C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES › Subpart C—Notification Requirements and Employer Responsibilities

49 C.F.R. § 383.37

Employer responsibilities

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

No employer may allow, require, permit, or authorize a driver to operate a CMV in the United States if the employer knows or should reasonably know that any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) During any period in which the driver does not have a current CLP or CDL or does not have a CLP or CDL with the proper class or endorsements. An employer may not use a driver to operate a CMV who violates any restriction on the driver's CLP or CDL.

(b) During any period in which the driver has a CLP or CDL disqualified by a State, has lost the right to operate a CMV in a State, or has been disqualified from operating a CMV.

(c) During any period in which the driver has more than one CLP or CDL.

(d) During any period in which the driver, or the CMV the driver is operating, or the motor carrier operation, is subject to an out-of-service order.

(e) In violation of a Federal, State, or local law or regulation pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings.

[76 FR 26879, May 9, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 60231, Oct. 1, 2013; 88 FR 80181, Nov. 17, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 762 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 762 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2000). · cites it 2× “The WCJ also emphasized his finding that while the Contractor Operating Agreement made Minteer fully responsible for hiring, firing and directing drivers of the tractor-trailer, Minteer was required to obtain Universal Am-Can's approval of all additional personnel; however,…”
Am. Road Lines v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (ROYAL), 39 A.3d 603 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “3, and commercial driver’s license standards, 49 C.F.R. § 383.37 . The Independent Business Associate Contract, signed on October 1, 2006, states that DeLuca, as contractor, is the employer of drivers and that American shall exercise no control over drivers.”
Multistar Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 707 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2013). “Specifically, FMCSA discovered violations of 49 C.F.R. § 383.37 (a) (knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing an employee with a suspended, revoked, or canceled commercial driver's license to operate a commercial motor vehicle), identified in the compliance…”
Samson v. Fed. Express Corp., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (M.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 383.37 . The regulations make clear that all requirements and standards for obtaining a commercial driver’s license, including the successful completion of a DOT medical examination, apply “to every person who operates a commercial motor vehicle, .”
Ward v. Nesibo (D. Utah 2023). “111 ; 49 C.F.R. § 383.37 ; 49 C.F.R. § 383.51 ; 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.