49 C.F.R. § 219.11

General conditions for chemical tests

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

(a)(1) Any regulated employee who is subject to performing regulated service for a railroad is deemed to have consented to testing as required in subparts B, C, D, E, F, G, and K of this part.

(2) A regulated employee required to participate in alcohol and/or drug testing under this part must be on duty and subject to performing regulated service when the specimen collection is initiated and the alcohol testing/body fluid specimen collection is conducted (with the exception of pre-employment testing under subpart F of this part).

(b)(1) Each regulated employee must participate in such testing, as required under the conditions set forth in this part and implemented by a representative of the railroad or employing contractor.

(2) In any case where an employee is suffering a substantiated medical emergency and is subject to alcohol or drug testing under this part, necessary medical treatment must be accorded priority over provision of the breath or body fluid specimen(s). A medical emergency is an acute medical condition requiring immediate medical care. A railroad may require an employee to substantiate a medical emergency by providing verifiable documentation from a credible outside professional (e.g., doctor, dentist, hospital, or law enforcement officer) substantiating the medical emergency within a reasonable period of time.

(3) Failure to remain available following an accident or casualty as required by company rules (i.e., being absent without leave) is considered a refusal to participate in testing, without regard to any subsequent provision of specimens.

(c) A regulated employee who is required to be tested under subparts C, D, or E of this part and who is taken to a medical facility for observation or treatment after an accident or incident is deemed to have consented to the release to FRA of the following:

(1) The remaining portion of any body fluid specimen taken by the medical facility within 12 hours of the accident or incident that is not required for medical purposes, together with any normal medical facility record(s) pertaining to the taking of such specimen;

(2) The results of any laboratory tests for alcohol or any drug conducted by or for the medical facility on such specimen;

(3) The identity, dosage, and time of administration of any drugs administered by the medical facility before the time specimens were taken by the medical facility or before the time specimens were taken in compliance with this part; and

(4) The results of any breath tests for alcohol conducted by or for the medical facility.

(d) Any person required to participate in body fluid testing under subpart C of this part (post-accident toxicological testing) shall, if requested by a representative of the railroad or the medical facility, evidence consent to the taking of specimens, their release for toxicological analysis under pertinent provisions of this part, and release of the test results to the railroad's Medical Review Officer by promptly executing a consent form, if required by the medical facility. A regulated employee is not required to execute any document or clause waiving rights that the employee would otherwise have against the railroad, and any such waiver is void. The employee may not be required to waive liability with respect to negligence on the part of any person participating in the collection, handling or analysis of the specimen or to indemnify any person for the negligence of others. Any consent provided consistent with this section may be construed to extend only to those actions specified in this section.

(e)(1) A regulated employee who is notified of selection for testing under this part must cease to perform his or her assigned duties and proceed to the testing site either immediately or as soon as possible without adversely affecting safety.

(2) A railroad must ensure that the absence of a regulated employee from his or her assigned duties to report for testing does not adversely affect safety.

(3) Nothing in this part may be construed to authorize the use of physical coercion or any other deprivation of liberty to compel breath or body fluid testing.

(f) Any employee performing duties for a railroad who is involved in a qualifying accident or incident described in subpart C of this part, and who dies within 12 hours of that accident or incident as the result thereof, is deemed to have consented to the removal of body fluid and/or tissue specimens necessary for toxicological analysis from the remains of such person, and this consent is implied by the performance of duties for the railroad (i.e., a consent form is not required). This consent provision applies to all employees performing duties for a railroad, and not just regulated employees.

(g) Each supervisor responsible for regulated employees (except a working supervisor who is a co-worker as defined in § 219.5) must be trained in the signs and symptoms of alcohol and drug influence, intoxication, and misuse consistent with a program of instruction to be made available for inspection upon demand by FRA. Such a program shall, at a minimum, provide information concerning the acute behavioral and apparent physiological effects of alcohol, the major drug groups on the controlled substances list, and other impairing drugs. The program must also provide training on the qualifying criteria for post-accident toxicological testing contained in subpart C of this part, and the role of the supervisor in post-accident collections described in subpart C.

(h) Nothing in this subpart restricts any discretion available to the railroad to request or require that a regulated employee cooperate in additional breath or body fluid testing. However, no such testing may be performed on body fluid specimens provided under this part. For purposes of this paragraph (h), all urine from a void or oral fluid from a sampling constitutes a single specimen.

(i) A railroad required or authorized to conduct testing under this part may conduct all such testing in the United States. A foreign railroad required to conduct testing under this part may conduct such tests in its home country, provided that it otherwise complies with the requirements of this part.

[66 FR 41973, Aug. 9, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 19288, Apr. 12, 2004; 81 FR 37926, June 10, 2016; 87 FR 5734, Feb. 2, 2022; 88 FR 27652, May 2, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: Michael Chapman v. Lab One, 390 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2004).
Michael Chapman v. Lab One, 390 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “at 53,261 (emphasis added); see also 49 C.F.R. § 219.11 (d) (1989). The FRA believed that “as a practical matter, the employee will be fully protected from possible harm by virtue of the employer’s responsibility for selection of the collection entity and the provision of clear…”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Burnley, 839 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “The implied consent provision, 49 C.F.R. § 219.11 14 adds little to the reasonableness of the testing program although it does put employees on notice that they may be required to submit to such tests.”
Tom Lundeen, Individually Nanette Lundeen, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Molly Lundeen, a Minor, & Michael Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd., Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., John Salling, Individually Lorenda Poissant Salling, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Sebastian Poissant, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Dion Darveaux, Individually, on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Kendall Darveaux, a Minor Brenda Darveaux, Individually, on Behalf Of, & as a Parent & Nat. Guardian of Kendall Darveaux, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Larry Schafer, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Jenna Schafer, a Minor Tami Schafer, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Jenna Schafer, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Gerald Wickman v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Charles Swenson Sandra Swenson v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Rebecca Behnkie, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Nathaniel Behnkie, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Marilyn Carlson v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Larry Crabbe Carol Crabbe v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Wilfred Dahly Geraldine Dahly v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Denise Duchsherer Leo Duchsherer Joshua Duchsherer v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Judy Deutsch, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Nat. Guardian of Tyrone Deutsch, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Jo Ann Flick v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Leo Gleason v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Charlotte Goerndt v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Mary Beth Gross, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Brett Gross, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Darla M. Just v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Irene Clore Korgel v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Richard McBride Linda McBride v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Richard Muhlbradt v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Lonnie Shigley v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Bobby Smith Mary Smith v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Rachelle Todosichuk v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Shelly Hingst v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Nathan Freeman, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a Minor Nicole Freeman, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Doug Weltzin v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Melissa Todd v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Ray Lakoduk v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Trent Westmeyer Randi Lou Westmeyer v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Leroy Slorby v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Mark Nisbet Sandra Nisbet v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). 4 We also noted the FRSA does not "provide[] a private right of action for a person aggrieved by negligence in the analysis of a drug test, and the absence of an alternative cause of action militates against a finding of complete…”
Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). . We also noted the FRSA does not "provide[] a private right of action for a person aggrieved by negligence in the analysis of a drug test, and the absence of an alternative cause of action militates against a finding of complete…”
Follmer v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 585 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “49 C.F.R. § 219.11 (f) (1997) provides that any employee consents “to removal of body fluid and/or tissue samples necessary for toxicological analysis from the remains of such employee [who] dies within 12 hours of [certain accidents or incidents].”
Drake v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006). “” • 49 C.F.R. § 219.11 (d); see also Alcohol/Drug Regulations; Miscellaneous Amendments and Republication, 54 Fed.”
Fifie v. Cooksey, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 3× “53,238 at 53,261; see also 49 C.F.R. § 219.11 (d) (1989). The FRA stated it “cannot require that employees sign away their rights against third parties.”
Smeltzer v. Slater, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. § 219.11 (b)(4) states that an employee’s adulteration of his/her urine sample is equivalent of refusal to provide a sample, and an employee who refuses to provide a sample for drug testing must be disqualified from performing certain safety-sensitive…”
Tom Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. RR (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). -20- 390 F.3d at 628-29 .”
— 49 C.F.R. § 219.11(d) — 3 cases
Tom Lundeen, Individually Nanette Lundeen, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Molly Lundeen, a Minor, & Michael Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd., Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., John Salling, Individually Lorenda Poissant Salling, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Sebastian Poissant, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Dion Darveaux, Individually, on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Kendall Darveaux, a Minor Brenda Darveaux, Individually, on Behalf Of, & as a Parent & Nat. Guardian of Kendall Darveaux, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Larry Schafer, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Jenna Schafer, a Minor Tami Schafer, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Jenna Schafer, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Gerald Wickman v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Charles Swenson Sandra Swenson v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Rebecca Behnkie, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Nathaniel Behnkie, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Marilyn Carlson v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Larry Crabbe Carol Crabbe v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Wilfred Dahly Geraldine Dahly v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Denise Duchsherer Leo Duchsherer Joshua Duchsherer v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Judy Deutsch, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Nat. Guardian of Tyrone Deutsch, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Jo Ann Flick v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Leo Gleason v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Charlotte Goerndt v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Mary Beth Gross, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Brett Gross, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Darla M. Just v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Irene Clore Korgel v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Richard McBride Linda McBride v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Richard Muhlbradt v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Lonnie Shigley v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Bobby Smith Mary Smith v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Rachelle Todosichuk v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Shelly Hingst v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Nathan Freeman, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a Minor Nicole Freeman, Individually, & on Behalf Of, & as Parents & Nat. Guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a Minor v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Doug Weltzin v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Melissa Todd v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Ray Lakoduk v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Trent Westmeyer Randi Lou Westmeyer v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Leroy Slorby v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., Mark Nisbet Sandra Nisbet v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. Canadian Pac. Ltd, Sued as Canadian Pac. Ltd. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd. Soo Line R.R. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). 4 We also noted the FRSA does not "provide[] a private right of action for a person aggrieved by negligence in the analysis of a drug test, and the absence of an alternative cause of action militates against a finding of complete…”
Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). . We also noted the FRSA does not "provide[] a private right of action for a person aggrieved by negligence in the analysis of a drug test, and the absence of an alternative cause of action militates against a finding of complete…”
Tom Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. RR (8th Cir. 2006). “27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989). -20- 390 F.3d at 628-29 .”
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.