49 C.F.R. § 240.219

Denial of certification

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

(a) A railroad shall notify a candidate for certification or recertification of information known to the railroad that forms the basis for denying the person certification and provide the person a reasonable opportunity to explain or rebut that adverse information in writing prior to denying certification. A railroad shall provide the locomotive engineer candidate with any written documents or records, including written statements, related to failure to meet a requirement of this part that support its pending denial decision.

(b) This section does not require further opportunity to comment if the railroad's denial is based solely on factors addressed by §§ 240.115, 240.117, and 240.119 and the opportunity to comment afforded by those sections has been provided.

(c) If a railroad denies a person certification or recertification, it shall notify the person of the adverse decision and explain, in writing, the basis for its denial decision. The basis for a railroad's denial decision shall address any explanation or rebuttal information that the locomotive engineer candidate may have provided in writing pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. The document explaining the basis for the denial shall be served on the person within 10 days after the railroad's decision and shall give the date of the decision.

(d) A railroad shall not deny the person's certification for failing to comply with a railroad operating rule or practice that constitutes a violation under § 240.117(e)(1) through (5) if sufficient evidence exists to establish that an intervening cause prevented or materially impaired the engineer's ability to comply with that railroad operating rule or practice.

[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 85 FR 81315, Dec. 15, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2008 · leading case: Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “The LERB concluded that Daniels’s “rights in this case are properly governed by 49 C.F.R. § 240.219 , which does not require a railroad to convene a hearing.”

Carpenter v. Mineta, 432 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “In September 1996 the LERB, without deciding whether the denial was correct, ordered Burlington Northern and Santa Fe to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 240.219 , which required it to inform Carpenter of the basis of his failing scores and provide him an opportunity to respond.”

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.