Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-08253

Rule2026-08253

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

April 28, 2026

Effective

May 28, 2026

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration

Abstract

This rule amends FRA 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).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22751-22758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 240 and 242

[Docket No. FRA-2025-0131; Notice No. 2]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends FRA 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).

DATES: This rule is effective May 28, 2026.

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#430e2a28266d0f2c2d2403272c376d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eda0848688c3a182838aad898299c38a829b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; or Elizabeth A. Gross, Attorney Adviser, FRA,
telephone: (202) 253-6281, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27624b4e5d464542534f0960554854546743485309404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43062f2a39222126372b6d04312c303003272c376d242c35">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219,
Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's
``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR
10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in
49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and updating requirements to reduce
unnecessary burdens without compromising transportation safety.
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

[[Page 22752]]

Locomotive Engineers, and part 242, Qualification and Certification of
Conductors, respectively. On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed 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 program. See 90 FR 28676-28684. Interested persons can
read more about the history of C\3\RS and the waiver process in the
NPRM preamble. Id. at 28676-28677.

II. Discussion of Comments Received on the NPRM and FRA's Response

FRA received five comments on the NPRM. Four of the comments were
received from the following non-profit employee labor organizations:
(1) the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of
the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(BLET); \1\ (2) the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED-IBT); \2\ (3) the
Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD); \3\ and (4) the
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD).\4\ One comment was
received from the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Docket No. FRA-2025-0131-0005.
\2\ Docket No. FRA-2025-0131-0002.
\3\ Docket No. FRA-2025-0131-0004.
\4\ FRA-2025-0131-0006. TTD's comment indicates it consists of
39 affiliated unions who represent members across the freight rail
industry, and TTD included a list of member labor organizations
represented by TTD as part of its comment.
\5\ Docket No. FRA-2025-0131-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments expressed general support for C\3\RS and FRA's goal of
implementing the program nationwide but also raised some concerns.
After thoroughly considering the comments, FRA has decided to finalize
the rule as proposed, except for minor clarifying revisions to the
definitions of ``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding
(C\3\RS IMOU),'' ``Close call,'' and ``Peer Review Team (PRT).''

A. Concerns Regarding Labor Organization Exclusion

All labor organization commenters expressed concerns that the NPRM
contemplated implementing C\3\RS programs through an Implementing
Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU) that had only been signed by FRA and
the participating railroad, in certain circumstances. These comments
focused primarily on FRA's proposed definition for ``C\3\RS
Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU),'' which stated,
in part, that if participating employees are not represented by a non-
profit employee 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. The labor organizations generally asserted
that excluding labor organizations as a stakeholder to a C\3\RS IMOU
would undermine employees' trust in the program and result in fewer
close calls being reported. TTD also specifically asserted that
employees would not feel comfortable reporting if a Peer Review Team
(PRT) did not have labor representatives. Overall, these comments asked
FRA to issue a final rule that requires labor organizations to be
signatory stakeholders to a C\3\RS IMOU.
FRA agrees that having labor organization stakeholders strengthens
C\3\RS and promotes employee trust in the program. FRA has expended
significant time and resources in promoting labor organization
participation in C\3\RS and will continue to do so. However, for the
following reasons, FRA is declining to require that a C\3\RS IMOU be
signed by a labor organization stakeholder. To reflect the important
stakeholder role that labor organizations play in C\3\RS overall, and
as discussed in the Section-by-Section Analysis below, FRA is replacing
language in the proposed definition about a labor organization not
being a stakeholder to a particular C\3\RS IMOU with language about a
labor organization not being a signatory party. FRA is otherwise
finalizing the definition of ``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU)'' as proposed.
First, requiring each C\3\RS IMOU to be signed by a labor
organization representative could exclude non-represented employees
from the program, including non-represented employees who are currently
covered through C\3\RS programs that have been implemented on railroads
where some or all employees are not represented by a labor
organization.\6\ In these cases, some C\3\RS IMOUs have been signed by
an employee of the covered craft,\7\ while others have been signed by
only FRA and the railroad.\8\ Except for railroads that have joined
C\3\RS through the Short Line Safety Institute (SLSI),\9\ these C\3\RS
IMOUs also provide that the railroad will appoint employees to
participate in the PRT, which ensures that an employee's perspective is
heard when the PRT reviews and analyzes reports.\10\ The success of
these C\3\RS programs shows that the program can be implemented without
a signatory labor organization representative, and railroads should not
be excluded from the railroad safety benefits of C\3\RS simply because
they have non-represented employees. Further, except for railroads that
join C\3\RS through the SLSI, FRA does not intend to sign a C\3\RS IMOU
that does not provide for employee participation in the PRT, regardless
of whether the participating employees are represented by a labor
organization that has signed the C\3\RS IMOU. To reflect the importance
of employee participation in a PRT, and as discussed further in the
Section-by-Section Analysis below, FRA is adding language to the
definition of ``Peer Review Team (PRT)'' noting that a PRT can include
employees who are not represented by a labor organization that has
signed the C\3\RS IMOU (as well as other types of representatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ FRA has posted signed C\3\RS IMOUs on its website at <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> (last accessed Apr. 20, 2026).
\7\ For example, the C\3\RS IMOU for the Buffalo & Pittsburgh
Railroad covers non-represented car department employees (in
addition to represented crafts), and the IMOU is signed by the Lead
Carman. See <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/buffalo-and-pittsburgh-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/buffalo-and-pittsburgh-c3rs-imou</a> (last accessed Apr. 20, 2026). Similarly, the
C\3\RS IMOU covering non-represented employees for the Strasburg
Rail Road Company is signed by multiple PRT members. See <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/strasburg-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/strasburg-imou</a> (last accessed Apr. 20,
2026).
\8\ For example, the C\3\RS IMOU for Denton County
Transportation Authority/Rio Grande Pacific Transit Group/Stadler is
signed exclusively by FRA and management representatives from the
participating railroad and contract operators. See <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/dcta-train-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/dcta-train-c3rs-imou</a> (last accessed Apr.
20, 2026).
\9\ SLSI is a non-profit corporation that conducts safety
culture assessments and is an education and training source for
short line and regional railroads concerning safety culture. See
<a href="https://www.shortlinesafety.org/">https://www.shortlinesafety.org/</a>. Railroads that have joined C\3\RS
through SLSI include the D&I Railroad Company (<a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/di-railroad-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/di-railroad-c3rs-imou</a>); the Delaware
Lackawanna Railroad (<a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/delaware-lackawanna-railroad-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/delaware-lackawanna-railroad-c3rs-imou</a>); the Goose Lake Railway, LLC (<a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/c3rs-implementing-memorandum-understanding-goose-lake-railway">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/c3rs-implementing-memorandum-understanding-goose-lake-railway</a>); and St. Mary's Railway West
(<a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/st-marys-railway-west-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/st-marys-railway-west-c3rs-imou</a>).
\10\ For railroads participating in C\3\RS through the SLSI, the
SLSI PRT is comprised of a group of SLSI representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, there is currently no requirement for C\3\RS to be
implemented through an IMOU signed by a labor organization
representative, and establishing one when none has existed is
unnecessary and could hinder

[[Page 22753]]

the further expansion of C\3\RS. While FRA always strives to get
consensus from all potential parties to a C\3\RS IMOU, even a C\3\RS
IMOU without a labor organization as a signatory party still provides
employees an opportunity to report close calls confidentially to an
independent third party and to receive protection from discipline and
revocation of certification for accepted reports that did not exist
before.

B. BLET Comment Regarding the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
Process

Related to concerns about labor organization exclusion, BLET
commented that it believes a C\3\RS IMOU that has been agreed upon by
all stakeholders could be reached through the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) process, requesting that FRA hold the NPRM as a
proposal until all involved stakeholders could agree upon such an IMOU.
FRA understands BLET's comment to be referencing RSAC Task No. 2022-03:
Confidential Close Call Reporting System, which had involved a series
of C\3\RS Working Group meetings. As explained in the NPRM, FRA
withdrew Task No. 2022-03 from the RSAC in March 2025, in part to begin
a rulemaking that would propose amending parts 240 and 242 to remove
the need for C\3\RS waivers. BLET also commented that the ongoing
reconstitution of the RSAC would set back progress made by the C\3\RS
Working Group.
FRA is declining BLET's suggestion to wait to finalize this
rulemaking until there is a standard C\3\RS IMOU agreed upon by all
stakeholders. FRA appreciates BLET's support for RSAC and agrees that
RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders
to exchange information relating to the safety of rail operations.
However, FRA does not believe it should delay finalizing this
rulemaking until a standard C\3\RS IMOU is agreed upon, whether through
the RSAC process or otherwise. As explained in the NPRM, 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. See 90 FR 28677. Even if no additional railroads
join C\3\RS, whether in accordance with a standard C\3\RS IMOU template
or not, FRA believes streamlining the process to participate in C\3\RS
is a meaningful burden reduction, both for FRA and the current
participants. While BLET also questions whether granting C\3\RS waivers
should be a pro forma exercise, FRA notes that no railroad request for
a C\3\RS waiver has ever been denied. Further, FRA notes that though it
publishes a Federal Register notice providing an opportunity for public
comment on all C\3\RS waiver petitions, few comments expressing blanket
opposition to a C\3\RS waiver have been received on any of the dozens
of waiver and waiver extension requests FRA has granted (though some
comments have expressed concerns about various specific aspects of the
program or advocated for greater communication between railroad and
labor organization parties to the program).\11\ FRA also notes that
BLET, SMART-TD, and TTD all commented in support of FRA granting a
C\3\RS waiver submitted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
on behalf of Class I freight railroads (though SMART-TD and TTD also
urged FRA to ensure that the Class I railroads joined C\3\RS in
accordance with standards contained in C\3\RS IMOUs for current
participants).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See, e.g., Docket No. FRA-2023-0065-0003.
\12\ See Docket Nos. FRA-2023-0042-0003; FRA-2023-0042-0004; and
FRA-2023-0042-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, while BLET is concerned that the reconstitution of the
RSAC will hinder the C\3\RS Working Group's progress, FRA notes that it
had disbanded the Working Group in March 2025, after concluding that
further meetings were not likely to produce meaningful results. This
was several months before the RSAC reconstitution process began in
August 2025, meaning that the reconstitution will have no additional
effect on the C\3\RS Working Group.

C. MTA Comment Requesting Clarity on C\3\RS Report Acceptance

MTA commented that while it generally supports incorporating
waivers to streamline the ongoing operation of C\3\RS, it thought the
final rule should clarify that the PRT plays no role in determining
whether a C\3\RS report is accepted, as that decision is made by the
independent third party alone. Specifically, MTA suggested revising the
proposed definition of ``Close call'' to remove the reference to PRT
acceptance and to make conforming changes throughout the proposed rule
to remove references to the PRT accepting a report.
FRA understands MTA's concern, as there are different
understandings of what it means for a close call to be accepted among
current C\3\RS stakeholders. The purpose of the proposed definition was
to reflect that a PRT's review and analysis of a reported close call
may uncover information that was not reported to the independent third
party that makes the close call ineligible for the C\3\RS IMOU's
protections against suspension or revocation of certification. For
example, a PRT may discover that even though the current independent
third party, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
accepted a close call, the underlying event was not eligible for the
C\3\RS IMOU's protections because it was visually observed by a
railroad manager in real-time.\13\ FRA emphasizes that it is unusual
for a PRT to determine that an event reported to and accepted by NASA
is not eligible for a C\3\RS IMOU's protections, but it does happen
occasionally. Further, because PRTs have an FRA representative, any
such determination is made with FRA's advice and assistance, in
addition to being a consensus decision made by all PRT stakeholders
(including labor organization representatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ All current C\3\RS IMOUs provide that employees do not
receive the protections of the C\3\RS IMOU when a reported event is
a ``Real-Time Observation.'' While the definition of ``Real-Time
Observation'' differs slightly among the different C\3\RS IMOUs, it
is always defined to include an event that was visually observed in
real-time by an FRA inspector or railroad manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed definition of ``Close call'' also prevents an employee
from receiving C\3\RS protections in the (highly unlikely) situation
that the employee deliberately withheld information from the report
that would indicate the underlying event was not a reportable close
call (such as information indicating the event involved prohibited use
of alcohol or a controlled substance or a willful violation of Federal
railroad safety laws of railroad operating rules). To prevent such bad
faith misuse of C\3\RS, FRA believes it is important to allow a PRT,
when it has access to additional information that was not available to
the independent third party, to determine that a close call reported to
and accepted by the independent third party may still be ineligible for
a C\3\RS IMOU's protections. If the PRT did not have this authority,
the primary alternative remedy for bad faith misuse of C\3\RS would be
for a railroad participant or FRA to terminate its participation in
that C\3\RS program, which would unfairly deprive railroad employees
adhering to the C\3\RS IMOU's reporting criteria of the opportunity to
improve railroad safety by reporting close calls.

[[Page 22754]]

FRA has been working to clarify what it means for a close call to
be accepted by both NASA and the PRT in recent C\3\RS IMOUs. For
example, in the C\3\RS IMOU signed by Norfolk Southern Railway, FRA,
BLET, and SMART-TD in February 2024,\14\ Section 6.2 (``Conditions
Under Which a Reporting Employee Is Not Protected from Railroad
Discipline, Railroad Revocation of Certification, or FRA Civil
Enforcement'') specifies seven conditions under which employees do not
receive the C\3\RS IMOU's protections and affirmatively states that the
PRT shall determine whether any of the conditions exist.\15\ FRA
acknowledges, however, that there remains some uncertainty among C\3\RS
participants regarding the PRT's role in determining whether a reported
close call is eligible for the protections of a C\3\RS IMOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/norfolk-southern-pilot-program-smarttd-blet-c3rs-imou">https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/norfolk-southern-pilot-program-smarttd-blet-c3rs-imou</a>.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address this uncertainty, and in response to MTA's request for
additional clarity, FRA is adding language to the proposed definition
of ``Close call'' stating that ``For purposes of this definition, a
close call is accepted by a PRT when the PRT determines that the close
call is eligible for the protections against suspension or revocation
of certification established by the applicable C\3\RS IMOU.'' FRA
believes this additional language clarifies what it means for a PRT to
``accept'' a close call report, both in the definition of ``Close
call'' and elsewhere in the rule. FRA is otherwise finalizing the
definition as proposed.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

FRA is amending 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 program.\16\ FRA
is codifying 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. Except
as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed,
and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for
extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ FRA does not intend this final rule 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 240.7--Definitions and Section 242.7--Definitions

``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C\3\RS IMOU)''
For the reasons discussed above in Section II.C, FRA is finalizing
the definition of ``C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding
(C\3\RS IMOU)'' in both sections 240.7 and 242.7 as proposed, except
that FRA is replacing language in the proposed definition about a labor
organization not being a stakeholder to a particular C\3\RS IMOU with
language about a labor organization not being a signatory party to a
C\3\RS IMOU. The new language reflects that labor organizations can be
important stakeholders to the overall C\3\RS program, even if they are
not signatory parties to a particular C\3\RS IMOU.
``Close call''
For the reasons discussed above in Section II.C, FRA is finalizing
the definition of ``Close call'' in both sections 240.7 and 242.7 as
proposed, except that FRA is including additional language clarifying
that a close call is accepted by a PRT when the PRT determines that the
close call is eligible for the protections against suspension or
revocation of certification established by the applicable C\3\RS IMOU.
``Peer Review Team (PRT)''
FRA is adopting the definition of ``Peer Review Team (PRT)'' as
proposed, except for two clarifications. First, FRA is replacing the
term ``primary stakeholders'' with ``signatory parties'' to reflect
that not all C\3\RS stakeholders may be a signatory party to a
particular C\3\RS IMOU. Second, FRA is adding language noting that a
PRT may also include the following persons: a representative from the
independent third party; employees covered by the C\3\RS IMOU who are
not represented by a non-profit employee labor organization that has
signed the C\3\RS IMOU; and other subject matter experts on an ad hoc
basis when their expertise would assist the PRT in developing
recommendations. This additional language reflects that most C\3\RS
IMOUs provide for NASA and other subject matter experts to participate
in a PRT when requested, and that C\3\RS IMOUs that cover non-
represented employees generally provide that a railroad will appoint
employees to participate in the PRT. FRA also notes that the intent of
this definition is to describe PRT composition, not to regulate it, as
PRT composition is subject to the provisions of a signed C\3\RS IMOU.
This definition does not, for example, override IMOUs for railroads
that participate in C\3\RS through the SLSI, which provide that the PRT
is comprised of FRA and SLSI representatives.

IV. 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 final rule 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 OMB determined that this final rule is not a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule.
This rule amends FRA's 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. This final rule will reduce the burden on
C\3\RS-participating railroads. Nothing in this final rule changes the
voluntary and cooperative nature of C\3\RS, as participants 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
will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the
U.S. Government, by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language
of parts 240 and 242. This final rule will also promote more efficient
use of Government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA on
reviewing and approving these types of waivers.

B. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires
that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten
prior regulations be identified for elimination.'' \17\ 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

[[Page 22755]]

deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
\18\ 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
rulemaking will have total costs less than zero, and therefore will be
considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require an agency to
prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). 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, 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)).
In the NPRM, FRA certified that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
No comments were received on this certification.
This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing
practices that comply with parts 240 and 242. By extending this
regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities,
will experience cost savings in terms of reduced burden on C\3\RS-
participating railroads. This final rule will also promote more
efficient use of Government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA
on reviewing and approving these types of waivers. The impact to small
entities is not expected to be significant. Consequently, FRA holds to
its previous certification that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final 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 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 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 final 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 final rule will 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.'' \19\ FRA has
evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within the
meaning of E.O. 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final
rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
tribal governments, and will 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 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 final rule 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.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 240

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

49 CFR Part 242

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

The Final Rule

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

PART 240--QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

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

[[Page 22756]]

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. 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 C\3\RS is not a signatory party to the C\3\RS IMOU, 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. For purposes of this definition, a close call is accepted by a
PRT when the PRT determines that the close call is eligible for the
protections against suspension or revocation of certification
established by the applicable 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 report currently unreported
or underreported unsafe events confidentially 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 signatory parties to a C\3\RS IMOU, including
FRA, the participating railroad, and any participating non-profit
employee labor organization(s). A PRT may also include a representative
from the independent third party; employees covered by the C\3\RS IMOU
who are not represented by a non-profit employee labor organization
that has signed the C\3\RS IMOU; or other subject matter experts, on an
ad hoc basis, when the supplemental expertise would assist the PRT in
developing recommendations.
* * * * *
Personal electronic device has the meaning assigned by Sec. 220.5
of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec. 240.117 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) and adding
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) This paragraph (i)(3) will not apply to any alleged violation
of a

[[Page 22757]]

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;
(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 CONDUCTORS

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
``C3RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C3RS IMOU),'' ``Close
call,'' ``Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS),''
``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.

0
7. Amend Sec. 242.403 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) and adding
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 22758]]

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. 242.403(e)(1) through (11) 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 F 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) This paragraph (i)(3) 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, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08253 Filed 4-27-26; 8:45 am]
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 April 28, 2026.

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.