Federal court upholds challenge to FRA’s two-person rail crew rule

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the two-person crew requirement established by the Federal Railroad Administration, turning down industry arguments that the rule adopted in 2024 was arbitrary and capricious and represented regulatory overreach. In a 93-page, 2-1 decision, the U. S.

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit turned down the challenge by the Association of American Railroads, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, and six railroads, saying “none of the railroads’ arguments have merit.”

The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division – which was granted status to take part in the case – hailed the ruling as “a major victory for railroad safety.”

SMART General President Michael Coleman said, “The court’s decision reinforces what SMART-TD members and rail workers already know: having two qualified workers on a train crew is just common sense. It’s about safety, security and the well-being of workers and communities nationwide.”

The AAR and ASLRRA said they are reviewing the decision and considering their options. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen indicated in a message to Trains that it would have a reaction later today. BNSF (NYSE: BRK-B) and Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) deferred to the AAR for comment. Trains has also asked the FRA for a comment.

Decision denies seven industry arguments The decision organized the multiple challenges into two groups of arguments. One set came from challenges by the AAR, BNSF, UP, Florida East Coast Railway, and the Indiana Rail Road, raising five separate objections.

The other includes the ASLRRA, Texas & Northern Railway, and Nebraska Central Railroad, and raised two other issues. The decision, authored by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and supported by Judge Embry Kidd, turned down all of those arguments.

Included in the arguments from the first group, labeled the AAR petitioners: The AAR argued the statute authorizing the FRA to make rules “as necessary” requires an action to be “essential” to safety. The court found the rule fell within the FRA’s general rulemaking authority, and the “as necessary” language implies discretion to act.

The AAR contended the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it reversed a 2019 decision that evidence did not support a two-person crew rule, and because it did not address a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation that would have gathered more data.

Noting that the 2019 decision withdrawing a two-person rule was struck down by a lower court, the decision says the court does not see “how a judicially invalidated action leaves anything that constitutes agency policy.”

And it says the AAR misread the NTSB recommendation, saying the safety agency “never urged the FRA to refrain from regulating crew size without first collecting more accident data.”

The AAR also argued the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it did not fully consider the costs of the rule in terms of savings lost by not allowing one-person operation, and noted a different, higher cost estimate for an earlier version of the rule in 2016 than the one adopted in 2024.

The court found that the new rule allows for one-person crews through a special approval process, and so “it’s no surprise if that difference shows up as a lower cost estimate.”

The AAR argued the rule conflicts with the “risk reduction program” of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which the court described as a program broad in addressing the aspects of a railroad that impact safety. “Nothing in this statute poses an impediment to the Crew Size Rule,” the court says.

The AAR group asked that the rule be vacated because the FRA took more than a year to be finalized, citing a congressional directive that rules be disposed of “not … more than 12 months after the date it begins.” The court cited two decisions by the D. C.

Circuit that declined to vacate FRA rules for the same reason, under a Supreme Court decision that says that if a statute does not specify a consequence for non-compliance with a time limit, “the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction.”

Regarding arguments raised by the ASLRRA and two shortlines, the decision: Says the group forfeited its arguments that the rule was arbitrary and capricious for establishing a two-year threshold for “legacy status” allowing continued use of one-person operation, and that it was “arbitrarily vague” about whether a change in railroad ownership changes that status, by not addressing either point during the rulemaking process.

A further argument says the rule is arbitrary and capricious for allowing railroads with that legacy status to handle hazardous materials with a one-person crew, while requiring others to request special approval.

But the court found “the FRA considered the relevant factors and reasonably explained its decision – all the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.” The rule’s require