(a) As an MRO or service agent you must provide, within 10 business days of receiving a written request from an employee, copies of any records pertaining to the employee's use of alcohol and/or drugs, including records of the employee's DOT-mandated drug and/or alcohol tests. You may charge no more than the cost of preparation and reproduction for copies of these records.
(b) As a laboratory, you must provide, within 10 business days of receiving a written request from an employee, and made through the MRO, the records relating to the results of the employee's drug test (i.e., laboratory report and data package). You may charge no more than the cost of preparation and reproduction for copies of these records.
(c) As a SAP, you must make available to an employee, on request, a copy of all SAP reports (see § 40.311). However, you must redact follow-up testing information from the report before providing it to the employee.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41954, Aug. 9, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2006–2016 · leading case:
Wigginton v. White, 847 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
Wigginton v. White, 847 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 40.329 (2003). Section 40.323 of the DOT Regulations requires that, once a school bus driver has initiated a legal proceeding challenging the positive drug test results, the MRO must provide the school bus driver’s employer with all information relating to the…”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 767 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2014).
“49 C.F.R. § 40.329 (a) (“As an MRO or service agent you must provide, within 10 business days of receiving a written request from an employee, copies of any records pertaining to the employee’s use of alcohol and/or drugs, including records of the employee’s .”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 872 F. Supp. 2d 912 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 40.329 (“As an MRO or service agent you must provide, within 10 business days of receiving a written request from an employee, copies of any records pertaining to the employee’s use of alcohol and/or drugs, including records of the employee’s DOT-mandated drug…”
Smith v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 398 F. App'x 601 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
“Additionally, Smith does not deny that he had in his actual possession other documents relevant to his petition that he did not submit to the Board, such as the letter from the railroad notifying him of the suspension of his certificate.”
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.