49 C.F.R. § 240.101

Certification program required

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

(a) Each railroad subject to this part shall have in effect a written program for certifying the qualifications of locomotive engineers.

(b) Each railroad shall have such a program in effect prior to commencing operations.

(1) A procedure for designating any person it determines to be qualified as a supervisor of locomotive engineers that complies with the criteria established in § 240.105;

(2) A designation of the classes of service that it determines will be used in compliance with the criteria established in § 240.107;

(3) A procedure for evaluating prior safety conduct that complies with the criteria established in § 240.109;

(4) A procedure for evaluating visual and hearing acuity that complies with the criteria established in § 240.121;

(5) A procedure for training that complies with the criteria established in § 240.123;

(6) A procedure for knowledge testing that complies with the criteria established in § 240.125;

(7) A procedure for skill performance testing that complies with the criteria established in § 240.127; and

(8) A procedure for monitoring operational performance that complies with the criteria established in § 240.129.

[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 74 FR 68182, Dec. 23, 2009]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi v. FRA

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi v. FRA (2020) cadc · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 240.101 (engineers); id. §§ 242.”

Turner v. BNSF Railway (2025) ca5 · cites it 3× “49 C.F.R. §§ 240.101 , 240.121, 242.117, Part 240 Appendix F, and Part 242 Appendix D.”

Green v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Inc. (2005) ca6 “” Here, there is undisputed evidence that the requirement of hearing examinations was part of the regular practice of the parties. Moreover, federal regulations require train engineers’ hearing to be within certain limits, and a Grand Trunk manager stated that the railroad had…”

Smith v. Federal Railroad Administration (2010) cadc “49 C.F.R. §§ 240.101 , 240.1. Prior to or upon suspending an engineer’s certificate, the railroad must provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing.”

Snyder v. Norfolk Southern Railway Corp. (2008) ca3 “49 C.F.R. § 240.101 . The regulations expressly permit railroads to adopt additional or more stringent requirements than those required by law.”

Carpenter v. Mineta (2005) ca9 “See 49 C.F.R. § 240.101 ; 49 C.F.R. § 240 , App.”

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad (2017) ilnd “Although the carrier, rather than a federal agency, is responsible for issuing and revoking licenses, see 49 C.F.R. § 240.101 , the criteria and procedures for revocation are set by federal regulation, see 49 C.”

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Tobergte (2021) kyed “49 C.F.R. § 240.101 (a). In such a written program, a railroad may elect to accept responsibility for training student engineers and initially certifying them.”

Hentze v. CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. (2020) ohsd “Federal transportation regulations applicable to locomotive operations, see 49 C.F.R. § 240.101 (c)(6), provide that each railroad must have a certification program for its engineers that includes “a procedure for knowledge testing” that complies with the criteria established in…”

Cromeens v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2025) ned “” 49 C.F.R. § 240.101 (c)(4). Relevant here, the distance viewing thresholds are “either .”

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.