Federal Appeals Court Upholds FRA Rule Mandating Two-Person Crews on Freight Trains

For a decade, the American freight rail industry has been locked in a structural conflict over the future of the locomotive cab. On one side, railroad operators argue that automated track systems and modern technology make a second crew member redundant, viewing single-person operations as a necessary evolution to cut costs and remain competitive. On the other side, labor unions and federal regulators argue that modern trains—which frequently stretch over two miles and carry hazardous materials—require human redundancy to prevent catastrophic accidents. That tension reached a legal resolution on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a 2024 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rule requiring at least two crew members on most freight trains operating in the United States, rejecting an industry-led effort to strike down the mandate.[1][5]

In a comprehensive 93-page, 2-1 decision, the appellate panel denied petitions for review filed by the Association of American Railroads, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, and major Class I carriers including Union Pacific and BNSF. The FRA's rule, which was finalized in April 2024, establishes a federal baseline that a locomotive must be staffed by a minimum of two individuals. The regulation replaces a patchwork of state-level crew-size laws with a unified federal standard, fundamentally altering the industry's long-term automation strategies and securing a major victory for organized labor. SMART-TD, the transportation union that intervened in the case to defend the rule, hailed the decision as a validation of workers' real-world experiences over corporate efficiency metrics.[1][2][4]

To understand the stakes of the ruling, it is necessary to examine the distinct roles within a locomotive cab. The two-person mandate typically requires an engineer, who is responsible for operating the locomotive's physical controls and managing the train's speed and braking, and a conductor. The conductor manages the freight manifest, monitors the track for obstacles, communicates with dispatchers, and serves as the first responder to mechanical issues. As freight trains have grown significantly longer over the past decade, the physical demands of inspecting a train have increased. If a mechanical defect triggers an alarm, it is the conductor who must dismount the locomotive and walk the length of the train—often in adverse weather or remote locations—to identify and resolve the issue.[2]

Despite the strict baseline, the regulation does not impose an absolute, blanket ban on all single-person operations across the entire rail network. The FRA's framework includes specific exceptions tailored for certain short-line railroads and smaller operations that do not handle hazardous materials on high-speed mainlines. Furthermore, the rule allows major carriers to petition the agency for special approval to run one-person crews on specific routes. However, to secure this approval, railroads must submit rigorous annual safety reports and definitively demonstrate that the reduced staffing will not compromise public safety. By establishing this framework, the rule shifts the burden of proof; rather than regulators having to prove that single-person crews are dangerous, the railroads must now prove that they are safe.[4]

The railroads' legal challenge rested heavily on the argument that the FRA exceeded its statutory rulemaking authority and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Industry groups asserted that there is no definitive statistical data proving that two-person crews are inherently safer than one-person crews, especially when modern safety technologies are active. Railroads have invested billions of dollars in Positive Train Control (PTC), an automated system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions and derailments caused by excessive speed. The carriers argued that PTC effectively replaces the safety redundancy historically provided by a second human operator, making the FRA's mandate an outdated and unnecessary regulatory burden that stifles technological innovation.[1][4][5]

Furthermore, the carriers argued that the FRA's cost-benefit analysis was fundamentally flawed because it explicitly failed to account for the substantial labor costs railroads would incur by complying with the rule. The industry contended that by ignoring the financial impact of abandoning planned transitions to single-person crews, the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Conservative advocacy groups filed amicus briefs supporting this position, arguing that the regulation was issued under the guise of safety but functioned primarily as a job-protection measure for unions, artificially inflating the cost of freight transportation across the supply chain.[3][5]

The federal government, joined by SMART-TD, countered that demanding definitive statistical proof of danger would force the safety agency to wait for fatal accidents to occur before taking preventive action. Regulators pointed out that in the event of a derailment, a grade-crossing collision, or a mechanical failure, a single engineer cannot safely secure the train, coordinate with dispatchers, and simultaneously assist local emergency responders. The Eleventh Circuit majority sided with the government, ruling that the FRA followed proper administrative procedures and was justified in relying on qualitative evidence. The court specifically cited the thousands of public comments from rail workers detailing close calls and lives saved by the presence of a second crew member.[2][4]

The appellate decision was not unanimous, highlighting the ongoing legal debate over administrative power and agency reversals. Judge Elizabeth Branch dissented from the majority, writing that the FRA failed to adequately explain its reversal from the previous administration's stance. In 2019, under the Trump administration, the FRA had formally withdrawn a similar crew-size proposal, citing a lack of safety data and a desire to avoid stifling automation. Judge Branch agreed with the railroads that the agency improperly ignored the labor costs of compliance in its new rulemaking, arguing that a complete cost-benefit analysis must include the financial burden of maintaining a second employee on every train.[3][5]

The ruling arrives amid a period of intense public and political scrutiny of the freight rail industry. Following the high-profile 2023 derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, Ohio—which resulted in a toxic chemical spill and the evacuation of the surrounding community—rail safety became a primary focus for lawmakers and regulators. While the East Palestine train was operated by a multi-person crew, the disaster amplified union arguments that reducing staffing levels would only increase the risk of catastrophic accidents. The public backlash against the industry provided the FRA with the political capital necessary to finalize the two-person mandate despite fierce corporate opposition.[5]

While the Eleventh Circuit's decision represents a definitive victory for the FRA and rail unions, the legal battle may not be entirely exhausted. The railroads have the option to request an en banc rehearing before the full roster of judges on the Eleventh Circuit, or they could appeal the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the current Supreme Court's skepticism toward broad administrative agency power, the industry may view an appeal as a viable path to overturning the mandate. For now, however, the federal regulation remains fully in effect, ensuring that the traditional two-person crew remains the standard across the American freight network.[1][3]