(a) This part prescribes minimum—
(1) Maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for highway-rail grade crossing warning systems;
(2) Standards for the reporting of failures of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems and for the actions that railroads must take when such systems malfunction;
(3) Requirements for certain identified States to update their existing State highway-rail grade crossing action plans and submit reports about the implementation of their existing plans and for the remaining States and the District of Columbia to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans;
(4) Requirements that certain railroads establish systems for receiving toll-free telephone calls reporting various unsafe conditions at highway-rail grade crossings and pathway grade crossings, and for taking certain actions in response to those calls; and
(5) Requirements for reporting to, and periodically updating information contained in, the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory for highway-rail and pathway crossings.
(b) This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.
[77 FR 35190, June 12, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 786, Jan. 6, 2015; 85 FR 80659, Dec. 14, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Winford Hartry v. Ron Johnson Jr. Enter., Inc., 815 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “34 The plain language of the regulation directs a railway to take certain action in the event that it receives a credible report about a false activation-a minimum requirement as specifically stated in 49 CFR § 234.1 (b). It does not limit railway liability to its employee in…”
Stone v. CSX Transp., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 789 (S.D.W. Va 1999).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 234.1 - 234.6 (Subpart A) and 49 C.”
Mills v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 526 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See 49 CFR § 234.1 ; 2 59 FR 50105 . Thus we hold that all the prior similar occurrences had sufficient substantial similarity to the activation failure in this case to be relevant and material for admission into evidence, because all automatic warning devices had to perform to…”
Winford Hartry v. Ron Johnson Jr. Enter., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “”24 The regulations contain a number of subsections related to reports of signal failures,25 accidents,26 and plans of action27 responses that railroads are required to take in response to certain issues,28 like false activation of signals,29 maintenance 23 (Emphasis supplied.”
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.