Proposed Rule2025-12171
Miscellaneous Revisions to the Qualification and Certification of Conductors
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
This proposed rule would update FRA's conductor certification requirements by reducing the information that is required on a conductor's certificate and allowing certificates to be electronic. FRA is also proposing changes to the certification revocation process and the Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) process. Lastly, FRA is proposing other administrative updates including revising definitions and correcting errors in the regulatory text.
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 28684-28688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12171]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 242
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0133]
RIN 2130-AD61
Miscellaneous Revisions to the Qualification and Certification of
Conductors
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would update FRA's conductor certification
requirements by reducing the information that is required on a
conductor's certificate and allowing certificates to be electronic. FRA
is also proposing changes to the certification revocation process and
the Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) process. Lastly, FRA is
proposing other administrative updates including revising definitions
and correcting errors in the regulatory text.
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-2025-0133 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-2025-0133), and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AD61). 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: Christian Holt, Staff Director-
Operating Practices Division, Federal Railroad Administration,
telephone: 202-366-0978, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94f7fce6fde7e0fdf5fabafcfbf8e0d4f0fbe0baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6c677d667c7b666e61216760637b4f6b607b21686079">[email protected]</span></a>; or Michael C.
Spinnicchia, Attorney Adviser, Federal Railroad Administration,
telephone: 202-713-7671, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55383c363d3430397b26253c3b3b3c36363d3c3415313a217b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95f8fcf6fdf4f0f9bbe6e5fcfbfbfcf6f6fdfcf4d5f1fae1bbf2fae3">[email 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 certify conductors are
established in 49 CFR part 242, ``Qualification and Certification of
Conductors.'' Some of the requirements contained in part 242 could be
updated to reduce burdens, make technical or conforming changes, ensure
due process or constitutionality, or otherwise adjust to advancing
technology without any adverse effect on railroad safety. Please review
the SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS below for the relevant information
related to each proposed change.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 242.7 Definitions
To be consistent with 49 CFR 209.5, FRA is proposing to amend this
section by adjusting the definitions for ``File, filed and filing'' and
``Serve or service.'' In this rule, FRA would amend the definition of
``File, filed and filing'' to mean submission of a document under this
part on the date when the DOT Docket Clerk or FRA receives it, or if
served as that term is defined under 49 CFR 209.5, the date of service.
FRA also proposes adding a comma after the word ``filed.'' Further, FRA
proposes amending the definition of ``Serve or service,'' in the
context of serving documents, to have the meaning given in Sec. 209.5.
Sec. 242.11 Penalties and Consequences for Noncompliance
FRA is proposing to amend paragraph (a) of this section by
replacing references to specific penalty amounts with general
references to the minimum civil monetary penalty, ordinary maximum
civil monetary penalty, and aggravated maximum civil monetary penalty.
FRA is proposing to add language to this section referring readers to
49 CFR part 209, appendix A, where FRA specifies statutorily provided
civil penalty amounts updated for inflation. FRA is also proposing to
amend this section to update the web address from <a href="http://www.fra.dot.gov">www.fra.dot.gov</a> to
<a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/">https://railroads.dot.gov/</a>.
Section 242.201 Time Limitations for Certification
Paragraph (a) of this section currently lists four scenarios where
a railroad shall not certify or recertify a person as a conductor.
Paragraph (a)(3) states railroads cannot make certification decisions
based on a knowledge examination that was conducted more than 366 days
before the date of the railroad's certification decision. Paragraph
(a)(4) is intended to provide an exception to paragraph (a)(3) that
allows for railroads to rely on knowledge examinations performed in the
24 months prior to the certification
[[Page 28685]]
decision if the railroad administers its knowledge testing program at
intervals that do not exceed 24 months.\1\ However, the way this
section is written, a railroad that conducts its knowledge testing
exams on a two-year cycle would still be prohibited from relying on a
knowledge exam performed more than 366 days before the certification
decision under paragraph (a)(3). This is a clear drafting error that
does not conform with the intent of the regulation and makes paragraph
(a)(4) superfluous. Therefore, FRA is proposing to amend paragraph
(a)(3) to add ``except as provided for in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section'' at the end of the paragraph to clarify that paragraph (a)(4)
provides an exception to the limitation in paragraph (a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 20472, 20485 (May 9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 242.207 Certificate Components
As part of the requirement that conductors be certified, railroads
must issue certificates to those individuals that they certify. This
section details what information must be included in these
certificates.
Paragraph (a)(3) of this section states that the certificate must
identify the person to whom the certificate is being issued. This must
include the person's name, employee identification number, the year of
birth, and either a physical description or photograph of the person.
FRA is proposing to remove the requirement that the certificate include
the person's year of birth.
In 2023, FRA issued NPRMs proposing the establishment of
certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees.\2\ The
Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) submitted joint comments to both
NPRMs requesting that FRA remove the year of birth requirement from
dispatcher and signal employee certificates.\3\ In support of their
comment, AAR and ASLRRA noted that a person's birth year provides
little to no assistance in confirming a person's identity and there are
other ways, such as a physical description or photograph, that better
serve this purpose. When FRA issued the final rules establishing
dispatcher and signal employee certification, the agency agreed with
AAR and ASLRRA's rationale that it was unnecessary to include the year
of birth on the certificates, and this requirement was removed from the
final rules.\4\ For similar reasons, FRA is proposing removing the
requirement that a person's year of birth be included on their
conductor certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 88 FR 35574 (May 31, 2023); 88 FR 35632 (May 31, 2023).
\3\ FRA-2022-0019-0041; FRA-2022-0020-0035.
\4\ 89 FR 44766, 44789 (May 21, 2024); 89 FR 44830, 44859 (May
21, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(7) of this section states the certificate must be
sufficiently small to permit being carried in an ordinary pocket
wallet. FRA is proposing amending this paragraph to allow railroads to
issue electronic certificates. Section 242.211(b) already provides for
railroads to issue temporary replacement certificates electronically,
and FRA does not find any safety concerns with extending this allowance
to the certificates issued under this section. Electronic certificates
would allow for railroads to issue certificates more efficiently while
also making it much less likely that a railroad would have to issue a
replacement certificate under Sec. 242.211. Lastly, while FRA is not
proposing any revisions to paragraph (a)(6) of this section, which
requires that a certificate be signed by an individual designated in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, based on the proposed
revision to paragraph (a)(7), it logically follows that FRA would allow
for electronic signatures under this proposed rule.
Section 242.407 Process for Revoking Certification
Many railroads issue their written decisions to revoke a person's
certification without findings of fact and a clear application of the
regulation. That approach conflicts with an existing requirement in
paragraph (c)(11) of this section which requires that each railroad
decision must include ``the findings of fact as well as the basis
therefor, concerning all material issues of fact presented on the
record and citations to all applicable railroad rules and practices.''
Although paragraph (d) allows a railroad to use hearing procedures
under an applicable collective bargaining agreement, and such an
agreement might not contain the same or similar requirements as in
paragraph (c)(11), including findings of fact is normally what would be
expected in such a decision. Thus, a railroad's failure to include such
basic information in a decision has led to an inefficient and more
complicated process. For instance, a railroad's failure to include
findings of fact in its revocation decision means that the person who
is challenging the decision cannot quickly and effectively pinpoint
whether the basis for the parties' disagreement is based on a
misunderstanding or material disagreement of the facts.
FRA's Operating Crew Review Board (OCRB), which is delegated the
authority to review a person's challenge to a railroad's revocation
decision, has similarly been less efficient in its review because it
must spend an inordinate amount of time dissecting the evidentiary
record in a way that exceeds the appropriate, accelerated consideration
of a case envisioned by this certification review. Railroads often
include findings of fact in their responses to petitions filed with the
OCRB, but that is too late in the process to give the affected
conductor an opportunity to consider the findings of fact and respond.
To obviate this inefficient process, FRA proposes to revise paragraph
(d) of this section to clarify that written findings of fact and
application of the regulation must always be provided in a railroad's
written decision prior to consideration of a case before the OCRB,
regardless of any alternative requirement provided in a collective
bargaining agreement. This amendment would be deregulatory insofar as
it provides required information to the affected person earlier in the
certification revocation process, ensuring due process for conductors
subject to the certification requirements in part 242, and increasing
efficiency of the process.
Section 242.509 Hearings
Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and
Implementing the President's ``Department of Government Efficiency''
Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 19, 2025), requires agencies
to review regulations for a variety of concerns and rescind or modify
such regulations identified. This section raises concerns due to its
potential shifting of the burden of proof. The existing regulation
grants a party adversely affected by an OCRB decision the right to a de
novo hearing before an AHO with more robust evidentiary and procedural
protections than the expedited OCRB proceeding but shifts the burden of
proof at this AHO hearing stage to the party that was adversely
affected by the OCRB decision. In cases where the conductor or
conductor candidate was the party adversely affected by the preceding
OCRB decision, the burden of proof at the AHO hearing stage currently
shifts to the impacted conductor/conductor candidate.
To correct for this concern, FRA proposes to amend paragraph (q) of
this section to clarify that the railroad taking a certification action
is always the
[[Page 28686]]
petitioner at the AHO hearing stage and always bears the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence. FRA acknowledges that while
this approach provides additional protections for a conductor or
conductor candidate who has been subject to a denial or revocation of
certification with related impacts on his or her livelihood, this
burden could now shift to railroads. However, FRA expects the burden to
be negligible. FRA requests comments on the extent of this shift in
burden and any potential impacts.
Paragraph (r) of this section notes that FRA will be a mandatory
party to the administrative hearing and will be a respondent at the
start of the hearing. FRA is proposing to delete the requirement that
FRA be a respondent at the start of each proceeding. Under the proposed
revisions to paragraph (q) of this section, the hearing respondent
would always be the conductor or conductor candidate. FRA is more
likely to align with the party who received a favorable decision before
the OCRB, which could be, with the proposed changes to paragraph (q),
either the petitioner or respondent at the AHO hearing stage.
Therefore, it would no longer make sense for FRA to always be the
respondent at the AHO hearing stage.
FRA is also requesting comments on whether it should remove
paragraph (r) in its entirety and no longer require that FRA be a
mandatory party to the administrative hearing.
Lastly, under these proposed changes, if FRA is a mandatory party
and agrees with the railroad, FRA would be considered a hearing
petitioner. However, in such circumstances, FRA would not be
responsible for presenting any evidence, through witness testimony or
exhibits, in support of the railroad's case. That responsibility would
remain with the railroad.
III. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. 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.
FRA expects this NPRM would update FRA's conductor certification
requirements by reducing the information that is required on a
conductor's certificate and by allowing certificates to be electronic
and proposes other administrative updates including revising
definitions and correcting errors in the regulatory text. While some
additional burdens may be added from the proposed changes to the
revocation of certification requirements, FRA estimates that the
overall benefits of this proposed rule would outweigh any potential
burdens. Moreover, this proposed rule would provide additional benefits
to regulated entities and the U.S. government, by clarifying,
simplifying, and updating the language of part 242. This rule would
also decrease the information requested on a conductor's certificate.
FRA requests any comments from the public on the impacts of this
proposed rule.
B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065,
Jan. 31, 2025), requires that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory
action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for
elimination.'' \5\ Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB
(Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action as ``an action that has been finalized and has total costs less
than zero.'' \6\ This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total
costs less than zero, and therefore, if finalized, it would be
considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. 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 still requests
comment on the extent of the cost savings for the changes proposed in
this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. 90 FR
9065-9067. Feb. 6, 2025.
\6\ 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. March 26, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\7\
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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 242; it merely
offers clarity and updates that could result in benefits, 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 some benefits.
Consequently, FRA certifies that the proposed action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and there is no
new information collection requirement, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, U.S.C. 3501 et seq., therefore, an
information collection submission to OMB is not required. The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in Part 242
became effective when it was approved by OMB on October 24, 2024. The
OMB approval number is 2130-0596, and OMB approval 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
[[Page 28687]]
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.
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.'' \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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-2025-0133, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Conductor, Penalties,
Railroad employees, Railroad operating procedures, Railroad safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
part 242 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 242--QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF CONDUCTORS
0
1. 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
2. In Sec. 242.7, revise the definitions of ``File, filed and filing''
and ``Serve or service'' to read as follows:
Sec. 242.7 Definitions.
* * * * *
File, filed, and filing mean submission of a document under this
part on the date when the DOT Docket Clerk or FRA receives it, or if
served as that term is defined under 49 CFR 209.5, the date of service.
* * * * *
Serve or service, in the context of serving documents, has the
meaning given in 49 CFR 209.5. The computation of time provisions in
Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as amended are also
applicable in this part. See also the definition of ``file, filed, and
filing'' in this section.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 242.11(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 242.11 Penalties and consequences for noncompliance.
(a) A person who violates any requirement of this part or causes
the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of
at least the minimum civil monetary penalty and not more than the
ordinary maximum civil monetary penalty per violation. However,
penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful
violations, and a penalty not to exceed the aggravated maximum civil
monetary penalty per violation may be assessed, where: (1) a grossly
negligent violation, or a pattern of repeated violations, has created
an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or (2) a death or
injury has occurred. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Each day a
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See FRA's
website at <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/">https://railroads.dot.gov/</a>for a statement of agency civil
penalty policy.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 242.201(a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 242.201 Time limitations for certification.
(a) * * *
(3) A determination concerning demonstrated knowledge and the
knowledge examination being relied on was conducted more than 366 days
before the date of the railroad's certification decision except as
provided for in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 242.207(a)(3) and (7) to read as follows:
[[Page 28688]]
Sec. 242.207 Certificate components.
(a) * * *
(3) Identify the person to whom it is being issued (including the
person's name, employee identification number, and either a physical
description or photograph of the person);
* * * * *
(7) Be electronic or be of sufficiently small size to permit being
carried in an ordinary pocket wallet.
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 242.407(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 242.407 Process for revoking certification.
* * * * *
(d) A hearing required by this section which is conducted in a
manner that conforms procedurally to the applicable collective
bargaining agreement shall be deemed to satisfy the procedural
requirements of this section except that the railroad's decision must
comply with the requirements in paragraph (c)(11) of this section.
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 242.509(q) and (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 242.509 Hearings.
* * * * *
(q) Regardless of the prevailing party before the Operating Crew
Review Board, the railroad involved in taking the certification action
shall be the ``hearing petitioner'' and shall have the burden of
proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The impacted
conductor or conductor candidate shall be the ``hearing respondent.''
(r) FRA will be a mandatory party to the administrative hearing.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC.
Kyle D. Fields,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-12171 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>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.