Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers

10 G. Street NE Suite 480
Washington DC 20002
Telephone (202) 347-7936
Fax (202) 347-5237

March 9, 2001

Docket Clerk
DOT Central Docket Management Facility
Room.PL-40 1
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

RE: Waiver Petition, Docket Number FRA-2000-8268

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) is the duly designated and authorized collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§151 et seq., of the craft and class of locomotive engineer on all Class I railroads in the United States and Canada. BLE represents the locomotive engineers affected by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway’s (BNSF) request for a permanent waiver of compliance from certain requirements of 49 CFR Part 229 (Railroad Locomotive Standards). As operators of the locomotives covered by this Part, BLE members have a vital interest in knowing the equipment is properly inspected and maintained.

BNSF requests that nearly one thousand of its C-44-9W locomotives be exempt from 49 CFR §229.23(a), which requires that the interval between any two periodic inspections may not exceed 92 days. BNSF proposes to extend this interval to 122 days for these locomotives.

BLE has received letters from our subordinate Divisions stating their adamant opposition to the granting of the BNSF request for waiver. In essence, that opposition is based on the following:

· There is a widely held belief that regular inspections, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 229, are conducted for the safety of railroad employees and the safety of the general public. Those requirements have served the industry well.

· The existence of a preventive maintenance schedule based on a program contracted with General Electric Transportation Systems which differs from the requirements in 49 CFR §229.23(a) is not justification for a waiver regardless, of the information provided by BNSF to justify its request.

· BNSF states that, based on a sampling conducted from March 1, 2000, to April 14, 2000 (44 days), during their 61 day inspection it found the presence of defects or exceptions to Part 229 a mere 0.87% of the time. The data presented is not clear as to what kind of exceptions were found, or if all one thousand of the locomotives subject to the waiver were inspected. This confusion over the data may, in part, be the result of poor reproduction of the supporting tables, which contained color-coding that was indecipherable. If the conclusion were drawn that a defect ratio of 0.87% could be found on any of the subject locomotives, then one would expect to find only 8.7 defects on nearly one thousand locomotives. That is remarkably low and bears further analysis. Additionally, BLE supports the statement of Transportation Communications Union General President Richard A. Johnson with regard to problems with the data submitted by BNSF.

· The BLE recognizes that these locomotives are relatively new (manufactured after 1996) and should have high reliability, but as railroad equipment ages it is increasingly subject to failure.

· BNSF states that: "These Locomotives contain the Industry’s latest technology in the areas of safety and reliability, are microprocessor controlled and equipped with New York Air Brake Corporation computer controlled brakes." This statement offers nothing of substance to indicate that these locomotives are any more safe, and therefore less in need of inspection, than any other locomotive subject to 49 CFR §229.23(a). In fact, these locomotives are subject to degradation of software and hardware that is not found on other locomotives. In many cases those microprocessors are essential components of safety critical systems—air brakes as an example—and should be subjected to rigorous testing and inspection as BLE has argued in other waiver requests.

· Our members perceive BNSF’ s motivation for the waiver as an attempt to conform what it is doing as a substitute for what is required under the regulation. If granted, this waiver would lead to other requests from other railroads in all areas of Part 229 that are based on prescribed inspections at prescribed intervals. The safety record developed over the past 75 years has proven the efficacy of regular inspections of specific elements of railroad equipment, and should not be rewritten by waiver.

· There is significant value in consistent application of the regulations. Many railroads have assigned locomotive engineers the responsibility for determining the status of required inspections of the locomotive. This is done for reasons of safety and the railroads need to know that locomotives are in compliance with the regulations. If a waiver were granted for a group of locomotives on one railroad, confusion over requirements would result.

In view of the foregoing, BLE requests Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2000-8268 be denied.

Respectfully submitted

s/s Edward Dubroski

President

cc: J. L McCoy, FVP
     M.W Geiger, Jr., GCA-BNSF
     J D Mullen, GCA-BNSF
    A. G. Morrison, GCA-BNSF
    T. R Murphy, GCA-BNSF
    M. F. O’Brien, SLBC-LA