C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 382—CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING › Subpart A—General

49 C.F.R. § 382.105

Testing procedures

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

Each employer shall ensure that all alcohol or controlled substances testing conducted under this part complies with the procedures set forth in part 40 of this title. The provisions of part 40 of this title that address alcohol or controlled substances testing are made applicable to employers by this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2019 · leading case: Davis v. Lewis
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Lewis (2019) nced · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 382.105 . Plaintiff operated commercial motor vehicles approximately five to six hours per day.”
Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc. (2003) mssd “, see 49 C.F.R. § 382.105 . 2 . The DOT regulations to which plaintiff's complaint alludes provide that a driver who *633 has tested positive for drugs cannot return to a safety-sensitive position until (1) the driver has been evaluated by a "substance abuse professional" to…”
Rector v. LabOne, Inc. (2002) ared “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.105 . FOTETA provides a preemption statement: A state or local government may not prescribe or continue in effect a law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this section.”
English v. Talladega County Board of Education (1996) alnd “See 49 C.F.R. § 382.105 . The applicable starting date mandated for the Board’s testing program was January 1, 1995.”
Jackson v. BROTH. RELIEF & COMPEN. FUND (2010) neb “[10] See 49 C.F.R. § 382.105 (2009). [11] Anderson Excavating v.”
Howell v. Lab One, Inc. (2003) ned “Pursuant to the statute, the Secretary of Transportation has promulgated the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs regulations.”
Moreno v. ODACS, Inc. (2014) ohioctapp “Therefore, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a DOT agency, issued those regulations (“the DOT regulations”), which subjected commercial drivers, including school bus drivers, to random drug tests. See 49 C.”
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.