49 C.F.R. § 229.139

Sanitation, servicing requirements

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

(a) The sanitation compartment of each lead locomotive in use shall be sanitary.

(b) All components required by § 229.137(a) for the lead locomotive in use shall be present consistent with the requirements of this part, and shall operate as intended such that:

(1) All mechanical systems shall function;

(2) Water shall be present in sufficient quantity to permit flushing;

(3) For those systems that utilize chemicals for treatment, the chemical (chlorine or other comparable oxidizing agent) used to treat waste must be present; and

(4) No blockage is present that prevents waste from evacuating the bowl.

(c) The sanitation compartment of each occupied locomotive used in switching service pursuant to § 229.137(b)(1)(ii), in transfer service pursuant to § 229.137(b)(1)(iii), or in a trailing position when the locomotive is occupied, shall be sanitary.

(d) Where the railroad uses a locomotive pursuant to § 229.137(e) in switching or transfer service with a defective toilet facility, such use shall not exceed 10 calendar days from the date on which the defective toilet facility became defective. The date on which the toilet facility becomes defective shall be entered on the daily inspection report.

(e) Where it is determined that the modesty lock required by § 229.137(a)(2) is defective, the railroad shall repair the modesty lock on or before the next 92-day inspection required by this part.

[67 FR 16050, Apr. 4, 2002]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: Szekeres v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Szekeres v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. (2010) ca6 · cites it 2× “5 sets forth definitions of “sanitary” and “unsanitary”: Sanitary means lacking any condition in which any significant amount of filth, trash, or human waste is present in such a manner that a reasonable person would believe that the condition might constitute a health hazard;…”

Ricky Edwards v. CSX Transportation Inc. (2016) ca6 · cites it 2× “137(c). Because CSX had to perform this daily inspection once a “calendar day,” -the May 28 inspection had not become due when Edwards fell at 6:15 p.”

Gary Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2020) ca8 “(citing 49 C.F.R. § 229.139 (a) (emphasis added)).”

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.