiver, first granted in 2006, which permits extended haul trains to travel 1,702 miles between brake tests and inspections. It is apparent in the waiver request that BNSF is intent on aligning brake testing requirements with its own scheduling needs, rather than adhering to the regulation as prescribed, merely for the sake of convenience. This extension request comes at a time of widespread safety concerns within the freight rail industry, which should not be overlooked in favor of the convenience that BNSF claims this waiver provides.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP) July 14, 2023, request to amend its Positive Train Control (PTC) safety plan. TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions representing the totality of rail labor, including both passenger and freight rail workers. For the reasons outlined below, we respectfully request that the FRA deny UP’s request. Additionally, we endorse the comments of our affiliate, the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD) and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET).

TTD previously commented on how Positive Train Control (PTC) systems provide an additional layer of safety for rail workers and the public.[1] These systems are designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position. The National Safety Transportation Board (NTSB) first recommended that PTC be required in 1969 and Congress subsequently mandated PTC systems in the 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) to save lives and reduce injuries. TTD and its unions support FRA’s goal of implementing safe and effective PTC systems in a timely fashion in order to protect rail workers and the general public.

On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I am pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding a joint Request for Amendment (RFA) received from 20 rail carriers to modify their FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plans (PTCSP). TTD consists of 37 affiliated unions representing the totality of rail labor and we therefore have a vested interest in this matter. For the reasons outlined below, we respectfully request that the FRA deny this joint request. Additionally, TTD endorses the comments of our affiliates, the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD) and the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).

TTD previously commented on how Positive Train Control (PTC) systems provide an additional layer of safety for rail workers and the public.[1] These systems are designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position. The National Safety Transportation Board (NTSB) first recommended that PTC be required in 1969 and Congress subsequently mandated PTC systems in the 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) to save lives and reduce injuries.

The undersigned labor organizations are pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding Kansas City Southern Railway Company’s (now known as CPKC) petition to modify its waiver providing conditional relief from certain provisions of the federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). Our unions represent CPKC freight rail workers across various crafts and therefore have a vested interest in this matter. For the reasons outlined below, we ask that the FRA deny CPKC’s petition to modify its waiver.

Background

Existing regulations established in 49 CFR 232.205 require rail carriers to perform a rigorous Class I brake inspection at the border when trains cross into the United States.[1] This inspection is crucial in mitigating any potential deficiencies in the Mexican Government’s rail safety regulations, which are much weaker than U.S. rail safety regulations, and ensuring that all U.S. safety regulations are met before a train continues on.

The undersigned labor organizations are pleased to respond to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) notice regarding BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF) petition to extend its waiver allowing Class I brake tests and other mechanical inspections associated with a train entering the United States at Eagle Pass, Texas, to be performed at alternate locations rather than immediately at the border as required by federal regulations. Our unions represent BNSF freight rail workers across various crafts and therefore have a vested interest in this matter. For the reasons outlined below, we ask that the FRA deny BNSF’s petition to extend its waiver.

Specifically, BNSF is requesting a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.205 and certain provisions of part 215 relative to the inspection of trains entering the United States from Mexico. BNSF seeks to continue to move trains received in interchange from Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. (FXE), approximately 12 miles outside of the community of Eagle Pass, Texas, to facilities at Ryan’s Ruin, Texas, or Horan Siding, where the required inspections will be performed.