Case Explained: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC v. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS- TRANSPORTATION DIVISION USCA11 Case: 24-11076 Document: 97-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2026 Page: 1 of 93 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The eleventh-circuit denied consolidated petitions for review filed by six railroads and two industry trade associations challenging the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 2024 Crew Size Rule, which generally requires trains to operate with a minimum of two crewmembers unless a one-person crew is at least as safe. The court held that the FRA acted within its statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. § 20103(a), rejecting the argument that the phrase “as necessary” imposes a strict evidentiary bar requiring quantitative proof that one-person crews are less safe; instead, the court interpreted the phrase as granting the agency discretion to issue safety regulations reasonably related to the statutory purpose of promoting railroad safety. Applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard, the court found the FRA’s decision reasonable based on its reliance on public comments regarding human error and fatigue, safety research on cognitive demands, trends in increasing train lengths, and uncertainties surrounding Positive Train Control technology. The court further ruled that the change-in-position doctrine did not apply because the 2019 Withdrawal Order had been vacated by the Ninth Circuit, leaving no valid prior policy to reverse, and even if it did apply, the FRA provided a reasoned explanation for its new position based on reassessed research and changing industry conditions. Additionally, the court rejected challenges regarding the consideration of labor costs, noting that *Michigan v. EPA* does not mandate a cost-benefit analysis when the statute lacks the word “appropriate,” and dismissed arguments about the rule’s conflict with the Rail Safety Improvement Act’s risk reduction program and delays in finalizing the rule, citing Supreme Court precedent that statutory timing directives without specified consequences do not render an agency action void if missed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.