Rule2026-08257
Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers
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 updates FRA's locomotive engineer certification requirements to reduce the information required on a locomotive engineer's certificate, and allowing certificates to be electronic. This rule also changes the certification revocation process and the Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) process. Lastly, this rule makes administrative updates, including revising definitions and correcting errors in the regulatory text.
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 22747-22751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 240
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0132; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AD60
Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule updates FRA's locomotive engineer certification
requirements to reduce the information required on a locomotive
engineer's certificate, and allowing certificates to be electronic.
This rule also changes the certification revocation process and the
Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) process. Lastly, this rule makes
administrative updates, including revising definitions and correcting
errors in the regulatory text.
DATES: This rule is effective May 28, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Holt, Staff Director--
Operating Practices Division, FRA, telephone: 202-366-0978, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#482b203a213b3c212926662027243c082c273c662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b4bfa5bea4a3beb6b9f9bfb8bba397b3b8a3f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney Adviser,
FRA, telephone: 202-713-7671, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#523f3b313a33373e7c21223b3c3c3b31313a3b3312363d267c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b262228232a2e2765383b22252522282823222a0b2f243f652c243d">[email 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
parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and revising requirements to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens
without compromising transportation safety.
On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed various changes to 49 CFR part 240 (part 240).\1\
Specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) reducing the information required
on an engineer's certificate and allowing certificates to be
electronic; (2) requiring railroads to include findings of fact in
support of their certification revocation decisions; (3) changing the
administrative hearing process so railroads always carry the burden of
proof; and (4) making miscellaneous administrative updates to part 240.
FRA also requested comments on whether to remove the requirement that
FRA is a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 28672 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA received three comments. The Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the International Association of Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers--Transportation Division
(SMART-TD), and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)
(collectively, ``the labor organizations'') each submitted a comment
supporting some of the changes proposed in the NPRM and opposing other
changes. The labor organizations generally supported FRA's proposal to
require railroads to provide findings of fact when issuing their
revocation decisions and placing the burden of proof on railroads
during administrative hearings. However, they opposed allowing
railroads to use electronic certificates exclusively and removing FRA
as a mandatory party to administrative hearings.
In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it
proposed in the NPRM. In addition, FRA has decided to amend 49 CFR
240.409(p) and (r) to remove FRA as a mandatory party in the
administrative hearing process described in section 240.409, and
instead, provides FRA the option of participating.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
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.
Section 240.7 Definitions
FRA proposed revising the definition of ``Serve or service'' in
this section to have the meaning given in 49 CFR 209.5. BLET opposed
this change, asserting that it would require service of documents to be
done by registered or certified mail which would increase the burden of
this rule.\2\ However, on July 1, 2025, FRA issued an NPRM \3\
proposing to revise section 209.5 to allow for electronic service, an
action FRA finalized on April 24, 2026. This should alleviate BLET's
concern, as parties will not have to use registered or certified mail
to serve documents under this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FRA-2025-0132-0003.
\3\ 90 FR 28612 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 240.11 Penalties and Consequences for Noncompliance
FRA's proposed revisions to this section included replacing
references to specific penalty amounts with a reference to 49 CFR part
209, appendix A. BLET commented that this revision is not problematic
if the actual penalty amounts are readily available and easy to locate.
As this information is clearly stated in 49 CFR part 209, appendix A,
FRA concludes that BLET does not oppose this proposed revision, and FRA
is amending section 240.11, as proposed, with some minor formatting
edits.
Section 240.103 Approval of Design of Individual Railroad Programs by
FRA
FRA proposed a technical correction to this section, as it
contained inaccurate cross-references. BLET noted
[[Page 22748]]
its support for making this correction. FRA amends Sec. 240.103, as
proposed.
Section 240.217 Time Limitations for Making Determinations
FRA proposed amending paragraph (a)(3) of this section to correct a
previous drafting error. BLET agreed with this proposed change, noting
that it clarifies ambiguity in the regulation. SMART-TD also wrote in
support of this change, stating that this clarification prevents
unnecessary and duplicative testing that wastes railroad and worker
resources.\4\ Therefore, FRA amends section 240.217, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FRA-2025-0132-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 240.223 Criteria for the Certificate
This section details what information must be included on a
locomotive engineer's certificate. FRA proposed removing the
requirement found in paragraph (a)(3) of this section that these
certificates include the engineer's year of birth. FRA received support
from the labor organizations on this proposed change. BLET agreed that
the year of birth has little value in confirming an individual's
identity and removing this requirement could protect the release of an
engineer's identity following a grade-crossing accident. SMART-TD
described this change as ``a positive step for privacy and data
protection,'' as putting the year of birth on a certificate needlessly
exposes engineers to identity theft. Based on these positive comments,
FRA is proceeding with removing the year of birth requirement from
engineer certificates.
FRA also proposed amending paragraph (a)(8) of this section to
allow certificates to be electronic. In response, BLET stated paper
licenses should not be eliminated, as paper licenses allow engineers to
provide their identification quickly upon request from railroad
officers, inspectors, and police officers. Instead, BLET suggested that
engineers should have a paper certificate with an electronic version as
a backup, as this would align with other forms of electronic
recordkeeping and would provide engineers with multiple ways to comply
with the requirement that they possess their certificate while on duty.
SMART-TD and TTD \5\ similarly advocated for engineers to have both
electronic and paper certificates. Both organizations acknowledged that
electronic certificates could reduce administrative delays by
preventing lost or damaged certificates. However, they expressed
concern that not all engineers have equal access to digital devices or
reliable connectivity. If the railroad only provides electronic
certificates, certain engineers could be at a disadvantage or face
discipline for circumstances beyond their control. SMART-TD added that
if a system outage, cyberattack, or tracking capability linked an
engineer's credentials to a specific train or assignment, that could
create operational vulnerabilities and personal security risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FRA-2025-0132-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the labor organizations' concerns, FRA first
clarifies that its proposed revision to paragraph (a)(8) does not
prohibit the use of paper certificates. It simply gives railroads the
option of issuing paper certificates, electronic certificates, or both.
Despite the arguments from the labor organizations, FRA does not find a
need to mandate that railroads issue both paper and electronic
certificates. If an engineer does not have a railroad-issued electronic
device, the railroad will need to ensure that he or she has a physical
copy of their certificate to comply with 49 CFR 240.305(b), which
requires engineers to have their certificate in their possession while
on duty. For engineers that have a railroad-issued electronic device,
they can still print a paper copy of their certificate if they desire.
They can also save a copy of their certificate to their device, which
would protect against any connectivity concerns.
With respect to SMART-TD's concerns that electronic certificates
could create operational vulnerabilities or personal security risks,
the purpose of the certificate, whether paper or electronic, is to
document certification status under part 240. It does not contain or
link to operational data such as train numbers or assignments. Any such
information resides within a railroad's internal crew management
system, which is separate from certification records. FRA's change to
allow electronic certificates is intended only to provide
administrative flexibility and does not create any new vulnerabilities
or tracking mechanisms.
In summary, FRA has determined to allow, but not require, railroads
to issue certificates electronically. This will provide railroads with
greater flexibility while decreasing the likelihood of certificates
getting lost or damaged and having to be replaced.
Section 240.307 Revocation of Certification
FRA proposed clarifying in this section that railroad revocation
decisions must contain findings of fact, and the basis for those
findings, regardless of what is required under the applicable
collective bargaining agreement (CBA). All three labor organizations
wrote in support of this change, stating that it would provide
transparency, ensure due process, and allow engineers to understand the
reasoning behind the railroad's decision. SMART-TD and TTD requested
that FRA establish timelines for railroads to produce these findings of
fact, as delays in the revocation process can cause significant harm to
engineers. They also requested that FRA adopt enforceable penalties to
ensure compliance with this requirement.
Findings of fact must be included in a railroad's revocation
decision. Railroads with applicable CBAs must comply with any timelines
in those agreements for issuing such decisions. FRA declines to
override the timelines established in those agreements, especially
since the applicable labor organization has already agreed to those
terms. When there is no applicable CBA, paragraph (c)(10) of this
section requires that a railroad's revocation decision, containing
findings of fact, be prepared and signed no later than 10 days after
the close of the record. Therefore, the requested timelines have
already been established, and FRA does not need to make further changes
to this section beyond what was proposed in the NPRM.
For railroads that fail to comply with this revised section by not
providing engineers with adequate findings of fact, FRA may exercise
its enforcement authority pursuant to 49 CFR part 209. In addition, any
alleged occurrence of a railroad's non-compliance with this section may
be reported to FRA for further investigation.
Section 240.409 Hearings
All three labor organizations that commented on this NPRM supported
FRA's proposed change to paragraph (q) of this section making the
railroad the ``hearing petitioner'' in the administrative hearing
regardless of who the prevailing party was at the Operating Crew Review
Board (OCRB). SMART-TD noted it was fundamentally unfair to require an
engineer to prove their innocence against a corporation with
substantial resources. Though SMART-TD and TTD support this change,
they expressed concern that it could lead railroads to retaliate
against engineers by using the certification process as a disciplinary
weapon. Both organizations asked FRA to guard against, and to penalize,
railroads that act in bad faith and attempt to revoke certifications
illegitimately for retaliatory purposes.
FRA finds that SMART-TD and TTD may be overstating the likelihood
that
[[Page 22749]]
the revision to paragraph (q) will lead to railroads taking retaliatory
action. Over the last several years, an administrative hearing has been
requested in fewer than one percent of all engineer certification
revocations. Thus, this change will have no effect on most cases where
an engineer's certification is revoked. Therefore, FRA is unclear why
this change would motivate railroads to retaliate against engineers.
However, if such retaliation occurs, FRA encourages that it be reported
for further investigation.
Existing paragraph (r) of this section states that FRA is a
mandatory party to the administrative hearing and will be a respondent
at the start of the hearing. FRA requested comments on whether this
paragraph should be removed in its entirety, to no longer require the
agency to be a mandatory party. The labor organizations strongly
opposed removing the requirement that FRA be a mandatory party. BLET
commented that FRA ``is uniquely qualified to offer important insight
and information to the AHO.'' \6\ SMART-TD and TTD argued that FRA
serves as an independent check on railroad overreach, and if FRA were
to step back from this role, administrative hearings would become
railroad-dominated proceedings and engineers would be significantly
disadvantaged. They implored FRA to remain fully engaged in these
certification disputes to preserve fairness and legitimacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FRA-2025-0132-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The labor organizations' comments appear to be imputing the
responsibilities of the AHO onto FRA. It is the AHO (or presiding
officer), not FRA, who ensures a fair hearing.\7\ Also, their comments
presume that FRA would always be aligned with the engineer or engineer
candidate in these disputes. However, in some cases, FRA would be
aligned with the railroad, which presumably would work to the
railroad's benefit and the engineer or engineer candidate's
disadvantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 240.409(b) (``The presiding officer may
exercise the powers of the Administrator to regulate the conduct of
the hearing for the purpose of achieving a prompt and fair
determination of all material issues in controversy.''); 49 CFR
240.409(d) (``The presiding officer may authorize discovery of the
types and quantities which in the presiding officer's discretion
will contribute to a fair hearing without unduly burdening the
parties.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA acknowledges that in some cases, it may be able to provide
important insights, which is why, after consideration of these
comments, FRA has decided that instead of requiring FRA to be a party
in these proceedings, it will revise this section to state that FRA may
be a party to the administrative hearing. This preserves the agency's
ability to participate in disputes where it believes it has important
insights to provide. FRA may also decide to participate in cases where
it thinks its participation will prevent an injustice from occurring.
However, this also gives FRA flexibility not to participate in matters
where FRA's participation would be unnecessary, waste agency resources,
or not serve the agency's best interests. This change will allow FRA to
maximize its allocation of resources, while also participating in
matters of significant importance to the agency. Therefore, FRA is
revising paragraph (p) to state that FRA may be a party at the hearing.
As there is no need to repeat this statement in paragraph (r), FRA is
also removing existing paragraph (r) and redesignating paragraphs (s)
through (u) as paragraphs (r) through (t).
BLET also requested that FRA add language to existing paragraph (r)
stating that FRA would be the petitioner or respondent depending on
which party lost before the OCRB. BLET's rationale is that without this
added language, FRA could choose to align with a railroad even though
the railroad lost before the OCRB, which BLET claims would be unjust.
FRA finds that adding this language is unnecessary, especially because
FRA is no longer a mandatory party to the administrative hearing. If
FRA decides to participate in an administrative hearing, it will most
likely align with the prevailing party before the OCRB. However, if
facts or circumstances have changed FRA's stance on a case, the agency
should have the flexibility to align with either party. Therefore, FRA
is not adopting BLET's proposed change.
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 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 the Office of Management and Budget (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.
FRA makes several clarifications in this final rule, such as the
definition of ``serve or service,'' references to penalty amounts, and
technical corrections to eliminate confusion in the regulations. The
clarifications to section 240.217 help prevent unnecessary duplicative
knowledge examinations, saving railroads and workers the time and
expense required to perform such exams. The revisions to section
240.223 on locomotive engineer's certificates will provide railroads
with greater flexibility and will reduce the time and resources spent
replacing lost or damaged certificates. These revisions will also have
the qualitative benefit of enhancing privacy and data protection for
workers. The revisions to section 240.307 on revocation decisions will
impose a small cost by requiring some railroads to provide information
that they do not currently provide. However, these revisions will also
provide qualitative benefits to workers, including enhanced
transparency, fairness, and understanding. Finally, the revisions to
Sec. 240.409 on hearings will offer the Government greater flexibility
and will save government resources by no longer requiring mandatory FRA
participation in hearings. These revisions will also have the
qualitative benefit of increased fairness for workers by making the
railroad the petitioner in all hearings. Overall, FRA finds that this
rule will result in net costs less than zero.
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.'' \8\ Implementation
guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26,
2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
\9\ Executive Office of the President, OMB, 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 final
rule will have net costs less than zero, and therefore it will be
considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
[[Page 22750]]
Fairness Act of 1996,\10\ requires Federal agencies to consider the
effects of the regulatory action on small businesses 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result
in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities.
However, the impact to small entities is not expected to be
significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this 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 there is no
new information collection requirement, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 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 240
became effective when they were approved by OMB on July 12, 2024. The
OMB approval number is 2130-0533, which expires on July 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.'' \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 in 49 CFR Part 240
Administrative practice and procedure, Locomotive engineer,
Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad operating procedures, Railroad
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 240 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. In Sec. 240.7, revise the definitions of ``File, filed and filing''
and ``Serve or service'' to read as follows:
Sec. 240.7 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. In 240.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 240.11 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
[[Page 22751]]
penalty per violation may be assessed, where a grossly negligent
violation, or a pattern of repeated violations, has created an imminent
hazard of death or injury to persons, or 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. In Sec. 240.103, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (c)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 240.103 Approval of Design of Individual Railroad Programs by
FRA.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Simultaneous with its filing with FRA, provide a copy of the
submission filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a
resubmission filed pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, or a
material modification filed pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section
to the president of each labor organization that represents the
railroad's employees subject to this part; and
(2) Include in its submission filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section, a resubmission filed pursuant to paragraph (g) of this
section, or a material modification filed pursuant to paragraph (h) of
this section a statement affirming that the railroad has provided a
copy to the president of each labor organization that represents the
railroad's employees subject to this part, together with a list of the
names and addresses of persons provided a copy.
(c) Not later than 45 days from the date of filing a submission
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a resubmission pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section, or a material modification pursuant to
paragraph (h) of this section, any designated representative of
railroad employees subject to this part may comment on the submission,
resubmission, or material modification.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 240.217, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 240.217 Time Limitations for Making Determinations.
(a) * * *
(3) 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;
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 240.223, revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 240.223 Criteria for the Certificate.
(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);
* * * * *
(8) Be electronic or be of sufficiently small size to permit being
carried in an ordinary pocket wallet.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 240.307, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 240.307 Revocation of 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
8. In Sec. 240.409:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (p) and (q).
0
b. Remove paragraph (r); and
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (s) through (u) as paragraphs (r) through
(t).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 240.409 Hearings.
* * * * *
(p) The petitioner before the Operating Crew Review Board and the
railroad involved in taking the certification action shall be parties
at the hearing. FRA may also be a party at the hearing. All parties may
participate in the hearing and may appear and be heard on their own
behalf or through designated representatives. All parties may offer
relevant evidence, including testimony, and may conduct such cross-
examination of witnesses as may be required to make a record of the
relevant facts.
(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
locomotive engineer or locomotive engineer candidate shall be the
``hearing respondent.''
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08257 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>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.