49 C.F.R. § 242.501
Review board established
(a) Any person who has been denied certification, denied recertification, or has had his or her certification revoked and believes that a railroad incorrectly determined that he or she failed to meet the certification requirements of this regulation when making the decision to deny or revoke certification, may petition the Federal Railroad Administrator to review the railroad's decision.
(b) The Administrator has delegated initial responsibility for adjudicating such disputes to the Operating Crew Review Board.
(c) The Operating Crew Review Board shall be composed of employees of the Federal Railroad Administration selected by the Administrator.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Turner v. BNSF Ry., 138 F.4th 224 (5th Cir. 2025).
Turner v. BNSF Ry., 138 F.4th 224 (5th Cir. 2025). “§ 20135 (b)(1); see also 49 C.F.R. §§ 242.501 -.511. Turner instead filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – the only administrative remedy that he was required to exhaust before filing an ADA action.”
DeFries v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (D. Or. 2025). “49 C.F.R. § 242.501 (a) (emphasis added).”
Donahue v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “In support thereof, 18 Union Pacific cites to 49 C.F.R. § 242.501 , which provides: “Any person who has been 19 denied certification, denied recertification, or has had his or her certification revoked and 20 believes that a railroad incorrectly determined that he or she failed…”
Antidormi v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (N.D.N.Y. 2019). “]” 49 C.F.R. § 242.501 . 7 The court properly considers the Review Board’s decision at this stage because the complaint “relies heavily upon its terms and effect, which renders the document integral to [it].”
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pac. R.R. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “49 C.F.R. § 242.501 . Importantly, both the FRA hearing conservation regulation and the conductor certification regulation set only “minimum” standards, and railroads are not prohibited from adopting more stringent requirements.”
Blankinship v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (D. Ariz. 2024). “See 49 C.F.R. § 242.501 . However, Plaintiff did not appeal or contest 12 the second Light Cannon test or the results thereof.”
Stern v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (D. Ariz. 2025). “” 49 C.F.R. § 242.501 (a). Review includes 20 considering information submitted by the parties, see 49 C.”
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.