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 empowers the agency to issue safety regulations “as necessary,” interpreting this phrase as granting 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, research on cognitive demands, and trends such as increasing train lengths and human-factor accidents, to justify the rule as a precautionary measure. The court rejected arguments that the FRA violated the “change-in-position” doctrine by reversing its 2019 decision to withdraw a previous crew-size proposal, ruling that the vacated 2019 order had no legal effect and thus did not constitute an existing policy requiring heightened justification for reversal. Additionally, the court determined the FRA was not required to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis under *Michigan v. EPA* because the statute lacked the word “appropriate,” and even if it were, the agency’s consideration of costs was reasonable. The court also found no conflict between the rule and the Rail Safety Improvement Act’s risk reduction program and held that the FRA’s failure to finalize the rule within a statutory 12-month deadline did not warrant vacatur, as the statute imposed no specific consequence for missing the deadline. Consequently, the petitions were denied, leaving the Crew Size Rule in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.