49 C.F.R. § 225.1

Purpose

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

The purpose of this part is to provide the Federal Railroad Administration with accurate information concerning the hazards and risks that exist on the Nation's railroads. FRA needs this information to effectively carry out its regulatory responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. chapters 201-213. FRA also uses this information for determining comparative trends of railroad safety and to develop hazard elimination and risk reduction programs that focus on preventing railroad injuries and accidents. Any State may require railroads to submit to it copies of accident/incident and injury/illness reports filed with FRA under this part, for accidents/incidents and injuries/illnesses which occur in that State.

[75 FR 68903, Nov. 9, 2010]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: BNSF Ry. Co. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 816 F.3d 628 (10th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

BNSF Ry. Co. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 816 F.3d 628 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “2 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 225.1 , 225.19 (requiring railroads to report any work-related accidents that result in medical treatment or significant injury).”

Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 833 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1987). “The Commission only requires the filing of documents such as maps and charts already maintained by the companies. See note 1 supra. Given the overall surveillance scheme contemplated by the FRSA, federal proscription of the Commission’s reporting requirements in 16 T.”

Edwards v. Consol. Rail Corp., 567 F. Supp. 1087 (D.D.C. 1983). “, 49 C.F.R. § 225.1 (federal accident reporting requirements are preemptive), and courts have honored such affirmative claims of preemption.”

Liepelt v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 378 N.E.2d 1232 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978). “” ( 49 C.F.R. §225.1 (1976).) The absence of any corresponding language in the Track Safety Standards indicates that the Secretary recognized that these standards did not cover all possible aspects of track safety.”

Lewis v. Baker, 526 F.2d 470 (2d Cir. 1975). “in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in said report or investigation,” we think it clear that the reports prepared by Talbott and by Campbell and Zuchero were not themselves monthly reports under section 41, and there is no indi *474 cation that…”

Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Commissioners v. Coleman, 542 F.2d 11 (3rd Cir. 1976). “” 49 C.F.R. § 225.1 . Plaintiffs then filed this action requesting the court to declare invalid and to enjoin enforcement of the regulations to the extent they preempt state accident reporting requirements.”

Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1034 (D. Minnesota 2014). “§ 20901 ; 49 C.F.R. §§ 225.1 , 225.5, 225.11 and 225.”

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Box, 470 F. Supp. 2d 855 (C.D. Ill. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 49 C.F. R. § 225.1. Further, under the FRSA, a civil monetary penalty of $2,500.”

Barbero v. CSX Transp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025). · cites it 4× “Thereafter, defendant moved for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligence per se claim alleging that defendant violated 49 CFR 225.1, 225.3 and 225.13. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion, and plaintiff appeals.”

S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Corp. Comm'n, 730 P.2d 448 (N.M. 1986). · cites it 3× “See 49 C.F.R. § 225.1 (1985). Railroads insist, however, that subsections B and C, which require immediate telephonic reporting of certain accidents to the Commission, are preempted by federal law (see id.”

Assn. of Irritated Residents v. Kern Cnty. Bd. etc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “” ( 49 C.F.R. § 225.1 .) The agency needs this information to effectively carry out the regulatory responsibilities assigned to it by Congress.”

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.