49 C.F.R. § 213.233

Visual track inspections

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All track shall be inspected in accordance with the schedule prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section by a person designated under § 213.7.

(b) Each inspection shall be made on foot or by traversing the track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection devices may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is used for visual inspection, the speed of the vehicle may not be more than 5 m.p.h. when traversing track crossings and turnouts; otherwise, the inspection vehicle speed shall be at the sole discretion of the inspector, based on track conditions and inspection requirements. When traversing the track in a vehicle, the inspection will be subject to the following conditions—

(1) One inspector in a vehicle may inspect up to two tracks at one time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by any cause and that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet from the track the inspector traverses;

(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may inspect up to four tracks at a time provided that the inspectors' visibility remains unobstructed by any cause and that each track being inspected is centered within 39 feet from the track the inspectors traverse;

(3) Each main track must be traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot at least once every two weeks, and each siding must be traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot at least once every month; and

(4) Track inspection records shall indicate which track(s) are traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot as outlined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

Class of track	Type of track	Required frequency
Excepted track, and Class 1, 2, and 3 track	Main track and sidings	Weekly ¹ with at least 3 calendar days' interval between inspections, or before use, if the track is used less than once a week, or twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections, if the track carries passenger trains ² or more than 10 million gross tons of traffic during the preceding calendar year.
Excepted track and Class 1, 2, and 3 track	Other than main track and sidings	Monthly with at least 20 calendar days interval between inspections.
Class 4 and 5 track		Twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections.
¹ An inspection week is defined as a seven (7) day period beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday.
² “Twice weekly” inspection requirement for track carrying regularly scheduled passenger trains does not apply where passengers train service consists solely of tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations as defined in 49 CFR 238.5 and the following conditions are met for an inspection week: (1) No passenger service is operated during the inspection week, or (2) if passenger service is operated during the inspection week: (i) The passenger service is operated only on a weekend or a 3-day extended weekend (weekend plus a contiguous Monday or Friday), and (ii) an inspection is conducted no more than 1 calendar day before a weekend or 3-day extended weekend on which passenger service is to be operated.

(d) If the § 213.7 qualified person making the inspection finds a deviation from the requirements of this part, the inspector shall immediately initiate remedial action. Any subsequent movements to facilitate repairs on track that is out of service must be authorized by a § 213.7 qualified person.

Note to § 213.233:

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no part of this section will in any way be construed to limit the inspector's discretion as it involves inspection speed and sight distance.

[63 FR 34029, June 22, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 63389, Oct. 7, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Charles Harris v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 784 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Charles Harris v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 784 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 12× “49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (a). It requires that they “be made on foot or by riding over the track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with this part.”

BNSF Ry. v. FRA, 62 F.4th 905 (5th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (b). This case centers on a new technology called “Automated Track Inspection,” or “ATI.”

Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012). “The court offered as examples four specific FRSA regulations: 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.233 (setting forth instructions for procedure and frequency of track inspections), 234.”

BNSF Ry. v. FRA, 105 F.4th 691 (5th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “49 C.F.R. §§ 213.233 (b),(c). New technology offers improvement over this system.”

Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Minnesota 2007). “Plaintiffs overlook the Eighth Circuit’s recognition that train inspections fall squarely in the midst of multiple FRA regulations: federal regulations establish a specific inspection protocol including how, 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (b), when, §§ 213.233(c) & .”

Grade v. BNSF Ry. Co., 676 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2012). ““Similarly, federal regulations establish a specific inspection protocol including how, 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (b), when, §§ 213.233(c) & .”

Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Mo. 2013). “” Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Allegation “j” is precluded by 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (b) and (c). Section 213.”

Cottles v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 224 So. 3d 572 (Ala. 2016). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.233 and 213.235. . Norfolk Southern makes this argument despite the fact that it asserts in a footnote that "industry tracks such as the Daikin tracks are not within the 'general railroad system of transportation' and that therefore the FRA Track Safety…”

Thompson v. Ne. Illinois Reg'l Commuter R.R., 854 N.E.2d 744 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, 49 C.F.R. §213.233 (2005)) and employee training (see, e.”

Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006). “Similarly, federal regulations establish a specific inspection protocol including how, 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (b), when, §§ 213.233(c) & .”

Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 738 F. Supp. 2d 932 (E.D. Mo. 2010). “, 49 C.F.R. § 213.233 (setting forth the requirements for FRSA-required track inspections by owners of railroad track); 49 C.”

Schmoock v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. (M.D. La. 2024). · cites it 6× “24: All State and Federal regulations imposing a duty upon the defendants to inspect and maintain the subjection railroad crossing, including but not limited to the requirements under 49 CFR 213.233. (See Doc. 33-8.) As such, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s state law…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.