House rail subcommittee hears sharp debate over waiver to cut visual track inspections

At a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, lawmakers, labor officials and industry witnesses debated a request by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and related Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) waivers to reduce the frequency of mandated visual track inspections from twice weekly to twice monthly and to permit up to 72 hours before a railroad must address an identified defect.

The dispute centered on safety: labor leaders and some lawmakers warned the change would raise derailment risk, while industry and pro-innovation witnesses argued outcome-based rules and automated inspection technologies can improve safety if properly implemented.

The disagreement matters because current FRA regulations require human visual inspections twice a week and immediate remediation of many defects; the waiver request would shift parts of that enforcement timeline and rely more heavily on automated track inspection (ATI) systems and other sensors. Supporters say updated rules can accelerate adoption of technologies that detect problems earlier or more consistently. Opponents, including the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED) and some members of Congress, said ATI cannot detect many defect types and should never replace on-foot inspections.

Tony Cardwell, president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, told the subcommittee he supports technology when it improves safety but called the waiver proposal “a safety risk.” Cardwell said the waiver would cut inspections by 75% and allow railroads up to three days to remedy defects, and argued, “If the AAR waivers is granted, it will expose the American people to imminent danger.”

Cardwell and other labor witnesses repeatedly told the panel that ATI systems focus primarily on track geometry and do not identify many common and derailment‑causing defects—broken rails, drainage issues, switch problems and other conditions—that visual inspectors can see. Cardwell testified that only a subset of the FRA’s defect codes (he cited 6 of 23) are detectable by ATI and that many switch‑related defects remain outside current automated detection capability.

Industry witnesses and outside experts pushed back on characterizations that technology necessarily reduces safety. David Shannon, general manager of RailPulse LLC, described telematics and automated sensing as tools that can provide earlier and system‑wide visibility into car and track condition: “Telematics on railcars … provide real time information about their location, condition, and health,” Shannon said, arguing that those data can prevent failures by enabling condition‑based maintenance and earlier intervention. Other witnesses, including representatives of suppliers and technology firms, urged outcome‑based regulation rather than prescriptive rules that lock in specific technologies.

Multiple members of the subcommittee raised East Palestine, Ohio—the February 2023 derailment—as evidence of gaps in inspection systems and urged policies that prevent similar incidents. Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a district adjacent to East Palestine, said wayside detectors in that incident were spaced too far apart and that better placement of detectors or more real‑time telemetry could have prevented the derailment.

Several witnesses and members asked the FRA to adopt clearer, timelier, and more transparent waiver and rule‑making processes so innovators and rail operators can plan investments. Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure chair Charles McGowan (testifying for AII) and Eric Gebhardt of Wabtec/RSI argued the waiver process and the FRA’s proposed ATI rule still lean too heavily on prescriptive mandates—such as mandatory visual inspection minimums—rather than measurable safety outcomes and structured timelines.

Where testimony diverged was on whether ATI should ever replace human inspections. Labor witnesses uniformly said ATI should supplement but not replace visual inspections; industry witnesses said automated systems are valuable and should be integrated into a performance‑based safety framework. Several members urged that labor be included in pilot programs and waiver demonstrations so frontline workers can help evaluate how technologies perform in practice.

The subcommittee took no formal vote. Members asked that witnesses and outside organizations submit written materials to the record and signaled that the debate will shape language in forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization bills and any FRA rulemaking on ATI.

Looking ahead, the FRA has proposed revisions to its ATI-related regulations and will continue to receive letters and data from stakeholders; members of Congress on the panel pressed both for clearer decision timetables and for outcome‑focused standards that explicitly hold operators accountable for safety performance rather than mandate specific tools.