Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-12167

Proposed Rule2025-12167

Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers and Conductors: Incorporation of Longstanding C3RS Waivers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 1, 2025

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration

Abstract

FRA proposes to amend its regulations governing the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors, to codify longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA- sponsored Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS). FRA does not intend this NPRM to be a disincentive to railroads implementing alternative close call reporting programs outside C\3\RS, which the agency believes can still positively impact safety culture. FRA would still entertain waiver requests to implement alternative close call reporting programs, as necessary.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28676-28684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12167]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 240 and 242

[Docket No. FRA-2025-0131]
RIN 2130-AD32

Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers and
Conductors: Incorporation of Longstanding C\3\RS Waivers

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to amend its regulations governing the
qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors,
to codify longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain
certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-
sponsored Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS). FRA does
not intend this NPRM to be a disincentive to railroads implementing
alternative close call reporting programs outside C\3\RS, which the
agency believes can still positively impact safety culture. FRA would
still entertain waiver requests to implement alternative close call
reporting programs, as necessary.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 2,
2025. FRA may consider comments received after that date, but only to
the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2025-0131 may be
submitted by going to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and following the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
number (FRA-2025-0131), and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AD32). All comments received will be posted
without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>; this includes any
personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Long, Director of Railroad
Operations and Outreach, FRA, telephone: (202) 770-8203, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5a88c8e80cba98a8b82a5818a91cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f0226242a61032021280f2b203b61282039">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; or Elizabeth A. Gross, Attorney Adviser, FRA,
telephone: (202-253-6281), email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a2f0603100b080f1e02442d180519192a0e051e440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c481a8adbea5a6a1b0acea83b6abb7b784a0abb0eaa3abb2">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Consistent with the deregulatory agenda of President Donald J.
Trump and Secretary of Transportation Sean P. Duffy, which seeks to
unleash America's economic prosperity without compromising
transportation safety, FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in
parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The requirements for FRA-regulated entities to establish programs for
certifying the qualifications of locomotive engineers and conductors
are established in 49 CFR part 240, Qualification and Certification of
Locomotive Engineers, and part 242, Qualification and Certification of
Conductors, respectively. FRA proposes to amend parts 240 and 242 to
codify longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain
certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-
sponsored C\3\RS.

The History of C\3\RS and the Waiver Process

C\3\RS is a partnership between FRA and an independent third party
(currently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)),
in conjunction with participating railroads and labor organizations,
that allows participating railroads and their employees to report close
calls voluntarily and confidentially.\1\ A close call is an event or
sequence of events having a potential for more serious adverse
consequences to railroad safety,\2\ and close call reports provide an
opportunity to improve safety in support of railroad operations.\3\

[[Page 28677]]

Employees of participating railroads can report close calls to NASA,
which protects the identity of both the reporting employee and the
railroad by generalizing or removing all identifying information.
C\3\RS thereby allows railroads to gain railroad safety information
about why close calls occur. Without C\3\RS, many close calls would go
unreported, which would deprive railroads of this important
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See generally <a href="https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/information/summary.html">https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/information/summary.html</a>.
\2\ See C \3\ RS Frequently Asked Questions, available at
<a href="https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/C3RS_FAQ.pdf">https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/C3RS_FAQ.pdf</a> (``A close call is any
condition or event that may have the potential for more serious
safety consequences.'')
\3\ See id. (``C\3\RS de-identified reports may be used by the
railroad community and/or government agencies to develop corrective
actions and safety improvements.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C\3\RS is established at participating railroads through
Implementing Memoranda of Understanding (IMOUs) that are developed and
signed by all stakeholders, including the participating railroad, FRA,
and any participating non-profit employee labor organization. While
development of a C\3\RS IMOU typically begins with a template provided
by FRA, C\3\RS stakeholders can modify the template to contain
provisions specific to their program that they have agreed upon.
Nothing in the proposed rule would limit stakeholders' ability to
modify the template IMOU to fit their specific program, except that no
IMOU may provide protection from revocation of certification in certain
specified situations that have traditionally been excluded from C\3\RS,
such as violations involving the prohibited use of alcohol or
controlled substances, as discussed below in the section-by-section
analysis for Sec. Sec. 240.307 and 242.407.
All C\3\RS IMOUs provide that employees who report close calls in
accordance with the IMOU's provisions are protected from railroad
discipline, FRA enforcement, and revocation of a locomotive engineer or
conductor certification under part 240 or 242, respectively. To
effectuate an IMOU's protections against revocation of certification, a
railroad wishing to participate in C\3\RS must request relief from the
provisions in parts 240 and 242 that require the railroad to revoke an
employee's certification for certain violations of the railroad's
operating rules and practices. A railroad requests this relief by
submitting a waiver request to FRA in accordance with 49 CFR part 211,
subpart C--Waivers. Once granted, this relief allows the railroad to
honor the commitment it made in the IMOU not to revoke an employee's
certification for a close call that has been reported in accordance
with all applicable provisions of an IMOU.
As of February 28, 2025, a total of 25 railroads were participating
in C\3\RS, including passenger railroads, Class III short line freight
railroads, and Class I freight railroads.\4\ Because the relief
provided by the waivers expires, railroads must submit a new waiver
request approximately every five years, even when there have been no
significant changes to the provisions of the IMOU or the relief
requested. FRA's Railroad Safety Board must similarly review and
respond to each waiver request pursuant to the procedures in part 211.
Because C\3\RS has been established for approximately 20 years, the
waiver process has essentially become a pro forma paperwork exercise,
with railroads submitting template waiver requests that are routinely
granted by FRA. Several C\3\RS waivers have been in effect for numerous
years, having been renewed multiple times.\5\ As such, requiring
railroads to go through the waiver process impedes a more streamlined
and efficient implementation of C\3\RS at participating railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/railroad-safety/divisions/safety-partnerships/c3rs/participating-railroads">https://railroads.dot.gov/railroad-safety/divisions/safety-partnerships/c3rs/participating-railroads</a>.
\5\ For example, Amtrak has had a waiver from part 240 since
2010 and from part 242 since 2013. See Docket Nos. FRA-2010-0152 and
FRA-2012-0054. Similarly, New Jersey Transit has had a part 240
waiver since 2009 and a part 242 waiver since 2012. See Docket Nos.
FRA-2009-0096 and FRA-2012-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because C\3\RS has proven to be a valuable tool for improving
railroad safety, FRA is proposing to codify these longstanding C\3\RS
waivers by revising parts 240 and 242 to provide that a railroad may
not revoke an engineer's or conductor's certification for a close call
event that has been reported in accordance with all applicable
provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU. FRA is not currently proposing to amend
recently published rules at 49 CFR part 245, Qualification and
Certification of Dispatchers, and part 246, Certification of Signal
Employees in this rule, but may consider similar amendments to these
rules in the future.\6\ Further, no C\3\RS waivers for dispatchers or
signal employees have yet been granted.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ FRA is exercising enforcement discretion on the current
compliance deadlines in these two regulations. See FRA Follow-up
Response to Petitions for Reconsideration (March 14, 2025), Document
ID Nos. FRA-2022-0020-0049 and FRA-2022-0019-0058.
\7\ FRA has a pending C\3\RS waiver request, submitted by the
Association of American Railroads on behalf of its members, for
dispatchers. See Docket No. FRA-2024-0089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed revisions would reduce burdens on C\3\RS-participating
railroads in two ways. First, a railroad would no longer have to apply
for a waiver from the implicated provisions in part 240 or 242 to
participate in C\3\RS and be protected from FRA enforcement for failing
to revoke a certification for a close call event that has been reported
in accordance with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU. Second,
the railroad would be relieved from the associated burden of revoking a
certification for a close call event, including burdens associated with
suspending a person's certificate; providing notice of the reason for
the suspension, the pending revocation, and an opportunity for a
hearing before a president officer other than the investigating
officer; convening a hearing; and issuing a decision in the proceeding
after the hearing.\8\ The proposed revisions would also relieve FRA of
the burden of reviewing and approving a unending series of nearly-
identical C\3\RS waiver requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See 49 CFR 240.307 and 242.407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing in this proposed rule changes the voluntary and cooperative
nature of C\3\RS, as participating stakeholders retain the ability to
terminate their participation in the program in accordance with the
provisions of the applicable C\3\RS IMOU.

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Task No, 2022-03

On October 17, 2022, the RSAC voted to adopt Task No 2022-03:
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS Task Statement), with
a stated purpose of ``consider[ing] how FRA could promote rail safety
through regulation, voluntary standards, or guidance for voluntary,
non-punitive railroad safety reporting system industry-wide.'' After a
series of RSAC C\3\RS Working Group meetings, it became apparent that
stakeholders generally agreed that FRA should engage in a rulemaking
that would streamline C\3\RS participation by relieving railroads of
the burden associated with submitting waivers and recurrent waiver
extension requests. FRA presented draft rule text to the C\3\RS Working
Group in May 2024, soliciting stakeholder feedback. The feedback
received generally supported the goal of the rule text, although some
stakeholders suggested revisions or alternative approaches. FRA
subsequently withdrew Task No. 2022-03 from the RSAC in March 2025, in
part with the view to begin a rulemaking that would propose amending
parts 240 and 242 to remove the need for C\3\RS waivers. The rule text
FRA is proposing in this NPRM is substantially the same as that shared
with the C\3\RS Working Group in May 2024.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ FRA will also be placing the draft rule text shared with the
C\3\RS Working Group in the docket for this rulemaking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28678]]

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

FRA is proposing to amend parts 240 and 242 to codify longstanding
waivers that have granted relief from certain certification
requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-sponsored
C\3\RS. FRA would codify these longstanding C\3\RS waivers by revising
parts 240 and 242 to provide that a railroad may not revoke an
engineer's or conductor's certification for a close call event that has
been reported in accordance with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS
IMOU.

Section 240.7--Definitions

FRA is proposing to amend this section to add the below definitions
to part 240.

C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding or C\3\RS IMOU

FRA proposes to define ``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding'' or ``C\3\RS IMOU'' as a voluntary written agreement
that implements C\3\RS on a participating railroad and is signed by
FRA, the participating railroad, and any non-profit employee labor
organization(s) representing participating employees. The proposed
definition would clarify that if the participating employees are not
represented by a non-profit labor organization, or if the non-profit
labor organization is not a stakeholder to the program, a C\3\RS IMOU
may be signed only by FRA and the participating railroad. Further, when
contractor employees are participating in C\3\RS, the C\3\RS IMOU must
also be signed by the contractor for the railroad and can be signed by
any non-profit employee labor organization representing the contractor
employees. The proposed definition states that FRA will post all C\3\RS
IMOUs to the Federal Docket Management System's website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.

Close Call

FRA proposes to define ``close call'' as an unsafe event or
sequence of unsafe events that had a potential for more serious adverse
consequences to railroad safety and has been reported to C\3\RS and
accepted by both the independent third party and the peer review team
(PRT) as a reportable close call, in accordance with all applicable
provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU. The proposed definition has been adapted
from C\3\RS IMOUs that are currently in effect.

Confidential Close Call Reporting System or C\3\RS

FRA proposes to define ``Confidential Close Call Reporting System''
or ``C\3\RS'' as an FRA-sponsored voluntary program designed to improve
the safety of railroad operations by allowing railroad workers to
confidentially report currently unreported or underreported unsafe
events without the repercussions of suspension or revocation of
certification under 49 CFR part 240 or 242.

Electronic Device

FRA proposes to define ``electronic device'' by referencing the
definition in Sec. 220.5 for purposes of FRA regulations establishing
prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements that apply to the use of
personal and railroad-supplied cellular telephones and other electronic
devices. Section 220.5 currently states that an electronic device is an
electronic or electrical device used to conduct oral, written, or
visual communication; place or receive a telephone call; send or read
an electronic mail message or text message; look at pictures; read a
book or other written material; play a game; navigate the internet;
navigate the physical world; play, view, or listen to a video; play,
view, or listen to a television broadcast; play or listen to a radio
broadcast other than a radio broadcast by a railroad; play or listen to
music; execute a computational function; or, perform any other function
that is not necessary for the health or safety of the person and that
entails the risk of distracting the employee or another railroad
operating employee from a safety-related task. The definition in Sec.
220.5 further clarifies that the term ``electronic device'' does not
include (1) electronic control systems and information displays within
the locomotive cab (whether the displays or systems be fixed or
portable) or on a remote control transmitter necessary to operate a
train or conduct switching operations; or (2) a digital watch whose
only purpose is as a timepiece.
FRA proposes to include a definition of ``electronic device'' in
part 240 to define the term as used in the proposed definition of
``personal electronic device.'' By using the same definition as found
in Sec. 220.5, FRA would promote consistency across its regulations
and enhance compliance because the railroad industry is already
familiar with the definition. Referencing the Sec. 220.5 definition
also removes the need for FRA to make conforming revisions to Sec.
240.5 if the Sec. 220.5 definition is revised in the future.

Hazardous Material

FRA proposes to define ``hazardous material'' as a commodity
designated as a hazardous material by 49 CFR part 172--Hazardous
Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials
Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements,
and Security Plans. The term ``hazardous material'' would be used in
proposed Sec. 240.307(i)(3)(ii)(C)(6), which states that an employee
is not protected from certification revocation for any alleged
violation of a railroad operating rule or practice that involves an
event resulting in the identifiable release of a hazardous material.
The proposed definition also appears in C\3\RS IMOUs that are currently
in effect.

ID Strip

FRA proposes to define ``ID strip'' as the identification strip the
independent third party issues to an employee who has reported a close
call to C\3\RS to indicate that the independent third party has
accepted the close call.

Independent Third Party

FRA proposes to define ``independent third party'' to mean the non-
FRA organization that manages C\3\RS, accepts close call reports, and
protects the confidentiality of both a reporting employee and a
participating railroad.

Peer Review Team (PRT)

FRA proposes to define ``peer review team'' or ``PRT'' as a
problem-solving team consisting of representatives for the primary
stakeholders to a C\3\RS IMOU, including FRA, the participating
railroad, and any participating non-profit employee labor
organization(s). The proposed definition has been adapted from C\3\RS
IMOUs that are currently in effect.

Personal Electronic Device

FRA proposes to define ``personal electronic device'' by
referencing the definition established in Sec. 220.5 for purposes of
FRA regulations establishing prohibitions, restrictions, and
requirements that apply to the use of personal and railroad-supplied
cellular telephones and other electronic devices. Section 220.5
currently states that ``personal electronic device'' means an
electronic device that was not provided to the railroad operating
employee by the employing railroad for a business purpose.
FRA is proposing to include a definition of ``personal electronic
device'' in part 240 to define the term as used in proposed Sec.
240.307(i)(3)(ii)(C)(8), which states that an employee is not protected
from certification revocation for any alleged violation of a railroad
operating rule or practice that involves use of a personal electronic
device prohibited by a Federal railroad safety law or railroad

[[Page 28679]]

operating rule. By using the same definition as Sec. 220.5, FRA would
promote consistency across its regulations and enhance compliance
because the railroad industry is already familiar with the definition.
Referencing the Sec. 220.5 definition also removes the need for FRA to
make conforming revisions to Sec. 240.5 if the Sec. 220.5 definition
is revised in the future.

Section 240.117--Criteria for Consideration of Operating Rules
Compliance Data

FRA proposes to amend Sec. 240.117 to add a new paragraph (f)(5)
that references proposed Sec. 240.307(i)(3) to provide that a railroad
shall not deny or revoke an employee's certification based on an
alleged violation of the railroad's operating rules or practices that
the employee reported to C\3\RS and that was accepted as a close call
by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance with all
applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU. FRA also proposes to add
references to new paragraph (f)(5) in paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to
clarify that those paragraphs' requirements regarding certification do
not apply to reported close calls.

Section 240.307--Revocation of Certification

FRA proposes to amend Sec. 240.307 by revising paragraph (i) to
include a new paragraph (i)(3)(i) providing that a railroad shall not
revoke a person's certification for an alleged violation of a railroad
operating rule or practice that was reported to C\3\RS and accepted as
a close call by both the independent third party and the PRT in
accordance with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU and proposed
new language in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii), as described below. FRA also
proposes minor technical revisions to paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) that
would accommodate new paragraph (i)(3) by replacing the current
punctuation marks at the end of each paragraph with a period.
Proposed paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(A) would provide that if a railroad
initiates certification suspension or revocation and the person
indicates the event was reported to C\3\RS as a close call, all time
limits in Sec. 240.307 are put in abeyance until the employee (or the
employee's representative) provides an ID strip to the investigating
officer or charging officer and confirmation is received from the PRT
regarding whether the alleged violation was reported and accepted as a
close call. The proposed language is adapted from C\3\RS IMOUs
currently in effect that put time limits for pursuing revocation of
certification into abeyance until an ID strip is delivered, with
additional language clarifying that the PRT must also determine that
the alleged violation was reported and accepted as a close call.
Proposed paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B) would provide that a determination
made by the independent third party or the PRT regarding whether a
report was accepted as a close call may not be overturned pursuant to
the administrative hearing and dispute resolution procedures in subpart
E of part 240. The cooperative and voluntary nature of C\3\RS requires
that these important stakeholder determinations--particularly PRT
determinations, which are generally made by consensus pursuant to the
applicable C\3\RS IMOU--are not subject to the administrative review
procedures of part 240. Not only would such review be inconsistent with
the nature of C\3\RS, but it would create an unfair situation where
locomotive engineers and conductors covered by a C\3\RS IMOU would have
an avenue to appeal a determination made by the independent third party
or the PRT that was not available to other employees who did not
possess a certification, but who would still be potentially subject to
railroad discipline and FRA enforcement as a result of a reported event
that was not accepted by either the independent third party or the PRT.
Proposed paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B) further provides, however, that
such determinations can be included as a finding of fact for purposes
of determining whether a railroad impermissibly revoked a person's
certification for an alleged violation that was reported and accepted
as a close call by both the independent third party and the PRT. In
other words, if a railroad suspends or revokes a person's certification
even though the alleged violation was reported and accepted as a close
call by both the independent third party and the PRT, the existence of
that acceptance determination can be a factual finding introduced
during a subpart E proceeding to demonstrate that the railroad
impermissibly revoked the person's certification under proposed
paragraph (i)(3)(i).
Proposed paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(C) establishes that an employee is
not protected from decertification for an alleged violation of a
railroad's operating rules or practices that involves any of the
following, even if the employee reported the event to C\3\RS:
<bullet> An event that caused or is alleged to have caused death,
injury, illness, or medical treatment of any kind to any person
(including a passenger) involved in the event;
<bullet> An event that results in damages above the current
monetary rail equipment accident/incident reporting threshold described
in 49 CFR part 225--Railroad Accidents/Incidents and published annually
by FRA;
<bullet> An event that results in a highway-rail grade crossing
accident/incident, as described in 49 CFR 225.19(b);
<bullet> A willful violation of a Federal railroad safety law or
railroad operating rule or practice, including the prohibited use of
alcohol or a controlled substance;
<bullet> A substance abuse disorder;
<bullet> An event resulting in the identifiable release of a
hazardous material;
<bullet> An act of sabotage or other criminal offense; or
<bullet> An event involving use of a personal electronic device
that is prohibited by a Federal railroad safety law or railroad
operating rule.
Because there is longstanding consensus among C\3\RS stakeholders
that events involving the above situations are ineligible to be
reported to C\3\RS, FRA proposes to memorialize them in part 240. Doing
would assure all railroad safety stakeholders, including the public,
that violations involving a heightened or willful degree of risk to the
safety of railroad operations, or which resulted in casualties or
significant property damage, are ineligible for the C\3\RS protections
against decertification.
Further, all C\3\RS IMOUs currently in effect contain the above
exclusions, with the exception of the prohibited use of personal
electronic devices. Some C\3\RS IMOUs predate FRA's personal electronic
device regulations in part 220 (which went into effect on March 28,
2011),\10\ and therefore these earlier IMOUs did not state that the
prohibited use of a personal electronic device could not be reported to
C\3\RS. However, FRA interprets these IMOUs to exclude prohibited use
of a personal electronic device from C\3\RS because such uses are
willful violations of a railroad operating rule or practice or Federal
railroad safety law, as the prohibited use of a personal electronic
device can be presumed to be willful. More recent C\3\RS IMOUs
specifically exclude prohibited use of electronic devices, including
IMOUs establishing C\3\RS

[[Page 28680]]

pilot programs for certain Class I freight railroads, which helps
improve clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Before issuing the part 220 regulations governing the use
of personal electronic devices, FRA had published Emergency Order
(E.O.) 28 on October 7, 2008. E.O. 28 restricted on-duty railroad
operating employees from improperly using cellular telephones and
other distracting electronic and electrical devices. 73 FR 58702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, FRA proposes to exclude prohibited use of
personal electronic devices from C\3\RS decertification protections in
part 240, especially since it would be antithetical to the railroad
safety purposes of the program to permit an employee to escape
consequences for prohibited use of a personal electronic device simply
by reporting such use.
In addition to these identified exclusions, C\3\RS stakeholders
would retain the flexibility they currently have to develop IMOU
provisions establishing other limits or exclusions to C\3\RS reporting.

Section 242.7--Definitions

FRA is proposing to amend this section to add the definitions to
part 242 for ``close call''; ``Confidential Close Call Reporting
System'' or ``C\3\RS''; ``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding'' or ``C\3\RS IMOU''; ``electronic device''; ``hazardous
material''; ``ID strip''; ``independent third party''; ``Peer Review
Team'' or ``PRT''; and ``personal electronic device.'' Because these
are the same definitions FRA is proposing to add to Sec. 240.7, please
refer to the above section-by-section analysis for Sec. 240.7 for
discussion of FRA's rationale for the proposed definitions.

Section 242.403--Criteria for Revoking Certification

FRA proposes to amend Sec. 242.403 to add a new paragraph (f)(5)
that references proposed Sec. 242.407(i)(3) to provide that a railroad
shall not deny or revoke an employee's certification based on an
alleged violation of the railroad's operating rules or practices that
the employee reported to C\3\RS and that was accepted as a close call
by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance with all
applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU. FRA also proposes to add
references to new paragraph (f)(5) in paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to
clarify that those paragraphs' requirements regarding certification do
not apply to reported close calls. These are substantively the same
revisions FRA is proposing to Sec. 240.117.

Section 242.407--Process for Revoking Certification

FRA proposes to amend Sec. 242.407 to include new language in
paragraph (i)(3)(i) stating that a railroad shall not suspend or revoke
a person's certification if the violation was reported to C\3\RS and
accepted by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance
with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU and additional criteria
contained in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii). Because these are substantively the
same revisions FRA is proposing to Sec. 240.307, please refer to the
above section-by-section analysis for Sec. 240.307 for discussion of
FRA's rationale for the proposed revisions.

III. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

FRA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR
51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
This rule proposes to amend its regulations governing the
qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors
and codifies longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain
certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-
sponsored C\3\RS program, reducing burdens on C\3\RS-participating
railroads. Nothing in this proposed rule changes the voluntary and
cooperative nature of C\3\RS, as participating stakeholders retain the
ability to terminate their participation in the program in accordance
with the provisions of the applicable C\3\RS IMOU. Moreover, this rule
would provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the
U.S. government, by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language
of part 240 and 242. The proposed rule would also promote more
efficient use of government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA
on reviewing and approving these types of waivers.

B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation, requires that for ``each new [E.O. 14192
regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified
for elimination.'' \11\ Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued
by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types
of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O.
14192 regulatory action.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. 90 FR
9065-9067. Feb. 6, 2025.
\12\ Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and
Budget. Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,
Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' Memorandum M-
25-20. Mar. 26, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This proposed
rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and
therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon
issuance of a final rule. While FRA affirms that each amendment
proposed in this NPRM has a cost that is negligible or ``less than
zero'' consistent with E.O. 14192, FRA requests comment on the extent
of the cost savings for the changes proposed in this NPRM.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\13\
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these
businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would not preclude small entities
from continuing existing practices that comply with part 240 or 242; it
merely offers flexibilities that could result in cost savings, if a
small entity or other regulated entity chooses to utilize those
flexibilities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated
entities, including small entities, would experience a cost savings.
Consequently, FRA certifies that the proposed action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 28681]]

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FRA
wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so
they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in
the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
consult the person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains
no new information collection requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), therefore an
information collection submission to OMB is not required. The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in parts 240 and 242
became effective when they were approved by OMB in 2024. The OMB
approval numbers are OMB No. 2130-0533, which expires on July 31, 2027,
and OMB No. 2130-0596, which expires on October 31, 2027.

E. Environmental Assessment

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C.
4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, FRA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), ``[p]lanning
and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to
construction, such as: [p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and
directives.'' This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any
environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary
circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties. FRA has also determined
that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in a use of a
resource protected by Section 4(f).

F. Federalism Implications

This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132,
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a
Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one
year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private
sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required
to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an
expenditure.

H. Energy Impact

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' \14\ FRA has
evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy
action'' within the meaning of E.O. 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. E.O. 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated November 6, 2000.
The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal laws.
Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do
not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

J. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 \15\ prohibits Federal agencies
from engaging in any standards or related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered
unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
for U.S. standards. This rulemaking is purely domestic in nature and is
not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing
business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 19 U.S.C. ch. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
<a href="http://www.transportation.gov/privacy">www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>. To facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.

L. Rulemaking Summary

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. FRA-2025-0131, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 240

Administrative practice and procedures, Penalties, Railroad
employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 242

Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad
employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Rule

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
parts 240 and 242 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 240--QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF CONDUCTORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20135, 21301, 21304, 21311;
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
2. Amend Sec. 240.7 by adding definitions in alphabetical order for
``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU)'',
``Close call'', ``Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS)'',
``Electronic device'', ``Hazardous material'', ``ID strip'',
``Independent third party'', ``Peer Review Team (PRT)'', and ``Personal
electronic device'' to read as follows:

[[Page 28682]]

Sec. 240.7 Definitions.

* * * * *
C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU) means
a voluntary written agreement that implements C\3\RS on a participating
railroad and is signed by FRA, the participating railroad, and any non-
profit employee labor organization(s) representing participating
employees for purposes of the C\3\RS IMOU. If the participating
employees are not represented by a non-profit labor organization, or if
a non-profit employee labor organization representing employees covered
by a C\3\RS IMOU is not a stakeholder to the program, a C\3\RS IMOU may
be signed only by FRA and the participating railroad. When contractor
employees are participating in C\3\RS, the C\3\RS IMOU must also be
signed by the contractor for the railroad and can be signed by any non-
profit employee labor organization representing the contractor
employees for purposes of the C\3\RS IMOU. FRA will post all C\3\RS
IMOUs to the Federal Docket Management System's website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Close call means an unsafe event or sequence of unsafe events that
had a potential for more serious adverse consequences to railroad
safety and has been reported to C\3\RS and accepted by both the
independent third party and the Peer Review Team (PRT) as a reportable
close call in accordance with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS
IMOU.
* * * * *
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS) means an FRA-
sponsored voluntary program designed to improve the safety of railroad
operations by allowing railroad workers to confidentially report
currently unreported or underreported unsafe events without the
repercussions of suspension or revocation of certification.
* * * * *
Electronic device has the meaning assigned by Sec. 220.5 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
Hazardous material means a commodity designated as a hazardous
material by part 172 of this title.
ID strip means the identification strip the independent third party
issues to an employee who has reported a close call to C\3\RS to
indicate that the independent third party has accepted the close call.
Independent third party means the non-FRA organization that manages
C\3\RS, accepts close call reports, and protects the confidentiality of
both a reporting employee and a participating railroad.
* * * * *
Peer Review Team (PRT) is a problem-solving team consisting of
representatives for the primary stakeholders to a C\3\RS IMOU,
including FRA, the participating railroad, and any participating non-
profit employee labor organization(s).
* * * * *
Personal electronic device has the meaning assigned by Sec. 220.5.
0
3. Amend Sec. 240.117 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c)(1)
and adding a new paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 240.117 Criteria for consideration of operating rules compliance
data.

* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a
person who has demonstrated a failure to comply, as described in
paragraph (e) of this section, with railroad rules and practices for
the safe operation of trains shall not be currently certified as a
locomotive engineer.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a
certified locomotive engineer who has demonstrated a failure to comply
with railroad rules and practices described in paragraph (e) of this
section shall have his or her certification revoked.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) In accordance with Sec. 240.307(i)(3), a railroad shall not
deny or revoke an employee's certification based on an alleged
violation of the railroad's operating rules or practices that the
employee reported to C\3\RS as a close call and was accepted as a close
call by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance with
all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 240.307 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 240.307 Revocation of certification.

* * * * *
(i) A railroad:
(1) Shall not revoke the person's certification as provided for in
paragraph (a) of this section if sufficient evidence exists to
establish that an intervening cause prevented or materially impaired
the locomotive engineer's ability to comply with the railroad operating
rule or practice that constitutes a violation under Sec. 240.117(e)(1)
through (5).
(2) May decide not to revoke the person's certification as provided
for in paragraph (a) of this section if sufficient evidence exists to
establish that the violation of Sec. 240.117(e)(1) through (5) was of
a minimal nature and had no direct or potential effect on rail safety.
(3)(i) Shall not suspend or revoke the person's certification as
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section if the person reported
the alleged violation of the railroad's operating rule or practice that
constitutes a violation under Sec. 240.117(e)(1) through (5) to C\3\RS
as a close call; and if the person's report was accepted as a close
call by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance with
all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU.
(ii)(A) If a railroad initiates suspension or revocation of the
person's certification and the person indicates the alleged violation
was reported to C\3\RS as a close call, the time limits prescribed in
this section for pursuing certificate suspension or revocation will be
put in abeyance, pending provision of an ID strip from the reporting
employee, or the employee's designated representative, to the
investigating officer or presiding officer and confirmation from the
PRT that the alleged violation was reported and accepted as a close
call.
(B) A determination made by the independent third party or the PRT
regarding whether a report was accepted as a close call may not be
overturned pursuant to the administrative hearing and dispute
resolution procedures in subpart E of this part, but may be included as
a finding of fact for purposes of determining whether the railroad
impermissibly revoked a person's certification for an alleged violation
that was reported and accepted as a close call by both the third party
and the PRT.
(C) Paragraph (i)(3) of this section will not apply to any alleged
violation of a railroad's operating rules or practices that constitutes
a violation under Sec. 240.117(e)(1) through (5) that involves:
(1) An event that caused or is alleged to have caused death,
injury, illness, or medical treatment of any kind to any person
(including a passenger) involved in the event;
(2) An event that results in damages above the current monetary
rail equipment accident/incident reporting threshold described in part
225 of this chapter and published annually by FRA;
(3) An event that results in a highway-rail grade crossing
accident/incident, as described in Sec. 225.19(b) of this chapter;
(4) A willful violation of a Federal railroad safety law or
railroad operating rule or practice, including the prohibited use of
alcohol or a controlled substance;

[[Page 28683]]

(5) A substance abuse disorder;
(6) An event resulting in the identifiable release of a hazardous
material;
(7) An act of sabotage or other criminal offense; or
(8) An event involving use of a personal electronic device that is
prohibited by a Federal railroad safety law or railroad operating rule.

PART 242--QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF CONDCUTORS

0
5. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20135, 20138, 20162, 20163,
21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
6. Amend Sec. 242.7 by adding definitions in alphabetical order for
``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU)'',
``Close call'', ``Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS)'',
``Electronic device'', ``Hazardous material'', ``ID strip'',
``Independent third party'', ``Peer Review Team (PRT)'', and ``Personal
electronic device'' to read as follows:

Sec. 242.7 Definitions.

* * * * *
C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU) means
a voluntary written agreement that implements C\3\RS on a participating
railroad and is signed by FRA, the participating railroad, and any non-
profit employee labor organization(s) representing participating
employees for purposes of the C\3\RS IMOU. If the participating
employees are not represented by a non-profit labor organization, or if
a non-profit employee labor organization representing employees covered
by a C\3\RS IMOU is not a stakeholder to the program, a C\3\RS IMOU may
be signed only by FRA and the participating railroad. When contractor
employees are participating in C\3\RS, the C\3\RS IMOU must also be
signed by the contractor for the railroad and can be signed by any non-
profit employee labor organization representing the contractor
employees for purposes of the C\3\RS IMOU. FRA will post all C\3\RS
IMOUs to the Federal Docket Management System's website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Close call means an unsafe event or sequence of unsafe events that
had a potential for more serious adverse consequences to railroad
safety and has been reported to C\3\RS and accepted by both the
independent third party and the Peer Review Team (PRT) as a reportable
close call in accordance with all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS
IMOU.
* * * * *
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS) means an FRA-
sponsored voluntary program designed to improve the safety of railroad
operations by allowing railroad workers to confidentially report
currently unreported or underreported unsafe events without the
repercussions of suspension or revocation of certification.
* * * * *
Electronic device has the meaning assigned by Sec. 220.5 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
Hazardous material means a commodity designated as a hazardous
material by part 172 of this title.
ID strip means the identification strip the independent third party
issues to an employee who has reported a close call to C\3\RS to
indicate that the independent third party has accepted the close call.
Independent third party means the non-FRA organization that manages
C\3\RS, accepts close call reports, and protects the confidentiality of
both a reporting employee and a participating railroad.
* * * * *
Peer Review Team (PRT) is a problem-solving team consisting of
representatives for the primary stakeholders to a C\3\RS IMOU,
including FRA, the participating railroad, and any participating non-
profit employee labor organization(s).
* * * * *
Personal electronic device has the meaning assigned by Sec. 220.5
of this chapter.
0
7. Amend Sec. 242.403 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c)(1)
and adding a new paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 242.403 Criteria for revoking certification.

* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, it
shall be unlawful to fail to comply with any of the railroad rules and
practices described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a
certified conductor who has demonstrated a failure to comply with
railroad rules and practices described in paragraph (e) of this section
shall have his or her certification revoked.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) In accordance with Sec. 242.407(i)(3), a railroad shall not
deny or revoke an employee's certification based on an alleged
violation of the railroad's operating rules or practices that the
employee reported to C\3\RS as a close call and was accepted as a close
call by both the independent third party and the PRT in accordance with
all applicable provisions of a C\3\RS IMOU.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 242.407 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 242.407 Process for revoking certification.

[[Page 28684]]

purposes of determining whether the railroad impermissibly revoked a
person's certification for an alleged violation that was reported and
accepted as a close call by both the third party and the PRT.
(C) Paragraph (i)(3) of this section will not apply to any alleged
violation of a railroad's operating rules or practices that constitutes
a violation under Sec. 242.403(e)(1) through (11) that involves:
(1) An event that caused or is alleged to have caused death,
injury, illness, or medical treatment of any kind to any person
(including a passenger) involved in the event;
(2) An event that results in damages above the current monetary
rail equipment accident/incident reporting threshold described in part
225 of this chapter and published annually by FRA;
(3) An event that results in a highway-rail grade crossing
accident/incident, as described in Sec. 225.19(b) of this chapter;
(4) A willful violation of a Federal railroad safety law or
railroad operating rule or practice, including the prohibited use of
alcohol or a controlled substance;
(5) A substance abuse disorder;
(6) An event resulting in the identifiable release of a hazardous
material;
(7) An act of sabotage or other criminal offense; or
(8) An event involving use of a personal electronic device that is
prohibited by a Federal railroad safety law or railroad operating rule.

Issued in Washington, DC.
Kyle D. Fields,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-12167 Filed 6-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.