Rule2026-08259
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
April 28, 2026
Effective
May 28, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration
Abstract
This rule updates FRA's conductor certification requirements to reduce the information required on a conductor'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 22758-22762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08259]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 242
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0133; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AD61
Miscellaneous Revisions to the Qualification and Certification of
Conductors
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule updates FRA's conductor certification requirements
to reduce the information required on a conductor'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#22414a504b51564b434c0c4a4d4e5662464d560c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="17747f657e64637e7679397f787b635773786339707861">[email protected]</span></a>; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney Adviser,
FRA, telephone: 202-713-7671, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c01050f040d0900421f1c050202050f0f04050d2c080318420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f895919b90999d94d68b88919696919b9b909199b89c978cd69f978e">[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
49 CFR parts 200 through 299 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 242 (part 242).\1\
Specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) reducing the information required
on a conductor'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 242.
FRA also requested comments on whether to remove the requirement that
FRA is a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 28684 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA received two comments. 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
242.509(p) and (r) to remove FRA as a mandatory party in the
administrative hearing process described in section 242.509, 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 242.11 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. FRA is amending section 242.11, as proposed, with some
minor formatting edits.
[[Page 22759]]
Section 242.207 Certificate Components
This section details what information must be included on a
conductor's certificate. FRA proposed removing the requirement found in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section that these certificates include the
conductor's year of birth. 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 conductors to identity
theft.\2\ Based on this positive comment, FRA is proceeding with
removing the year of birth requirement from conductor certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FRA-2025-0133-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA also proposed amending paragraph (a)(7) of this section to
allow certificates to be electronic. SMART-TD and TTD \3\ advocated for
conductors 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 conductors have equal
access to digital devices or reliable connectivity. If the railroad
only provides electronic certificates, certain conductors could be at a
disadvantage or face discipline for circumstances beyond their control.
SMART-TD added that if a railroad is hacked or a conductor's
information is linked to a particular train, that could constitute a
security threat to conductors assigned to high value or strategically
sensitive freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FRA-2025-0133-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the labor organizations' concerns, FRA first
clarifies that its proposed revision to paragraph (a)(7) 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 SMART-TD and TTD, FRA does not find a need
to mandate that railroads issue both paper and electronic certificates.
If a conductor 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 242.209(a), which requires
conductors to have their certificate in their possession while on duty.
For conductors 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 security threats to conductors in the event of a hack, the
purpose of the certificate, whether paper or electronic, is to document
certification status under part 242. 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 242.407 Process for Revoking 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). Both labor organizations wrote
in support of this change, stating that it would provide transparency,
ensure due process, and allow conductors to understand the reasoning
behind the railroad's decision. They requested that FRA establish
timelines for railroads to produce these findings of fact, as delays in
the revocation process can cause significant harm to conductors. 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 conductors 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 242.509 Hearings
Both SMART-TD and TTD 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. SMART-TD noted it was fundamentally
unfair to require a conductor to prove their innocence against a
corporation with substantial resources. While SMART-TD and TTD support
this change, they expressed concern that it could lead railroads to
retaliate against conductors by using the certification process as a
disciplinary weapon. SMART-TD referenced a recent inquiry by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration into ``the culture of
abusive labor practices in railroading regarding the treatment of
whistleblowers'' and claimed that this change to paragraph (q) will
trigger ``a strong and predictably vindictive response.'' 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 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 conductor
certification revocations. Thus, this change will have no effect on
most cases where a conductor's certification is revoked. Therefore, FRA
is unclear why this change would motivate railroads to retaliate
against conductors. 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 comment 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. 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
[[Page 22760]]
would become railroad-dominated proceedings and conductors would be
significantly disadvantaged. They implored FRA to remain fully engaged
in these certification disputes to preserve fairness and legitimacy.
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.\4\ Also, their comments
presume that FRA would always be aligned with the conductor or
conductor 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 conductor or conductor candidate's
disadvantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 242.509(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
242.509(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, 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).
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. In this final rule, FRA makes several
revisions and clarifications to improve clarity, efficiency, and the
allocation of agency resources. These include revisions to specify the
appropriate information to be included in required documents,
clarification of alternatives for issuance of such documents, and the
clarification of provisions that were not clear. In addition, these
revisions reduce administrative burden. The revisions to section
242.207 on conductor'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 242.407 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, revisions to section 242.509
grant FRA the discretion to determine its level of participation in
administrative hearings. This modification provides qualitative
benefits by enhancing fairness for workers, as the railroad will assume
the role of ``hearing petitioner.'' In addition, the Government will
realize cost savings from no longer being required to participate as a
mandatory party in each administrative hearing. Overall, FRA finds that
this 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.'' \5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 (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 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\ Pub. L. 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.
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 242
became effective when they were approved by OMB on October 24, 2024.
The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0596, and OMB approval expires
on October 31, 2027.
[[Page 22761]]
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.'' \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 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 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 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. 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:
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
[[Page 22762]]
with the requirements in paragraph (c)(11) of this section.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 242.509 by removing paragraph (r), redesignating
paragraphs (s) through (u) as paragraphs (r) through (t), and revising
paragraphs (p) and (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 242.509 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
conductor or conductor candidate shall be the ``hearing respondent.''
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08259 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.