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 various railroads and industry associations challenging the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) “Crew Size Rule,” which generally requires trains to operate with a minimum of two crewmembers. The court held that the FRA acted within its statutory authority under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finalizing the rule, and reasonably considered the relevant issues and evidence. The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review, which is exceedingly deferential to agency expertise, requiring only that the agency acted within a zone of reasonableness and reasonably explained its decision. Regarding statutory authority, the court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the phrase “as necessary” in 49 U.S.C. § 20103(a) imposes a strict evidentiary bar or requires “essential” proof of safety risks. Instead, the court interpreted the phrase as granting the FRA broad discretion to determine when regulation is appropriate, finding the rule reasonably related to the statutory purpose of promoting railroad safety based on evidence regarding human factors, train length trends, and technological uncertainties. The court further addressed specific challenges, ruling that the “change-in-position” doctrine did not apply because the 2019 Withdrawal Order had been vacated by the Ninth Circuit, meaning no valid prior policy existed to reverse; alternatively, even if applied, the FRA provided a reasoned explanation for its new position based on reassessed research and changing industry trends. The court also held that the FRA was not required to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis under *Michigan v. EPA* because the statute lacked the word “appropriate,” and the agency’s failure to account for foregone labor savings was not arbitrary given the lack of factual support for petitioners’ claims. Finally, the court determined that the FRA did not violate the 12-month statutory deadline for rulemaking by failing to specify a consequence for noncompliance, citing *Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.* As a practical consequence, the petitions are denied, and the FRA’s Crew Size Rule remains in effect. The rule mandates that freight trains operate with at least two crewmembers unless a railroad can demonstrate through a “notice” process for smaller railroads or a “special approval” process involving risk assessments for larger railroads that one-person operations are as safe or safer than two-person operations. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.