49 C.F.R. § 214.319

Working limits, generally

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

Working limits established on controlled track shall conform to the provisions of § 214.321 Exclusive track occupancy, § 214.323 Foul time, or § 214.325 Train coordination. Working limits established on non-controlled track shall conform to the provision of § 214.327 Inaccessible track.

(a) Working limits established under any procedure shall, in addition, conform to the following provisions:

(1) Only a roadway worker in charge who is qualified in accordance with § 214.353 shall establish or have control over working limits for the purpose of establishing on-track safety.

(2) Only one roadway worker in charge who is qualified in accordance with § 214.353 shall have control over working limits on any one segment of track.

(3) All affected roadway workers shall be notified before working limits are released for the operation of trains. Working limits shall not be released until all affected roadway workers have either left the track or have been afforded on-track safety through train approach warning in accordance with § 214.329.

(b) Each Class I or Class II railroad or each railroad providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation that utilizes controlled track working limits as a form of on-track safety (under §§ 214.321 through 214.323) in signalized territory shall:

(1) By July 1, 2017, evaluate its on-track safety program and identify an appropriate method(s) of providing redundant signal protections for roadway work groups who depend on a train dispatcher or control operator to provide signal protection in establishing controlled track working limits. For purposes of this section, redundant signal protections means risk mitigation measures or safety redundancies adopted to ensure the proper establishment and maintenance of signal protections for controlled track working limits until such working limits are released by the roadway worker in charge. Appropriate redundant protections could include the use of various risk mitigation measures (or a combination of risk mitigation measures) such as technology, training, supervision, or operating-based procedures; or could include use of redundant signal protection, such as shunting, designed to prevent signal system-related incursions into established controlled track working limits; and

(2) By January 1, 2018, specifically identify, implement, and comply with the method(s) of providing redundant protections in its on-track safety program.

(c) Upon a railroad's request, FRA will consider an exemption from the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section for each segment of track(s) for which operations are governed by a positive train control system under part 236, subpart I, of this chapter. A request for approval to exempt a segment of track must be submitted in writing to the FRA Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer. The FRA Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer will review a railroad's submission and will notify a railroad of its approval or disapproval in writing within 90 days of FRA's receipt of a railroad's written request, and shall specify the basis for any disapproval decision.

[81 FR 37886, June 10, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. Dep't of Transp., 198 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. Dep't of Transp., 198 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. § 214.319 (c). The dispute in this case centers on the precise amount of information about the red flag that paragraph (c)(5) requires the dispatcher to give the train engineer.”
Woods v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 2004 MT 332 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “¶22 Lillian also relies on 49 C.F.R. 214.319 and 214.321. Section 214.”
Woods v. Burlington North. & Santa Fe Ry., 2004 MT 332 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “¶ 22 Lillian also relies on 49 C.F.R. §§ 214.319 and 214.321. Section 214.”
Assn Amer RR v. DOT, 198 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. 214.319(c). 7 The dispute in this case centers on the precise amount of information about the red flag that paragraph (c)(5) requires the dispatcher to give the train engineer.”
Railware, Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “¶¶ 25-26 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 214.319 (b))). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s past, present, and intended future centralized railroad control systems include technology that infringes on the Asserted Patents.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 214.319(c) — 1 case
Assn Amer RR v. DOT, 198 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. 214.319(c). 7 The dispute in this case centers on the precise amount of information about the red flag that paragraph (c)(5) requires the dispatcher to give the train engineer.”
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.