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) 2024 Crew Size Rule. The court held that the FRA acted within its statutory authority under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, which grants the Secretary of Transportation power to issue safety regulations “as necessary,” interpreting this phrase as conferring broad discretion rather than imposing a strict evidentiary bar requiring quantitative proof of necessity. Applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard, the court found the FRA reasonably exercised its discretion by relying on qualitative evidence, including public comments regarding close calls and safety research on cognitive demands, to justify the rule as a precautionary measure against potential accidents involving human error or incapacitation. The court rejected arguments that the FRA violated the change-in-position doctrine by reversing its 2019 decision not to regulate crew size, ruling that the vacated 2019 Withdrawal Order had no legal effect and thus did not constitute a prior policy requiring heightened justification for reversal. Additionally, the court found the FRA’s explanation for regulating despite the lack of specific statistical data linking one-person crews to accidents was sufficient under the APA, as agencies need not wait for catastrophic events to enact prophylactic safety rules. The court also dismissed challenges regarding the rule’s cost analysis, noting that *Michigan v. EPA* did not compel a formal cost-benefit analysis for this statute and that the FRA’s consideration of costs was reasonable. Finally, the court held that the FRA’s failure to meet a 12-month statutory deadline for rulemaking did not mandate vacatur, as the statute contained no specified consequence for noncompliance, citing *Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.* and *McIntosh v. United States*. As a practical consequence, the petitions for review are denied, leaving the FRA’s Crew Size Rule in effect. The rule remains enforceable, requiring freight trains to operate with a minimum of two crewmembers unless specific exemptions apply or special approval is granted based on a finding 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.