(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any owner of track to which this part applies who knows or has notice that the track does not comply with the requirements of this part, shall—
(1) Bring the track into compliance;
(2) Halt operations over that track; or
(3) Operate under authority of a person designated under § 213.7(a), subject to conditions set forth in this part. If the operation is on continuous welded rail (CWR) track, the person under whose authority operations are conducted must also be designated under § 213.7(c).
(b) If an owner of track to which this part applies designates a segment of track as “excepted track” under the provisions of § 213.4, operations may continue over that track without complying with the provisions of subparts B, C, D, and E of this part, unless otherwise expressly stated.
(c) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns responsibility for the track to another person (by lease or otherwise), written notification of the assignment shall be provided to FRA's Track and Structures Division at least 30 days in advance of the assignment. The notification may be made by any party to that assignment, but shall be in writing and include the following—
(1) The name and address of the track owner;
(2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is assigned (assignee);
(3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner and the assignee;
(4) A precise identification of the track;
(5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to carry out the duties of the track owner under this part; and
(6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment to him of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this part.
(d) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee or both responsible for compliance with this part and subject to penalties under § 213.15.
(e) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface Transportation Board to provide service over the track of another railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner of that track for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the directed service order remains in effect.
(f) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
[63 FR 34029, June 22, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 63387, Oct. 7, 2020; 90 FR 28136, July 1, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Martin Jaranowski v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 72 F.4th 744 (7th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, he argues the evidence can show violations of 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) (requiring track owners to comply with Track Safety Standards or to halt operations on noncompliant track); § 213.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 149 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The Barbers point this court to 49 C.F.R § 213.5 (2003) and states that Union Pacific could have been fined up to $22,000 per day for each day of noncompliance.”
Jeffery Kopplin v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd., 914 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2019).
“The judge addressed several other questions, including the extent to which regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act define the standard of care for FELA actions and the extent to which 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) imposes a notice requirement for negligence per se…”
Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012).
“Cowden asserts that 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) imposes a requirement that railroads remedy any defect, but the plain language of the regulation does not support his assertion.”
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 980 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (E.D. Mo. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff avers that 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) mandates Defendant take such remedial measures.”
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Mo. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Defendant cites 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a), which requires that *1023 any owner of track to which this part applies who knows of or has notice that the track does not comply with the requirements of this part, shall .”
Gary Miller v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 972 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2020).
“49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) (emphases added). The directive does not apply to Part 218 and the regulation on main track switches.”
Fair v. BNSF Ry. Co., 238 Cal. App. 4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“( 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.5 , 213.7 (2014).) BNSF asserts that these regulations, taken together, evidence FRA’s intent to substantially subsume any negligent switch inspection claim.”
Guerrera v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (E.D. La. 2025).
· cites it 3× “24 He contends that Union Pacific’s failure to comply with this statutory duty compels a finding that Union Pacific was negligent per se under FELA, because “no employee who is injured shall be guilty of contributory negligence where the railroad’s violation of any statute or…”
Jaranowski v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. (N.D. Ind. 2022).
· cites it 2× “As a result, he filed this lawsuit against IHB claiming that it violated FELA as well as several Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Track Safety Standards (hereinafter referred to as “Track Safety Standards”): 49 C.F.R. §§213.5 (a); 213.37(c); 213.133(a); 213.”
Jeffery Kopplin v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. (7th Cir. 2019).
“The judge addressed several other questions, including the extent to which regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act define the standard of care for FELA actions and the extent to which 49 C.F.R. § 213.5 (a) imposes a notice requirement for negligence per se…”
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.