C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER I—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER D—PIPELINE SAFETY › PART 199—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING › Subpart B—Drug Testing

49 C.F.R. § 199.101

Anti-drug plan

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

(a) Each operator shall maintain and follow a written anti-drug plan that conforms to the requirements of this part and the DOT Procedures. The plan must contain—

(1) Methods and procedures for compliance with all the requirements of this part, including the employee assistance program;

(2) The name and address of each laboratory that analyzes the specimens collected for drug testing;

(3) The name and address of the operator's Medical Review Officer, and Substance Abuse Professional; and

(4) Procedures for notifying employees of the coverage and provisions of the plan.

(b) The Associate Administrator or the State Agency that has submitted a current certification under the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by an operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity for hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.206 or the relevant State procedures, require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.

[53 FR 47096, Nov. 21, 1988, as amended by Amdt. 199-2, 54 FR 51850, Dec. 18, 1989; Amdt. 199-4, 56 FR 31091, July 9, 1991; 56 FR 41077, Aug. 19, 1991; Amdt. 199-13, 61 FR 18518, Apr. 26, 1996; Amdt. 199-15, 63 FR 36863, July 8, 1998. Redesignated by Amdt. 199-19, 66 FR 47118, Sept. 11, 2001; Amdt. 199-25, 78 FR 58915, Sept. 25, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2018–2018 · leading case: Jose Gregorio Sandoval v. Disa, Inc. Disa Global Solutions, Inc. (Tex. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jose Gregorio Sandoval v. Disa, Inc. Disa Global Solutions, Inc. (Tex. App. 2018). “” See 49 C.F.R. §§ 199.101 . Sandoval casts his negligence issue as one of first impression, seeking to distinguish the Texas Supreme Court’s decisions in Mission Petroleum, 106 S.”
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.