Legislative & Regulatory Agenda
Archived agendas from previous years are here.
CSLRA is monitoring the following legislative and regulatory activity:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Draft California Freight Mobility Plan 2023
The Draft California Freight Mobility Plan 2023 is now available online for public review until close of business May 12th, 2023.
Click here to go to the CalTrans California Freight Mobility Plan 2023 page.
Click here to view/download the PDF version of the California Freight Mobility Plan 2023.
Click here to view/download the TEXT version of the California Freight Mobility Plan 2023.
CA Air Resources Board (CARB) Proposed
In-Use Locomotive Regulations
Background: CARB has outlined various proposals to bring the rail transportation sector in CA to zero air emissions by 2035, in response to an executive order from the Governor setting the 2035 goal. These proposals may be reviewed in a 2019 presentation (posted below).
Recent Status: After holding two public workshops in October 2020, CARB has issued an NOP (link below) for four proposed in-use locomotive regulations: “spending accounts” (effectively an emissions tax), a limit of 23 years for any locomotive to operate in CA, a 30-minute locomotive idling rule, and locomotive data reporting requirements. The expectation is that draft regulatory language will be issued in 2021 and that CARB staff will seek CARB Board approval of regulations in early-mid 2022. CSLRA has commented on the NOP jointly with the AAR and ASLRRA (link below).
CSLRA Position: Oppose
Reasons for CSLRA Position: The proposed railroad contributions to “spending accounts” to fund the purchase of Tier 4 and higher locomotives amount to a discriminatory tax levied on railroads and not on competing forms of transportation. Preliminary calculations indicate that the amount of money CARB proposes to collect from each railroad yearly constitutes an existential threat to business viability. In addition the proposed regulations would create burdensome data reporting requirements on each railroad and would be levied simultaneously with other expensive new requirements at the CARB and Air District levels, including emissions capture equipment for locomotive maintenance facilities and indirect source rules (ISRs) applied to railyards that may only be achievable by cutting freight throughput. CARB’s authority to impose taxes without legislative approval, and to act in conflict with federal law is questionable. CSLRA has noted its concerns in a January 2021 letter to CARB (link below).
CARB Concepts to Reduce Emissions from Locomotives and Railyards (2019)
CARB FINAL_Loco_Notice of Preparation (NOP)
FINAL 2 CSLRA Letter to CARB with Attachment (January 2021)
Association Comments on CARB NOP (February 2021)
Corporate and Personal Tax Increases, AB 71 (Rivas)
Background: AB 71 would increase taxes for businesses with taxable income over $5 million from 8.84 percent to 9.6 percent (10.84 percent to 11.6 percent for financial institutions). The bill also would require taxpayers who make a water’s-edge election to include in their gross income 50 percent of global intangible low-taxed income and 40 percent of the repatriation income of affiliated corporations. Taxpayers that experience a tax increase under these provisions would be prohibited from utilizing business tax credits to offset more than $5 million of the new liability. Global intangible low-taxed income also would be included in a taxpayer’s gross income for purposes of the Personal Income Tax Law. Revenue would be used to fund programs to combat homelessness in California.
Recent Status: The bill is currently before the Assembly revenue & Taxation Committee.
CSLRA Position: Oppose
Reasons for CSLRA Position: With the economy pummeled by COVID 19, the last thing struggling California businesses need is a tax increase. CSLRA signed the oppose letter posted below as part of the California Railroad Industry.
Treated Wood Regulations SB 68
Background: Regulations in place since 2004 provided rules for handling and disposal of treated wood products that are supported by the Western Wood Preservers Institute and the California Railroad Industry. These regulations expired on December 31, 2020 because of lack of legislative action. The Legislature twice sent bills to extend the rules to the Governor (2019 and 2020 legislative sessions), and both times he vetoed them.
Recent Status: SB 68 was introduced in 2019 to maintain and further simplify regulations for handling and disposal of treated wood products (including railroad ties). Without renewal action the regulations would sunset on December 31, 2020. SB 68 passed the Senate in 2019 but did not reach the Governor amid a movement to make broad changes in how the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) operates. It was re-introduced in the 2020 session, and passed both houses of the Assembly, only to be again vetoed by the Governor. Since that veto, CSLRA has joined class 1 railroads and other companies in seeking a work-around within existing regulatory authority. Details are in the December 2, 2020 letter posted below. Since receiving the letter, DTSC has posted interim guidance and FAQs (see below). Also, SB 68 language has been re-introduced in the 2021 legislative session as AB 332. It is currently in the Assembly ESTM Committee.
CSLRA Position: Support
Reasons for CSLRA Position: The regulations in SB 68 continue a regulatory structure which has protected people and the environment without being unnecessarily burdensome to businesses. SB 68 would have made the regulations permanent.
Warning Sign | Fact Sheet | TWW Coalition Letter Support Senate EQ
Treated Wood Waste (TWW) Frequently Asked Questions
FEDERAL
Federal Train Crew Size Regulations
Background: Major U.S. freight trains on mainline tracks generally operate with two crew members in the locomotive cab — a conductor and an engineer. There were legislative efforts in the 115th Congress to require at least two people in the crew on all freight railroads and these efforts are expected to continue in the 116th Congress. Rail operators, which maintain a distinguished safety record, must continue to have the ability to innovate in the future to remain safe and efficient — including allowing operations with fewer than two people. Single-person crews have long been used on passenger, short line and foreign freight rail systems.
Recent Status: While the Federal Railroad Administration has recently rescinded its proposed rule-making to require a minimum 2-person train crew size (document below), Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, has revived an effort from the 2017 session to mandate crew size on freight trains in the current Congressional session. Known as H.R. 1748 — 116th Congress: Safe Freight Act of 2019, this measure would require freight trains to be operated by more than one person. So far, companion legislation has not been re-introduced in the Senate.
The key wording in the stalled FRA regulatory proposal, which the Safe Freight Act would require, reads: “Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of enactment of this section, no freight train or light engine used in connection with the movement of freight may be operated unless the train has a crew consisting of not less than 2 individuals, of whom — (1) one is certified as a locomotive operator in accordance with regulations prescribed pursuant to section 20135; and (2) one is certified as a train conductor in accordance with regulations prescribed pursuant to section 20163.”
CSLRA Position: Opposed
Reasons for CSLRA Position:
There is no data showing two-person crews are safer than one-person crews.
Railroads are fully committed to safety and achieving a future with zero incidents and injuries.
The industry has installed tens of thousands of miles of Positive Train Control (PTC) and is completing implementation.
Rail staffing — specifically the number of persons in a train locomotive — has always been a matter of collective bargaining and must remain that way.
Crew size mandates would deter innovation and private investment in railroad companies and limit the competitive viability of freight railroads, which is contrary to national safety, economic and transportation interests.
Additional Information: 2019-AAR-Crew-Size-Fact-Sheet (PDF)
2130-AC48-Withdraw-NPRM-Crew-Staffing-final.pdf
Surface Transportation Board (STB) proposed forced access rules
Background: On July 7, 2011, the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL)filed a petition to institute a rulemaking proceeding to modify the Surface Transportation Board’s standards for reciprocal switching. The Board took public comment and held a hearing on the issues raised in the petition. After consideration of the petition and the comments and testimony received, the Board is granting NITL’s petition in part and instituting a rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. EP 711 (Sub-No. 1) to modify the Board’s standards for reciprocal switching. Specifically, NITL proposes regulations under which Board-ordered competitive switching by a Class I railcarrier would be mandatory if four criteria were met: (1) The shipper (or group of shippers) is served by a single Class I rail carrier; (2) there is no effective intermodal or intramodal competition for the movements for which competitive switching is sought; (3) there is or can be ‘‘a working interchange’’ between a Class I carrier and another carrier within a “reasonable distance” of the shipper’s facility; and (4) switching is safe and feasible and would not unduly hamper the carrier’s ability to serve existing shippers.
Recent status: Action on this proposal is held in abeyance pending the appointment of
additional members of the STB. The STB currently only has three of five appointments filled.
CSLRA Position: Opposed.
Reasons for CSLRA position: The proposed regulations would allow a competing rail carrier access to privately-owned land and rail infrastructure of another railroad, a situation not unlike telling a manufacturer that it must give use of part of a privately-owned production facility to one of its competitors. Aside from its economic impact the proposed rule would disrupt rail networks by creating additional interchange points where they are otherwise not needed, adding to network congestion and dwell time. Notably, the proposed regulations do not specifically exempt short lines, so although they are aimed at class 1 railroads it is entirely possible that they could be applied to a situation that would cause a short line to lose its “first mile/last mile” status to a larger railroad that was given “forced access” to the short line’s customers.
Additional information:
Forced Access oppose letters to members of Congress (2/23/17)
Point/Counterpoint discussion on “Forced Access” (3/16/17)