49 C.F.R. § 229.9

Movement of non-complying locomotives

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), § 229.125(g), and § 229.131(b) and (c)(1), a locomotive with one or more conditions not in compliance with this part may be moved only as a lite locomotive or a dead locomotive after the carrier has complied with the following:

(1) A qualified person shall determine—

(i) That it is safe to move the locomotive; and

(ii) The maximum speed and other restrictions necessary for safely conducting the movement;

(2)(i) The engineer in charge of the movement of the locomotive shall be notified in writing and inform all other crew members in the cab of the presence of the non-complying locomotive and the maximum speed and other restrictions determined under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) A copy of the tag described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section may be used to provide the notification required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

(3) A tag bearing the words “non-complying locomotive” and containing the following information, shall be securely attached to the control stand on each MU or control cab locomotive and to the isolation switch or near the engine start switch on every other type of locomotive—

(i) The locomotive number;

(ii) The name of the inspecting carrier;

(iii) The inspection location and date;

(iv) The nature of each defect;

(v) Movement restrictions, if any;

(vi) The destination; and

(vii) The signature of the person making the determinations required by this paragraph.

(b) A locomotive that develops a non-complying condition enroute may continue to utilize its propelling motors, if the requirements of paragraph (a) are otherwise fully met, until the earlier of—

(1) The next calendar day inspection, or

(2) The nearest forward point where the repairs necessary to bring it into compliance can be made.

(c) A non-complying locomotive may be moved lite or dead within a yard, at speeds not in excess of 10 miles per hour, without meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the movement is solely for the purpose of repair. The carrier is responsible to insure that the movement may be safely made.

(d) A dead locomotive may not continue in use following a calendar day inspection as a controlling locomotive or at the head of a train or locomotive consist.

(e) A locomotive does not cease to be a locomotive because its propelling motor or motors are inoperative or because its control jumper cables are not connected.

(f) Nothing in this section authorizes the movement of a locomotive subject to a Special Notice for Repair unless the movement is made in accordance with the restrictions contained in the Special Notice.

(g) Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall not apply to sanitation conditions covered by §§ 229.137 and 229.139. Sections 229.137 and 229.139 set forth specific requirements for the movement and repair of locomotives with defective sanitation compartments.

[45 FR 21109, Mar. 31, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 8887, Mar. 6, 1996; 67 FR 16050, Apr. 4, 2002; 72 FR 59223, Oct. 19, 2007]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Munns v. CSX Transp., Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ohio 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Munns v. CSX Transp., Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ohio 2008). “Plaintiffs Withdrawn LIA Claims Plaintiffs original complaint alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 229.9 , 229.23, 229.63 (specific requirements) and 49 C.”

Grogg v. CSX Transp., Inc., 659 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Ind. 2009). “63 and 49 C.F.R. § 229.9 . As such, plaintiff agrees that CSXT is entitled to partial summary judgment as to these specific allegations only.”

Haager v. Chicago Rail Link, LLC, 232 F.R.D. 289 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “In Opinion 7, he asserts that “[p]ursuant to 49 CFR § 229.9 , CSXT should have repaired the inoperable cab door on the 4767 at the first forward point where the repairs could have been made after the door latch was reported as being defective on March 22, 2004.”

Davis v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2016 IL App (3d) 150464 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Although we recognize that the LIA contains a safe harbor provision as defendant suggests, which allows a carrier to remove a defective locomotive from service and repair it without absolute liability attaching under the LIA (see 49 C.F.R. § 229.9 (2011)), there is no indication…”

Gilliam v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. (S.D. Ohio 2020). · cites it 3× “[E]ach locomotive in use shall be inspected at least once during each calendar day. A written report of the inspection shall be made.”

Tripp v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2025 IL App (1st) 231844-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “See 49 C.F.R. § 229.9 (2025). First, UP conceded that Tripp suffered at least some injury from the fall at trial.”

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.