49 C.F.R. § 219.601

Purpose and scope of random testing programs

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

(a) Purpose. The purpose of random alcohol and drug testing is to promote safety by deterring regulated employees from misusing drugs and abusing alcohol.

(b) Regulated employees. Each railroad must ensure that a regulated employee is subject to being selected for random testing as required by this subpart whenever the employee performs regulated service on the railroad's behalf.

(c) Contractor employees and volunteers. A regulated employee who is a volunteer or an employee of a contractor to a railroad may be incorporated into the random testing program of more than one railroad if:

(1) The contractor employee or volunteer is not already part of a random testing program that meets the requirements of this subpart and has been accepted by the railroad for which he or she performs regulated service (as described in § 219.609); or

(2) The railroad for which the contractor employee or volunteer performs regulated service is unable to verify that the individual is part of a random testing program acceptable to the railroad that meets the requirements of this subpart.

(d) Multiple DOT agencies. (1) If a regulated employee performs functions subject to the random testing requirements of more than one DOT agency, a railroad must ensure that the employee is subject to selection for random drug and alcohol testing at or above the current minimum annual testing rate set by the DOT agency that regulates more than 50 percent of the employee's DOT-regulated functions.

(2) A railroad may not include a regulated employee in more than one DOT random testing pool for regulated service performed on its behalf, even if the regulated employee is subject to the random testing requirements of more than one DOT agency.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1991–2008 · leading case: Ry. Labor Executives' Assoc. Bhd. of Locomotive v. Samuel K. Skinner John H. Riley, 934 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ry. Labor Executives' Assoc. Bhd. of Locomotive v. Samuel K. Skinner John H. Riley, 934 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (1989). *1098 Although RLEA I did not address the constitutionality of random drug testing, it did resolve some issues relevant to this appeal.”

Charles v. Abate, Jr. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 993 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1993). “49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (1989). Under the regulations, the railroad is responsible for developing and implementing the drug testing program.”

Charles v. Abate, Jr. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 928 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1991). “See 49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (a) ("Each railroad shall submit for FRA approval a random testing program meeting the requirements of this subpart [G].”

Milam v. Herrlin, 819 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “On January 16, 1990, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (d)(2), Metro-North commenced random testing of employees covered under the FRA and the Agreement.”

Bratton v. CSX Transp., Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Mass. 2008). “Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration, including random testing, 49 C.F.R. 219.601, and testing for reasonable cause, 49 C.”

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., Plaintiff-Counter v. United Transp. Union (Ct&y), Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee, 175 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. § 219.601 . In a random drug test in November 1993, James E.”

Risch v. State, 879 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1994). “49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (b)(6) (1993). Although ARRC does not concede that Risch testified accurately about his hours, it did not offer any contradictory evidence.”

Abate v. S. Pac. Transp. Co. (5th Cir. 1993). “24 49 C.F.R. § 219.601 (1989). Under the regulations, the railroad is responsible for developing and implementing the drug testing program.”

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.