49 C.F.R. § 240.211

Procedures for making the determination on performance skills

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

(a) Each railroad, prior to initially certifying or recertifying any person as an engineer for any class of train or locomotive service, shall determine that the person has demonstrated, in accordance with the requirements of § 240.127 of this part, the skills to safely operate locomotives or locomotives and trains, including the proper application of the railroad's rules and practices for the safe operation of locomotives or trains, in the most demanding class or type of service that the person will be permitted to perform.

(b) In order to make this determination, a railroad shall have written documentation showing the person either:

(1) Exhibited his or her knowledge by achieving a passing grade in testing that complies with this part; or

(2) Did not achieve a passing grade in such testing.

(c) If a person fails to achieve a passing score under the testing and evaluation procedures required by this part, no railroad shall permit or require that person to operate a locomotive as a locomotive or train service engineer prior to that person's achieving a passing score during a reexamination of his or her performance skills.

(d) No railroad shall permit a designated supervisor of locomotive engineers to test, examine or evaluate his or her own performance skills when complying with this section.

[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 74 FR 68184, Dec. 23, 2009; 85 FR 81314, Dec. 15, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “, 49 C.F.R. §§ 240.211 , 240.219, 240.117, 240.”

Klotzbach-Piper v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (D.D.C. 2021). “¶ 34; 49 C.F.R. § 240.211 (a). And to qualify on a route, an engineer must memorize the route’s physical characteristics—such as bridges or inclines—and speed restrictions.”

Hylinger v. Union Pac. R.R., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (W.D. Wash. 2008). “26 at 3; see also 49 CFR § 240.211 The plaintiff alleges that he was medically cleared to return to active work, but the defendant did not permit the plaintiff to return to his prior job.”

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.