49 U.S.C. § 21101

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
In this chapter—(1) “designated terminal” means the home or away-from-home terminal for the assignment of a particular crew.(2) “dispatching service employee” means an operator, train dispatcher, or other train employee who by the use of an electrical or mechanical device dispatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers orders related to or affecting train movements.(3) “employee” means a dispatching service employee, a signal employee, or a train employee.(4) “signal employee” means an individual who is engaged in installing, repairing, or maintaining signal systems.(5) “train employee” means an individual engaged in or connected with the movement of a train, including a hostler.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 888; Pub. L. 110–432, div. A, title I, § 108(a), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4860.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

21101(1)

45:61(b)(4) (1st sentence).

Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415, § 1(b)(4) (1st sentence); added Nov. 2, 1978, Pub. L. 95–574, § 6, 92 Stat. 2461.

21101(2)–(4)

(no source).

21101(5)

45:61(b)(2).

Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2939, § 1(b)(2), 34 Stat. 1415; restated Dec. 26, 1969, Pub. L. 91–169, § 1, 83 Stat. 463; July 8, 1976, Pub. L. 94–348, § 4(c), 90 Stat. 818.

Clause (2) is added to avoid the necessity of repeating the substance of the definition every time a “dispatching service employee” is referred to in this chapter. The language in clause (2) is derived from 45:63.

Clause (3) is added to provide a definition of “employee” when the source provisions apply to all types of employees covered by this chapter.

Clause (4) is added to avoid the necessity of repeating the substance of the definition every time a “signal employee” is referred to in this chapter. The language in clause (4) is derived from 45:63a.

In clause (5), the words “train employee” are substituted for “employee” to distinguish the term from the terms “dispatching service employee” and “signal employee”. The word “actually” is omitted as surplus.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Par. (4). Pub. L. 110–432 struck out “employed by a railroad carrier” after “individual”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2008 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–432, div. A, title I, § 108(g), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4866, provided that: “The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) [amending this section and sections 21103 and 21104 of this title] shall take effect 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 16, 2008].”

Record Keeping and Reporting

Pub. L. 110–432, div. A, title I, § 108(f), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4866, provided that:“(1)Regulations.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 16, 2008], the Secretary [of Transportation] shall prescribe a regulation revising the requirements for recordkeeping and reporting for Hours of Service of Railroad Employees contained in part 228 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations—“(A) to adjust record keeping and reporting requirements to support compliance with chapter 211 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by this Act;“(B) to authorize electronic record keeping, and reporting of excess service, consistent with appropriate considerations for user interface; and“(C) to require training of affected employees and supervisors, including training of employees in the entry of hours of service data.“(2)Procedure.—In lieu of issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking as contemplated by section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary may utilize the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to assist in development of the regulation. The Secretary may propose and adopt amendments to the revised regulations thereafter as may be necessary in light of experience under the revised requirements.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: William Conrad v. CSX Transp., Inc., 824 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 2016).
William Conrad v. CSX Transp., Inc., 824 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 2016). “Believing Deineen was due a rest period under the Hours of Service Act, 49 U.S.C. § 21101 et seq., Conrad advised Deineen that he did not need to return to work.”
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe R.R., 516 U.S. 152 (1996). “We granted certiorari to resolve a division between two Courts of Appeals regarding the correct statutory classification, under the Hours of Service Act, 49 U. S. C. §21101 et seq., of the time that train employees spend waiting for transportation at the end of their shift.”
Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor, 776 F.3d 157 (3rd Cir. 2015). “1415 (March 4, 1907), limited the number of hours railroad employees could work, if they were "actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train” and/or were an "operator, train dispatcher, or other employee who by the use of the telegraph or telephone dispatches,…”
Michigan S. R.R. Co., F/k/a Wabash & W. Ry. Co. v. City of Kendallville, Indiana, 251 F.3d 1152 (7th Cir. 2001). “The parties stipulated that “immediately adjacent” meant 15 feet from the center of any track.”
Powell v. Union Pac. R.R., 864 F. Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “; (2) that UP failed to provide plaintiff with a safe working environment in violation of the Railway Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 21101 et seq.; (3) retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against UP; and (4) eavesdropping in violation of California’s…”
Eyon Christmas v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 698 F. App'x 887 (9th Cir. 2017). “That point is self-defeating: If, indeed, the allegations of the complaint, combined with judicially noticeable facts about Union Pacific’s facilities, make it equally likely that the named local defendants have liability amounting to 80% or 5% of Union Pacific’s, then I fail to…”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 491 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. Ark. 2007). “” Union Pacific argues that this fatigue claim is preempted by federal law, citing 49 U.S.C. § 21101 (covering limitations on duty hours of train employees); 49 U.”
Vicky Bennett v. CSX Transp., Inc., 552 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir. 2014). “After reviewing the schedule, Bennett noted that it would require her to work a longer period of time than is allowed under the Hours of Service Act (the Act), 49 U.S.C. § 21101 . The Act mandates that railroad workers work no more than twelve consecutive hours and receive at…”
United Transp. Union v. Ray Lahood, 750 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Congress has attempted to clarify that the designation of terminals is to be determined by collective bargaining agreements, 49 U.S.C. § 21101 (1); H.R.Rep. No. 95-1176, at 9 (1974), and this intent has been incorporated in the FRA Agency policy, see 49 C.”
Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 612 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 21101 . Signal systems convey track and safety information.”
Paul Anderson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co (3rd Cir. 2022). “5 ; 49 U.S.C. § 21101 . Performance in either position implicates the safety of both the public and fellow railway workers.”
Ass'n of Commuter Rail Employees Local No. 9 v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “For example, engineers are subject to the Hours of Service Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 21101–21109, which limits the number of hours an engineer can work and requires extensive recordkeeping; therefore, to comply with the recordkeeping requirements, MNR pre-populates an engineer’s start…”
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.