49 U.s.c. 20701
49USC20701.doc
Occupational Noise Exposure for Railroad Operating Employees
49 U.S.C. 20701
OMB: 2130-0571
Page
49 USCA § 20701
49 U.S.C.A. § 20701
A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances--
(1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury;
(2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and
(3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter.
(Added Pub.L. 103-272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 885.)
<General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or Tables>
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1994 Acts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20701 ..... 45:23. Feb. 17, 1911, ch. 103, § 2, 36 Stat.
913; Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 169, § 1, 38
Stat. 1192; restated June 7, 1924, ch.
355, § 2, 43 Stat. 659; June 22, 1988,
Pub.L. 100-342, § 14(2), 102 Stat. 632.
45:30(1st sentence Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 169, § 2(1st sentence
related to 45:23). related to § 2 of Act of Feb. 17,
1911), 38 Stat. 1192; Apr. 22, 1940,
ch. 124, § 2, 54 Stat. 148.
49 Oct. 15, 1966, Pub.L. 89-670, §
App.:1655(e)(1)(E), 6(e)(1)(E), (F), 80 Stat. 939.
(F).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, before clause (1), the words "locomotive or tender ... locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances" are substituted for "locomotive ... locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof" in 45:23 and "the provision of sections 22 to 29 ... of this title as to the equipment of locomotives shall apply to and include the entire locomotive and tender and all their parts with the same force and effect as it applies to locomotive boilers and their appurtenances" in 45:30 for clarity and because of the restatement. In clause (1), the words "in the service to which the same are put" and "in the active service of such railroad" in 45:23 are omitted as surplus. The words "danger of personal injury" are substituted for "peril to life or limb" for clarity and consistency in this part. In clause (2), the words "from time to time" are omitted as surplus. The words "as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter" are substituted for "in accordance with the provisions of sections 22 to 29 and 31 to 34 of this title" for clarity and consistency. In clause (3), the words "prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter" are substituted for "prescribed in the rules and regulations hereinafter provided for" for clarity and because of the restatement. House Report No. 103-180.
Regulation of train equipment and cars, see
Railroads
Encyclopedias
Appurtenances of locomotives or tenders 3
Dangerous or perilous conditions 4
National uniformity of regulation 1
Parts and appurtenances of locomotives or tenders 3
Perilous conditions 4
State regulation or control 1
Unnecessary danger of personal injury 4
Use of locomotive or tender on railroad line 2
1. State regulation or control
See, also, Notes of Decisions under section 20106 of this title.
Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) did not provide a
basis for federal jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine
in action brought by injured train passengers and survivors of those
killed in train collision against locomotive manufacturer; nothing in
the LIA indicated that Congress clearly intended completely to
replace state law with federal law and create a federal forum at the
same time. Adkins v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C.A.7 (Ill.)
2003, 326 F.3d 828. Federal
Courts
The BIA, a comprehensive, national regime of
locomotive regulation enforced by the FELA and threat of heavy civil
penalties, preempts state common-law remedies against railroad
manufacturers for injuries arising out of alleged design defects in
their trains. Law
v. General Motors Corp., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1997, 114 F.3d 908.
Products Liability
Ordinances prohibiting audible train warnings at
certain railroad crossings were not preempted by federal regulations
on locomotive safety equipment, since regulating use of equipment was
distinct from regulating equipment. Civil
City of South Bend, Ind. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., N.D.Ind.1995,
880 F.Supp. 595. Municipal
Corporations
Boiler Inspection Act preempted motorist's state
common law and products liability causes of action against railroad
and locomotive manufacturer arising from train-car collision at
railway crossing; allowing state tort claims to stand would result
in requirements of reflective material, and oscillating, strobe, or
ditch lights on locomotives, which would be additional to federal
requirements, comprising nationally uniform standard of regulating
locomotive equipment. ringston v. Consolidated
Rail Corp. (N.D.Ohio 07-05-1994) 863 F.Supp. 535,
affirmed 130
F.3d 241, rehearing and
suggestion for rehearing en banc denied, certiorari denied 118
S.Ct. 1560, 523 U.S. 1094, 140 L.Ed.2d 792.
Products Liability
2. Use of locomotive or tender on railroad line
Locomotive upon which employee was working when
she was injured was not in use at time of accident for purposes of
Boiler Inspection Act (BIA), thus, employee was not entitled to jury
instruction under BIA where train was inactive in yard for eight
hours awaiting cleaning, train was not idling even though its lights
were on, employee was only person working on train and train was only
undergoing light maintenance. Crockett
v. Long Island R.R., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1995, 65 F.3d 274.
Employers' Liability
Stalled locomotive from which railroad employee
fell and was injured was not in use at the time of the incident as
required to subject the railroad to absolute liability under the
Locomotive Act, where the employee, an electrician, was called to the
locomotive to determine why it stopped running, locomotive's engine
was not idling, the train's crew was not due for two hours, and,
although the locomotive was set out on a regular track and was not in
a repair facility, the electrician blue-flagged the track so that
other locomotives would not enter the area. Carder
v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, N.D.Ind.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 981.
Employers' Liability
Injuries suffered by "shifter" or "short
run" engineer when he entered cab of locomotive in order to take
controls for operation, were suffered while locomotive was "in
use," as required for coverage under Boiler Act. McGrath
v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.Mass.1996, 943 F.Supp. 95,
vacated in part 136
F.3d 838. Employers'
Liability
Locomotive was in use, for purposes of Boiler
Inspection Act provision prohibiting railroad from using unsafe
locomotive, when machinist was injured while pushing misaligned
drawbar; machinist testified that he had completed his inspection of
locomotive in inspection "pit" and that couplers had been
split, track upon which locomotive was located was not locked out as
it would have been if machinist had determined it was necessary to
work on locomotive, and, since it would be difficult for machinist to
prove that locomotive had yet to be fueled and sanded, burden shifted
to railroad to prove that machinist's testimony that locomotive was
ready for crew was incorrect, and it failed to do so. Edwards
v. Alton & Southern Ry. Co., Ill.App. 5 Dist.1995, 656 N.E.2d
208, 212 Ill.Dec. 55, 275 Ill.App.3d 529,
appeal denied 662
N.E.2d 423, 214 Ill.Dec. 857, 165 Ill.2d 549,
certiorari denied 116
S.Ct. 1851, 517 U.S. 1221, 134 L.Ed.2d 952.
Employers' Liability
3. Parts and appurtenances of locomotives or tenders
Locomotive Inspection Act applied to locomotive
crane used by non-common carrier in industrial scrapyard even though
such cranes were excluded from inspection requirements of the
Locomotive Safety Standards enacted by the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA); although FRA did not exercise its regulatory
authority to the full extent, it treated locomotive cranes as subject
to regulation under the Act. Forrester
v. American Dieselelectric, Inc., C.A.9 (Wash.) 2001, 255 F.3d 1205.
Railroads
When locomotive radio was detached by engineer
from its casing and carried to another locomotive, it was no longer a
part or appurtenance of locomotive for purposes of liability under
the Boiler Inspection Act. Varney
v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., S.D.W.Va.1995, 899 F.Supp. 280.
Employers' Liability
4. Unnecessary danger of personal injury
Jury's answer to interrogatory indicating that oil
on locomotive walkway caused railroad employee's injury did not
amount to finding that oil on walkway was a peril in violation of BIA
regulation, where jury was erroneously instructed that presence of
oil violated BIA; jury was in no way asked to decide whether oil
constituted a peril under the BIA or through the regulation. Gregory
v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1994, 32 F.3d 160,
rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied 48
F.3d 533. Employers'
Liability
Broken strap on locomotive radio did not
constitute a violation of Boiler Inspection Act and did not impose
strict liability on railroad for injuries suffered by engineer when
he dropped radio as he was carrying it from one locomotive to
another; even assuming that radio, when removed by engineer and
transported to second locomotive, continued to constitute a part or
appurtenance of a locomotive within meaning of the Act, broken strap
did not create an unnecessary peril of life or limb as a matter of
law. Varney
v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., S.D.W.Va.1995, 899 F.Supp. 280.
Employers' Liability
49 U.S.C.A. § 20701, 49 USCA § 20701
Current through P.L. 108-144 (excluding P.L. 108-136, 108-137) approved 12-02-03
Copr. © West Group 2003. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
| File Type | application/CDFV2-corrupt |
| File Modified | 1998-01-22 |
| File Created | 2015-01-28 |
© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy