(a) Federal Rail Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 20701-20703) make it unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless the entire locomotive and its appurtenances—
(1) Are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which they are put, without unnecessary peril to life or limb; and
(2) Have been inspected and tested as required by this part.
(b) Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or of the Federal Rail Safety Laws or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least the minimum civil monetary penalty and not more than the ordinary maximum civil monetary penalty per violation. However, penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and a penalty not to exceed the aggravated maximum civil monetary penalty per violation may be assessed, where: A grossly negligent violation, or a pattern of repeated violations, has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons; or a death or injury has occurred. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ contains a statement of agency civil penalty policy.
(c) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or report required by this part is subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311.
[77 FR 21342, Apr. 9, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 24421, Apr. 24, 2012; 81 FR 43111, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 16134, Apr. 3, 2017; 83 FR 60748, Nov. 27, 2018; 84 FR 23735, May 23, 2019; 84 FR 37074, July 31, 2019; 86 FR 1758, Jan. 11, 2021; 86 FR 23255, May 3, 2021; 87 FR 15868, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 1128, Jan. 6, 2023; 88 FR 89563, Dec. 28, 2023; 89 FR 106296, Dec. 30, 2024; 90 FR 28165, July 1, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case:
Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2018).
Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 6× “The third, fourth, and fifth "claims" for relief alleged violations of regulations promulgated by the FRA, 49 C.F.R. §§ 229.7 (reiterating the duties LIA imposes on railroad operators), 229.”
Grogg v. CSX Transp., Inc., 659 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Ind. 2009).
· cites it 5× “as they apply to the LIA — specifically, 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 and 49 C.F.R. § 229.45 .”
Elston v. Union Pac. R.R., 74 P.3d 478 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “- Defendant argues that the communication problem between the consists was temporary and thus did not constitute a de-feet under 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 (a)(1). Plaintiff offered deposition testimony to the contrary, however, in which members of the original and relieving train crews…”
Engvall v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 632 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 2001).
“§ 21302 (1994); 49 C.F.R. 229.7(b) (2000). Does Soo Line have a state law cause of action based on a violation of the LIA when the claimed equipment problem does not violate FRA regulations? GM argues that an action based on the LIA must allege a violation of an FRA regulation,…”
Munns v. CSX Transp., Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 (requiring a locomotive and its appurtenances to be “in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which they are put without unnecessary peril to life or limb”); 49 C.”
Wagner v. Union Pac. R.R., 642 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
“Wagner specifically asserted that the Railroad violated the BIA by failing to provide safe and adequate walkways on the locomotive as required by 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 (a) (1997), allowing ice and snow to exist on the walkways of the locomotive in question in violation of § 229.”
Little v. Budd Co., 339 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Kan. 2018).
“(first quoting 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 (LIA) ; then quoting 49 C.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Motive Equip., Inc., 2006 WI App 58 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 21302 (1994); 49 CFR 229.7(b) (2000). LIA, however, does not create any private right of action for injured employees.”
Haager v. Chicago Rail Link, LLC, 232 F.R.D. 289 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
“In Opinion 10, Byrnes asserts that “[h]ad CSXT’s continued use of the 4767 after being notified of the defective cab door latch been reported to me while I was an enforcement attorney for the FRA Office of Chief Counsel, I would have used my enforcement discretion to prosecute…”
Hans Harris v. BNSF Ry. Co., 393 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App. 2012).
“49 C.F.R. § 229.7 (2012). The LIA does not define “parts and appurtenances,” leaving what is included in the definition to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 229.7(b) — 2 cases
Engvall v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 632 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 2001).
“§ 21302 (1994); 49 C.F.R. 229.7(b) (2000). Does Soo Line have a state law cause of action based on a violation of the LIA when the claimed equipment problem does not violate FRA regulations? GM argues that an action based on the LIA must allege a violation of an FRA regulation,…”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Motive Equip., Inc., 2006 WI App 58 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 21302 (1994); 49 CFR 229.7(b) (2000). LIA, however, does not create any private right of action for injured employees.”
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.