49 U.S.C. § 20106

Preemption

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)National Uniformity of Regulation.—(1) Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable.(2) A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order—(A) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard;(B) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and(C) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.(b)Clarification Regarding State Law Causes of Action.—(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt an action under State law seeking damages for personal injury, death, or property damage alleging that a party—(A) has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care established by a regulation or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), covering the subject matter as provided in subsection (a) of this section;(B) has failed to comply with its own plan, rule, or standard that it created pursuant to a regulation or order issued by either of the Secretaries; or(C) has failed to comply with a State law, regulation, or order that is not incompatible with subsection (a)(2).(2) This subsection shall apply to all pending State law causes of action arising from events or activities occurring on or after January 18, 2002.(c)Jurisdiction.—Nothing in this section creates a Federal cause of action on behalf of an injured party or confers Federal question jurisdiction for such State law causes of action.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 866; Pub. L. 107–296, title XVII, § 1710(c), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2319; Pub. L. 110–53, title XV, § 1528, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 453.)

Historical and Revision Notes
20106	45:434.	Oct. 16, 1970, Pub. L. 91–458, § 205, 84 Stat. 972.

Historical and Revision Notes

20106

45:434.

Oct. 16, 1970, Pub. L. 91–458, § 205, 84 Stat. 972.

In this section, before clause (1), the words “The Congress declares that” are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (3), the word “unreasonably” is substituted for “undue” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2007—Pub. L. 110–53 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text of section read as follows: “Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order—

“(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard;

“(2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and

“(3) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.”

2002—Pub. L. 107–296, § 1710(c), in introductory provisions, in first sentence inserted “and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security” after “safety”, in second sentence substituted “Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters),” for “Transportation”, and in second and third sentences inserted “or security” after “order related to railroad safety”.

Par. (1). Pub. L. 107–296, § 1710(c)(2), inserted “or security” after “safety”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 353 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporation (2013) ca3 · cites it 36× “49 U.S.C. § 20106 . The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relied on this provision in granting summary judgment for Norfolk Southern, concluding that most of Zimmerman’s claims were preempted.”

MD Mall Associates, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2013) ca3 · cites it 22× “” 49 U.S.C. § 20106 (a)(2). In support of its position, MD Mall cited a 2007 amendment to that preemption provision, which serves as a “[c]larification regarding State law causes of action.”

City of Weyauwega v. Wis. Cent. Ltd. (2018) wisctapp · cites it 19× “2d 396 ) (discussing FRSA preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 20106 ). FRSA pre-emption presents an issue of statutory construction which we resolve without deference to the circuit court.”

Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western RR, Inc. (2009) ca6 · cites it 14× “" 49 U.S.C. § 20106 (a)(1). "A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety .”

Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad (2008) ca10 · cites it 8× “Clarification Amendment to FRSA Preemption Provision Henning next claims that a 2007 clarification amendment to 49 U.S.C. § 20106 of the FRSA allows for both her inadequate signalization and negligent delay claims.”

Myers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (2002) okla · cites it 6× “11 Once the See-retary promulgates regulations or issues an order covering the subject matter of a particular safety requirement, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 20106 preempt most state laws purporting to regulate the same safety concern.”

Murrell v. Union Pacific Railroad (2008) ord · cites it 15× “In addition, railroad defendants argue FRSA’s “local safety hazard” exception, 49 U.S.C. § 20106 (a)(2)(A), does not apply in this case.”

Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (2006) pa · cites it 6× “49 U.S.C. § 20106 . Therefore, the express preemption provision of the FRSA applies if: (1) the Executive Branch has taken an action that “coverfs] the subject matter” of the state enactment; and (2) the state enactment fails to satisfy all three requirements enumerated in…”

Smith v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (2008) mont · cites it 8× “2, the Shanklin decision rested on two statutory grounds: (1) the “preemption clause” of FRSA, 49 U.S.C. § 20106 (1994); and (2) regulations promulgated by the FHWA under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation-found at 23 C.”

Scott Partenfelder v. Steve Rohde (2014) wis · cites it 17× “49 U.S.C. § 20106 (2006). ¶28 FRSA preemption applies to state common law claims as well as statutory claims.”

Frederick W. Tyrrell v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2001) ca6 · cites it 6× “In contrast, Tyrrell, along with the United States and the STB as amici curiae, construe the state regulation as one dealing with rail safety, thus requiring analysis under the FRSA’s preemption provision, 49 U.S.C. § 20106 , which provides the Federal Railroad Administration…”

O'Bannon Ex Rel. O'Bannon v. Union Pacific Railroad (1997) mowd · cites it 9× “See 49 U.S.C. § 20106 . 4 Thus, statutory construction must center on its plain meaning as the best evidence of Congress’s preemptive intent.”

Show all 353 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(1) — 1 case

BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2012) arizctapp

— 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(2) — 2 cases

Storey v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2020) cod

White v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2023) nywd

— 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(2)(A) — 1 case

White v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2023) nywd

— 49 U.S.C. § 20106(b)(1) — 1 case

Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) calctapp

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.