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 and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court applied a deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard, requiring only that the agency reasonably considered relevant issues and provided a reasoned explanation for its decision. Regarding statutory authority, the court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the phrase “as necessary” in 49 U.S.C. § 20103(a) imposed a strict evidentiary bar requiring quantitative proof of safety risks. Instead, the court interpreted “as necessary” as conferring broad discretion on the agency to determine when regulation is warranted to promote safety. The court found the FRA’s reliance on public comments, anecdotal evidence of close calls, and research regarding cognitive demands and human error sufficient to justify the rule. The court further addressed the petitioners’ arguments that the FRA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for reversing its 2019 decision to withdraw a proposed crew-size rule. The majority held that because the 2019 Withdrawal Order had been vacated by the Ninth Circuit, it no longer constituted an existing agency policy triggering the “change-in-position” doctrine’s heightened justification requirements. Even assuming the doctrine applied, the court found the FRA reasonably explained its new position based on reassessed safety research and changing industry trends, such as increasing train lengths and rising human-factor accident rates. Additionally, the court ruled that the FRA was not required to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis under *Michigan v. EPA* because the statute lacked the term “appropriate,” and the agency’s consideration of costs in its regulatory impact analysis was reasonable. The court also rejected challenges regarding the rule’s conflict with risk-reduction programs, the length of the rulemaking process, and specific provisions regarding legacy exceptions and alerter requirements. As a practical consequence, the petitions for review were denied, leaving the FRA’s Crew Size Rule in full effect. The rule remains enforceable, requiring trains to operate with at least two crewmembers unless a railroad qualifies for a specific exception or obtains special approval demonstrating 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.