(a) No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety sensitive functions when the driver uses any drug or substance identified in 21 CFR 1308.11 Schedule I.
(b) No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions when the driver uses any non-Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other Schedules in 21 CFR part 1308 except when the use is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in § 382.107, who is familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver that the substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
(c) No employer having actual knowledge that a driver has used a controlled substance, as defined in § 382.107, shall permit the driver to perform or continue to perform a safety-sensitive function, except when the use is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in § 382.107, who is familiar with the driver's medical history and has advised the driver that the substance will not adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
(d) An employer may require a driver to inform the employer of any therapeutic drug use.
[77 FR 4483, Jan. 30, 2012, as amended at 88 FR 80180, Nov. 17, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case:
Toste v. CalPortland Constr., 245 Cal. App. 4th 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Toste v. CalPortland Constr., 245 Cal. App. 4th 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “With respect to negligence per se, the jury was instructed that a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation ( 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 ) prohibited truck drivers from using marijuana.”
Jackson v. JB Hunt Transp., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“, 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 (b) (“No employer having actual knowledge that a driver has used a controlled substance shall permit the driver to perform or continue to perform a safety-sensitive function.”
Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2008).
“§ 66-8-102 and 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 ; and 3) Swift was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Getchel.”
Woodruff v. Ohio Dep't of Transp. (S.D. Ohio 2022).
· cites it 15× “As to the former, the regulation at issue, 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 (b), states: No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions when the driver uses any non- Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other…”
Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Kan. 2008).
“§ 66-8-102 and 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 ; and 3) Swift was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Getchel.”
Woodruff v. Ohio Dep't of Transp. (S.D. Ohio 2021).
· cites it 4× “49 C.F.R. § 382.213 (b). “Safety-sensitive functions” are further defined to include “[a]ll time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation” as well as time related to inspecting, servicing, condition, repairing, or obtaining assistance related to a…”
McFadden v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. (D.D.C. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The Court presumes that WMATA was referring to 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 , which states that drivers who perform safety-sensitive functions may use non-Schedule I drugs “when the use is pursuant to the instructions of a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in [49 C.”
Cherry v. Dep't of Educ., 289 P.3d 344 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The department concluded that petitioner had violated 49 CFR § 382.213 (a) by ingesting marijuana four days before she reported for duty and had violated 49 CFR § 382.”
Kenny Woodruff v. Ohio Dep't of Trans. (6th Cir. 2022).
“The Department concluded that Woodruff was not qualified to work as a highway technician because he could not meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 382.213 (b), which provides that: No driver shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 382.213(b) — 1 case
Woodruff v. Ohio Dep't of Transp. (S.D. Ohio 2021).
“49 C.F.R. § 382.213 (b). “Safety-sensitive functions” are further defined to include “[a]ll time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation” as well as time related to inspecting, servicing, condition, repairing, or obtaining assistance related to a…”
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.