BLET comments in favor of one proposed rule change:
Qualification and Certification: Locomotive Engineers
What the rule would do: The rule would modify how FRA participates in Operating Crew Review Board (the new name for the Locomotive Engineer Review Board) proceedings and appeals.
BLET’s position: This change will benefit members appealing adverse decisions made by railroad carriers that revoke their certification. This is because currently railroads may not offer written justification to the OCRB as to the reason for their decision to revoke an engineer’s certification.
The regulation change will require carriers to state their actual reason and findings in writing so that appeals can be made with full knowledge of the carrier’s reason for revocation and the Administrative Hearing Officers have knowledge of the case before them in time for any appeals
• • •
BLET comments in opposition to the following 16 proposed rule changes:
Regulatory Relief for End of Car Cushioning Units
What the rule would do: This rule would codify existing waivers allowing railroads to keep cars in service if the end of car cushioning unit is leaking hydraulic fluid, indicating a degraded state and less ability to cushion the car effectively.
BLET’s position: Cushioning units in degraded states should be pulled out of service and fully inspected to ensure safety for our members.
• • •
Allowing for the Electronic Posting of Reportable Injuries and Occupational Illnesses
What the rule would do: This rule would codify existing waivers removing the requirement for railroads to post injury and illness information physically in crew rooms.
BLET’s position: Sharing injury and illness information in crew rooms fosters valuable conversations about safety and occupational hazards. These conversations are part of a robust safety culture. Requiring railroaders to proactively access injury information online makes these types of conversations less likely to happen and thus deteriorates the safety culture.
• • •
Permitting Use of Virtual Simulation for Periodic Refresher Training on Brake Systems
What the rule would do: This rule would codify existing waivers allowing railroads to use laptop-based training for the three-year periodic refresher training for brake inspections.
BLET’s position: Laptop-based training does not replace real-world, hands-on testing and is not as safe.
• • •
Expanding Certain Locomotive Wheel Set Diameter Variations
What the rule would do: Increase the allowable variation in wheel diameter from 1.25 inches to 1.5 inches.
BLET’s position: This increase is unsafe. Most manufacturers currently recommend no more than 10/16ths of an inch of variation in wheelset diameters. This increase could lead to train handling problems and derailments.
• • •
Hazardous Materials: Reducing Undue Paperwork Burdens to Domestic Carriers
What the rule would do: The rule would remove the requirement for railroads to carry paper copies of hazmat train manifests physically on board the locomotive.
BLET’s position: While electronic copies of train manifests are an excellent backup, they should not be the only copy available. Many scenarios could occur rendering the electronic copy unusable, and the crew and first responders need that information rapidly in case of an emergency.
• • •
Removal of Unnecessary and Outdated Paperwork Reduction Act References
What the rule would do: The rule would remove specific references to FRA forms within the CFR.
BLET’s position: Railroaders must be able to look up the CFR and easily verify the requirements of which forms are required or not required in their particular situation, or they could be taken advantage of by the railroads. Removing the citations to the forms makes it more difficult to access information.
• • •
Prosecutorial Discretion of Enforcement Attorneys
What the rule would do: The rule would give more discretion to FRA attorneys when enforcing violations and introduce vague language to instruct attorneys to find a violation only if it creates a “practical safety issue.”
BLET’s position: This rule is redundant. Attorneys already have broad discretion, and this would only make the discretion more vague and promote fewer findings of violations.
• • •
Accident Reporting Regulations
What the rule would do: The rule would provide railroads with additional time to report certain accidents.
BLET’s position: The current accident reporting requirements are not overly burdensome and prompt reporting of accidents is a necessity to keep our members safe.
• • •
Retiring Form FRA F 6180.107 and Form FRA F 6180.150
What the rule would do: The rule would retire a couple of forms for workers or members of the public who are injured in an accident.
BLET’s position: These forms, while not frequently used, allow for the reporting of injuries that create a more accurate picture of true injuries associated with rail operations. There is no significant cost-savings to retire the forms and the rule is an attempt to make it harder to report injuries and obfuscate data.
• • •
Repealing Special Approval Requirement for Freight Cars More Than 50 Years Old
What the rule would do: The rule would remove requirements for older freight cars to receive special inspections.
BLET’s position: Freight cars over 50 years old are more likely to develop specific defects associated with long-term wear and tear. These cars should be inspected by a fully trained car inspector who knows about these specific defects to prevent derailments and other emergencies.
• • •
Brake System Maintenance and Inspection Requirements
What the rule would do: The rule would codify existing waivers allowing longer intervals between testing and inspection of Air Flow Method systems (AFMs).
BLET’s position: Longer testing and inspection intervals for AFMs are unsafe, particularly for older locomotives not equipped with end-of-train devices. The AFM is a critical safety backstop to ensure brake pipe pressure.
• • •
Hazardous Materials: Improving Efficiencies for Special Permits and Approvals Renewals
What the rule would do: The rule would allow railroads and other entities to continue utilizing hazardous materials permits, even if the permit has expired and the railroad has failed to apply for an extension.
BLET’s position: Railroads should be required to comply fully with all conditions of waivers and special permits. If the conditions, such as timely application for an extension, are not met, the railroad should not be able to continue to utilize the waiver or special permit.
• • •
What the rule would do: The rule would allow for the implementation of C3RS agreements only between the railroad and the FRA, leaving labor out.
BLET’s position: The C3RS program works only because railroad workers voluntarily provide data that can be analyzed to prevent future close calls and accidents. If labor is not a party to these agreements, there is little reason for railroad workers to trust that the information they provide will not be used against them. All C3RS programs must involve labor if the data gathered is expected to be accurate.
• • •
Regulatory Relief from Locomotive Horn Sounding Pattern at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
What the rule would do: The rule would allow locomotive engineers discretion in the pattern of horn sounding when approaching grade crossings.
BLET’s position: While alternative horn sounding patterns may make sense in certain situations, care must be taken to ensure that locomotive engineers are not blamed for any accidents at grade crossings if an alternative horn pattern was used.
• • •
Enhancing Railroad Discretion in Sounding Locomotive Horns at Passenger Stations
What the rule would do: The rule would remove certain requirements for sounding the horn at passenger stations.
BLET’s position: While we do not object to allowing for discretion of sounding the horn at passenger stations, we commented that the function of the horn should be maintained and inspected. Locomotive engineers should be able to report an engine as defective if the locomotive horn is not functioning as intended, regardless of requirements to sound the horn at stations.
• • •
Hazardous Materials: Removing Burdensome Rail Reporting Requirements
What the rule would do: The rule would remove requirements for reporting local restrictions on the transportation of specific hazardous materials to the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as well as the AAR.
BLET’s position: While we are open to discussing options for the specific reporting structure of local hazmat restrictions, there should be a simple way for railroaders to check that they are in compliance with all applicable hazmat requirements.
• • •
BLET comments in opposition to two final rules:
What the rule does: This final rule moves reporting of certain defects and violations to the Motive Power and Equipment director instead of the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety.
BLET’s position: We object to this final rule, which was finalized without a comment period. This is a meaningful change that could lead to a lack of action on defects and violations given MP&E’s history of mishandling reports of safety violations.
• • •
What the rule does: This final rule provides various roles that will be performed as the FRA and states coordinate on rail safety.
BLET’s position: While we do not object to state-federal cooperation – in fact we welcome it – the FRA must better define the types of rail safety inspectors, their duties, and required training to perform specific duties. The final rule, issued without opportunity for public comment, does not provide adequate specific definitions for the training and scope of duties for each specific type of inspector.