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2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to amend some of the requirements in part 214 to reduce burdens, to make technical or conforming changes, to repeal aged-out regulations, or otherwise to adjust to advancing technology or recent incidents, without any adverse effect on railroad safety. 90 FR 28629 (July 1, 2025). During the comment period that closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) ^[1] and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD).^[2]

In summary, BMWED and TTD generally supported most proposals FRA made in the NPRM, including the proposed special approval procedure for alternative bridge worker safety systems in section 214.119. Both commenters recommended that this proposed procedure be amended to require third-party verification of proposed alternative safety systems and direct consultation with labor representatives, and that FRA issue formal guidance on its review process for petitions requesting special approval of alternative bridge worker safety proposals. In addition, both commenters expressed concern with the repeal of section 214.515(b), arguing that if machines in service lack adequate overhead protection, workers should retain the right to request such protection. FRA disagrees with the recommended changes to the proposed special approval procedure, but the agency agrees with the concerns about eliminating section 214.515(b). FRA discusses the comments it received further in the Section-by-Section Analysis. FRA finalizes the NPRM as proposed, except FRA retains existing 49 CFR 214.515(b), based on BMWED's and TTD's comments.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

This section-by-section analysis addresses only the specific sections that were commented on directly and that FRA is amending in a way that differs from FRA's proposal in the NPRM. Please reference the NPRM's section-by-section analysis for further information regarding the sections FRA is adopting as proposed in the NPRM—that is, sections 214.331, 214.333, 214.335, 214.347, 214.513, 214.517, and 214.533.

Section 214.119 Special Approval Procedure

Because 49 CFR part 214, subpart B is highly prescriptive and therefore discourages innovation or the deployment of advancing technology in bridge worker safety systems, this final rule adds a new section 214.119 that provides for a special approval procedure similar to the procedure provided in 49 CFR 238.21. The special approval procedure enables a regulated entity, after public notice and FRA approval, to utilize an alternative approach to bridge worker safety that provides for an equivalent or better level of safety. The comments received from BMWED and TTD both recommended that FRA revise the proposed rule to require third-party safety verification of proposed alternative bridge worker safety systems. FRA notes that the final rule, in paragraph (b)(3), requires a railroad to include in its petition appropriate data or analysis, or both, establishing that the alternative will provide at least an equivalent level of safety. A railroad could include, as part of its petition, a third-party safety verification of the railroad's proposal. To provide a petitioner with appropriate flexibility to establish that its proposal would result in at least an equivalent level of safety, FRA declines to revise the proposal as suggested.

BMWED and TTD also recommended that FRA require the proposing railroad to consult with the affected labor representatives directly, including to solicit input, not only to notify the affected labor representatives, as the NPRM proposed. FRA disagrees. This special approval procedure generally mirrors other special approval procedures used elsewhere in FRA's regulations ( e.g.,49 CFR 238.21), and FRA sees no need to deviate from this consistent framework. A railroad must provide notice of the petition to the designated representatives of its employees, under new paragraph (b)(4), and a railroad may coordinate with such representatives earlier, including during the development of the railroad's proposed alternative bridge worker safety standard.

Section 214.357 Training and Qualification for Operators of Roadway Maintenance Machines Equipped With a Crane

This final rule amends paragraph (b) of this section to clarify that the required training for operators of roadway maintenance machines equipped with a crane includes specific aspects such as maintaining vertical clearance. FRA expects that issues such ( printed page 55750) as vertical clearance should be addressed in the employer's training and qualification program. Under current section 214.357(b), employers are required to include procedures for determining that the operator of such crane machines has the skills and knowledge to operate safely. However, FRA expects that highlighting issues such as vertical clearance in the regulatory text may help to avoid future incidents of crane machines striking structures, such as bridges. FRA does not expect this clarification to result in any additional burdens.

Comments from BMWED and TTD supported the proposed clarification. In addition, BMWED and TTD generally urged FRA to refer 49 CFR 213.357 to the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee for review and modernization. FRA will take this recommendation under consideration.

Section 214.515 Overhead Covers for Existing On-Track Roadway Maintenance Machines

This final rule amends paragraph (a) of this section to remove reference to the date (March 28, 2005) that overhead covers must be repaired or reinstalled on existing on-track roadway maintenance machines currently or previously equipped with such covers. That date has long passed.

In addition, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to remove paragraph (b) and redesignate existing paragraph (c) as new paragraph (b). Comments from BMWED and TTD opposed the removal of paragraph (b), arguing that this provision may still apply, and that if machines currently in service lack adequate overhead protection, workers should continue to have the right to request such covers. FRA agrees, and the final rule makes no changes to existing paragraphs (b) and (c).

III. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 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.^[3] 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. This final rule simplifies the regulation by creating a special approval procedure in new section 214.119 consistent with a similar procedure in existing section 238.21; removes certain regulations rendered irrelevant by the passage of time in sections 214.331, 214.333, 214.335, 214.347, 214.513, 214.515, and 214.517; clarifies training requirements in section 214.357; and simplifies record retention rules in section 214.533.

A railroad carrier may take advantage of the voluntary flexibility of the special approval procedure in new section 214.119; if this were to occur, the cost savings to that railroad carrier would outweigh the minimal time required for submitting the petition. This rule provides additional clarity to regulated entities and eliminates unnecessary, outdated requirements while continuing to ensure workplace safety, substantive compliance, and availability of information related to railroad maintenance activities. This rule will provide cost savings to regulated entities. In addition, this rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. Government by creating a special approval procedure, eliminating outdated requirements from part 214, clarifying training requirements, and simplifying record retention rules.

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.” ^[4] 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.^[5]

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 total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996,^[6] 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, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and government jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

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. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., FRA is seeking approval from OMB to revise the information collection estimates in previously approved OMB Control Number 2130-0539, corresponding to part 214. On May 31, 2022, OMB approved FRA's last information collection request (ICR) corresponding to part 214, containing 5,619 burden hours.^[7]

With this final rule, the burden will increase by 10 hours annually, to 5,620 hours annually. The table below details the new information collection requirements that will apply when this final rule becomes effective, and the estimated time to fulfill each new requirement. ( printed page 55751)

All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone: 757-897-9908.

OMB is required to decide concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this document. FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if required.

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, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” ^[9] 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.

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.

The Final Rule

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 214 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

91 FR 55749