A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the two-person crew requirement established by the Federal Railroad Administration, rejecting industry arguments that the 2024 rule 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 brought by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), and six railroads, declaring that "none of the railroads' arguments have merit."

The ruling is the most significant judicial validation to date of a regulatory priority that rail labor unions have pursued for over a decade. The two-person crew requirement has been a central plank of organized labor's safety agenda in an industry where contract disputes have periodically threatened to disrupt national freight service, most notably in late 2022 when Congress intervened to avert a strike.

The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division (SMART-TD), which was granted intervenor status in the case, hailed the ruling as "a major victory for railroad safety."

SMART General President Michael Coleman stated: "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, which could include petitioning for rehearing by the full 11th Circuit or seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen indicated in a message to Trains that it would issue a response later in the day. BNSF (NYSE: BRK-B) and Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) deferred to the AAR for comment. Trains has also requested comment from the FRA.

Structure of the Challenges

The decision organized the multiple challenges into two groups. The first set was brought by the AAR, BNSF, UP, Florida East Coast Railway, and the Indiana Rail Road, which raised five separate objections. The second group included the ASLRRA, Texas & Northern Railway, and Nebraska Central Railroad, which raised two additional issues.

The opinion, authored by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and joined by Judge Embry Kidd, rejected all of the arguments.

AAR Petitioners' Arguments

The AAR argued that the statute authorizing the FRA to make rules "as necessary" requires an action to be "essential" to safety. The court found that the rule fell within the FRA's general rulemaking authority, and that the "as necessary" language implies discretion to act.

The AAR contended the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it reversed a 2019 decision concluding that evidence did not support a two-person crew requirement, and because it failed to address a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation that would have gathered more data. Noting that the 2019 decision withdrawing a two-person rule had been struck down by a lower court, the opinion states the court does not see "how a judicially invalidated action leaves anything that constitutes agency policy." It also found that the AAR misread the NTSB recommendation, noting that 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 costs in terms of savings lost by not allowing one-person operation, and cited a higher cost estimate for an earlier version of the rule in 2016 compared to the one adopted in 2024. The court responded that the new rule permits one-person crews through a special approval process, and therefore "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 railroad safety factors. "Nothing in this statute poses an impediment to the Crew Size Rule," the court concluded.

The AAR group also asked that the rule be vacated because the FRA took more than a year to finalize it, citing a congressional directive that rules be disposed of "not … more than 12 months after the date it begins." The court cited two D.C. Circuit decisions that declined to vacate FRA rules for the same reason, invoking a Supreme Court ruling stating that when 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."

ASLRRA and Short Line Arguments

Regarding the arguments raised by the ASLRRA and two short lines, the decision held that the group forfeited its arguments that the rule was arbitrary and capricious for establishing a two-year threshold for "legacy status" — which allows continued use of one-person operation — and that it was "arbitrarily vague" about whether a change in railroad ownership affects that status, by failing to raise either point during the rulemaking process.

A further argument asserted the rule is arbitrary and capricious for allowing railroads with legacy status to handle hazardous materials with a one-person crew while requiring others to seek special approval. The court found that "the FRA considered the relevant factors and reasonably explained its decision – all the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] requires."

The rule's requirement that all locomotives operated by a one-person crew be equipped with an alerter — a device that stops the train if the engineer is non-responsive — represents a change from an earlier rule that only required alerters on locomotives operating above 25 mph. The court found that the agency met its obligation to explain such a change and "provided good reasons" for the policy.

Dissent

The third member of the three-judge panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch, wrote in a 28-page dissent that she would have struck down the rule as arbitrary and capricious for two reasons: she found it changed a prior position without adequate explanation, and did not adequately consider the rule's cost.

Rosenbaum is a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, Kidd is a 2025 appointee of President Joe Biden, and Branch is a 2018 appointee of President Donald Trump.

Background on the Rule

The FRA issued the 223-page final version of the two-person crew rule in April 2024, providing an exception for operations that "do not pose significant risks to railroad employees, the public, or the environment."

"Common sense tells us that large freight trains, some of which can be over 3 miles long, should have at least two crew members on board – and now there's a federal regulation in place to ensure trains are safely staffed," then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said at the time. The AAR criticized the rule as "unfounded and unnecessary."

The rule was first proposed in 2016 but withdrawn in 2019 during the first Trump administration, with then-FRA Administrator Ron Batory asserting it was unnecessary. Although public comment was significantly in support of the rule, Batory said anecdotal evidence in those comments was outweighed by information supplied by the industry. He cited a study by consulting firm Oliver Wyman, commissioned by the AAR, which found no concrete evidence that trains with two-person crews were safer than those with just one.

The rule was revived in 2022 during the Biden administration. The February 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, which released toxic vinyl chloride and prompted evacuations, further intensified public and political pressure on federal regulators to strengthen rail safety oversight. Then-FRA Administrator Amit Bose stated that longer trains "require a level of crew size that is proportional to the length of the train." Train length has increased as railroads adopted Precision Scheduled Railroading, an operating philosophy that emphasizes running fewer, longer trains with reduced staffing to lower operating costs. Bose said "having more than one person … is to the benefit of the community, if safety issues arise."