49 C.F.R. § 213.1
Scope of part
(a) This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for railroad track that is part of the general railroad system of transportation. In general, the requirements prescribed in this part apply to specific track conditions existing in isolation. Therefore, a combination of track conditions, none of which individually amounts to a deviation from the requirements in this part, may require remedial action to provide for safe operations over that track. This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.
(b) Subparts A through F apply to track Classes 1 through 5. Subpart G and 213.2, 213.3, 213.15, and 213.240 apply to track over which trains are operated at speeds in excess of those permitted over Class 5 track.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Earwood v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 845 F. Supp. 880 (N.D. Ga. 1993).
Earwood v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 845 F. Supp. 880 (N.D. Ga. 1993). “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.1 . Neither the F.R.S.A. nor the regulations purport to define the standard of care with which railroads must act with regard to employees.”
Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012). “63 (regulating track surface conditions for each class of track); 49 C.F.R. § 213.109 (regulating number of sufficient crossties for each class of track); 49 C.”
Carter v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “(citing 49 C.F.R. § 213.1 ; Rule 33.8.1 of the Union Pacific Air Brake and Train Handling Rules; Hughes Deck, ¶ 23 & Ex.”
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Mo. 2013). “” Defendant claims that 49 C.F.R. § 213.1 (a) substantially subsumes Plaintiffs Allegation “h.”
PBR, INC., Petitioner, v. Sec'y OF LABOR & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Respondents, 643 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1981). “11 in support of its pre-emption argument, that regulation applies to track conditions of “all standard gauge track,” 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.1 , 213.3 and presumably, to the “hazard” created by use of track in poor condition.”
Gallo v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 372 F. Supp. 3d 470 (W.D. Tex. 2019). “In their complaint, Plaintiffs also allege that Union Pacific breached duties owed to them under the Track Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. § 213.1 -.241 and FRA Safety Advisory 97-01.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 647 F. Supp. 1220 (N.D. Cal. 1986). “” 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.1 -.241 (1985). These standards set forth requirements for track geometry, structure, and inspections.”
Hendrix v. Port Terminal RR Ass'n, 196 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App. 2006). “49 C.F.R. §§ 213.1 , 213.101, 213.103. As noted by Hendrix, these regulations relate to track structure and drainage, and the size and type of ballast are not specifically covered in the regulations.”
Norfolk S. Co. v. Charles Box, 556 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.1 to 213.241 (four parts covering track safety standards).”
Charles Harris v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 784 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 2015). “49 C.F.R. § 213.1 (a) (2009). Subparts B through E of section 213 prescribe minimum requirements for “roadbed and areas immediately adjacent to roadbed” (Subpart B), “the gage, alinement, and surface of track, and the elevation of outer rails and speed limitations for curved…”
Grimming v. Alton & S. Ry. Co., 562 N.E.2d 1086 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). “” On August 15, 1988, plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint alleging that Monsanto was negligent in one or more of the following ways: “A) Negligently and carelessly caused or allowed to be constructed a railroad tank car which failed to conform with 49 CFR 213.1(4), in…”
Monongahela Connecting R.R. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 404 A.2d 1376 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). “The Railroad argues that the PUC is preempted from acting because the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has implemented regulations dealing with track safety standards, 49 C.F.R. §213.1 et seq. These regulations, however, relate to the roadbed, track geometry, track…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 213.1(4) — 1 case
Grimming v. Alton & S. Ry. Co., 562 N.E.2d 1086 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). “” On August 15, 1988, plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint alleging that Monsanto was negligent in one or more of the following ways: “A) Negligently and carelessly caused or allowed to be constructed a railroad tank car which failed to conform with 49 CFR 213.1(4), in…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 213.1(a) — 1 case
Ottawa N. R.R., LLC v. Baldwin City, Kansas, City of (D. Kan. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.