(a) On or before December 21, 1994, each Class I railroad, Class II railroad, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and each railroad providing commuter service in a metropolitan or suburban area that is in operation on November 21, 1994, shall file with the Federal Railroad Administrator, Washington, DC 20590, one copy of its code of operating rules, timetables, and timetable special instructions which were in effect on November 21, 1994. Each Class I railroad, each Class II railroad, and each railroad providing commuter service in a metropolitan or suburban area that commences operations after November 21, 1994, shall file with the Administrator one copy of its code of operating rules, timetables, and timetable special instructions before it commences operations.
(b) After November 21, 1994, each Class I railroad, each Class II railroad, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and each railroad providing commuter service in a metropolitan or suburban area shall file each new amendment to its code of operating rules, each new timetable, and each new timetable special instruction with the Federal Railroad Administrator within 30 days after it is issued.
(c) On or after November 21, 1994, each Class III railroad and any other railroad subject to this part but not subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall keep one copy of its current code of operating rules, timetables, and timetable special instructions and one copy of each subsequent amendment to its code of operating rules, each new timetable, and each new timetable special instruction, at its system headquarters, and shall make such records available to representatives of the Federal Railroad Administration for inspection and copying during normal business hours.
[59 FR 43070, Aug. 22, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “He contends that the railroad‟s policy regarding sight obstructions was issued pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 217.7 , 217.11, and 218.1. These regulations, however, do not require railroads to create specific policies but merely require a railroad to keep copies of its operating rules…”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Zeagler, 748 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 2× “, see 49 CFR § 217.7 (a), to periodically train their employees on their operating rules, see 49 CFR § 217.”
Johns v. CSX Transp., Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (M.D. Ga. 2016).
“Plaintiff appears to argue that because 49 C.F.R. § 217.7 requires that a railroad company file with the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) “one copy of its code of operating rules, timetables, and timetable special instructions” that the TSI was developed pursuant to a…”
Civil City of South Bend, Ind. v. Conrail, 880 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Ind. 1995).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. §§ 217.7 and 217.11 Conrail and Amtrak next contend that the ordinances are preempted because the Secretary has promulgated other regulations concerning the sounding of locomotive horns at grade crossings.”
Burlington N. R.R. v. City of Connell, 811 F. Supp. 1459 (E.D. Wash. 1993).
“) Because Burlington was required to file its operating rules, 49 C.F.R. § 217.7 , and because a willful violation of the rules could result in federal sanctions, 49 C.”
Sipes v. Union Pac. R.R., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (E.D. Ark. 2002).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 217.7 . Federal regulations cover all aspects of the subject of track classification.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 346 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
“As noted above, 49 C.F.R. §§ 217.7 -.11 requires the Railroads (1) to file copies of their operating rules with the FRA, (2) to conduct tests and inspections to determine compliance with their operating rules, (3) to keep records of these tests and inspections and to report…”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Tobergte (E.D. Ky. 2021).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 217.7 (b). Defendants claim Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant Tobergte with reasonably adequate training and reasonably safe supervision in violation of the FELA.”
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.