49 C.F.R. § 217.2

Preemptive effect

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

Normal State negligence standards apply where there is no Federal action covering the subject matter. Under 49 U.S.C. 20106 (section 20106), issuance of the regulations in this part preempts any State law, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, except an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local railroad safety or railroad security hazard; that is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and that does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce. Section 20106 permits State tort actions arising from events or activities occurring on or after January 18, 2002, for the following: violation of the Federal standard of care established by regulation or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety, such as these regulations) or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security); a party's violation of, or failure to comply with, its own plan, rule, or standard that it created pursuant to a regulation or order issued by either of the two Secretaries; and a party's violation of a State standard that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard, is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government, and does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce. Nothing in section 20106 creates a Federal cause of action on behalf of an injured party or confers Federal question jurisdiction for such State law causes of action.

[73 FR 8495, Feb. 13, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Henning v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008).
Henning v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “(2) This subsection shall apply to all pending State law causes of action arising from events or activities occurring on or after January 18, 2002.”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Zeagler, 748 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. 2013). “Norfolk Southern’s citation of 49 CFR §§ 217.2 and 218.4 is equally unavailing.”
Murrell v. Union Pac. R.R., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Or. 2008). “The changes made in section 20106 will be memorialized in new federal regulations taking effect on April 14, 2008.”
Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008). “[7] Subsection (a)(2)(A), (B), and (C), of course, permits a state to adopt requirements that are purely local in nature, not incompatible with federal regulations and orders such as those of the Secretary of Transportation or that do not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.…”
Webb v. CSX Transp., Inc. (E.D. Ky. 2025). “” 49 C.F.R. § 217.2 . And, a state tort action may yet proceed, even when a federal regulation covers the subject matter, for “violation of the Federal standard of care established by regulation or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety .”
Seronde v. bnsf/morris (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 20106 (a)(1)- (2) (2015); 49 C.F.R. § 217.2 (2015). The Serondes do not dispute that the BNSF train was traveling within the federally prescribed speed limit.”
Tom Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Compa (8th Cir. 2008). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 217.2 and 218.4. -31- at the same time has carefully protected the concept of federal uniformity established by subsection (a).”
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.