49 C.F.R. § 386.1

Scope of the rules in this part

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the rules in this part govern proceedings before the Agency Decisionmaker under applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399), including the commercial regulations (49 CFR parts 360-379), and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180).

(b) The purpose of the proceedings is to enable the Assistant Administrator:

(1) To determine whether a motor carrier, intermodal equipment provider (as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter), property broker, freight forwarder, or its agents, employees, or any other person subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA, has failed to comply with the provisions or requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding regulations; and

(2) To issue an appropriate order to compel compliance with the statute or regulation, assess a civil penalty, or both, if such violations are found.

(c)(1) The rules in § 386.12(a) govern the filing of a complaint of a substantial violation and the handling of the complaint by the appropriate Division Administrator.

(2) The rules in § 386.12(b) govern the filing by a driver and the handling by the appropriate Division Administrator of a complaint of harassment in violation of § 390.36 of this subchapter.

(3) The rules in § 386.12(c) govern the filing by a driver and the handling by the appropriate Division Administrator of a complaint of coercion in violation of § 390.6 of this subchapter.

[73 FR 76819, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 74709, Nov. 30, 2015; 81 FR 78381, Dec. 16, 2015; 81 FR 68347, Oct. 4, 2016; 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. §§ 386.1 , 386.21. Upon finding violations, the Associate Administrator has the authority to compel compliance, assess civil penalties, or both.”

Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “” 49 C.F.R. § 386.1 . As there is no federal cause of action or remedy to supplant plaintiffs state law claims, nor, for that matter, any indication that the administrative avenue for review of an employer’s actions under the Act is intended to be exclusive, complete preemption…”

Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 386.1 , 886.11, 386.21. In the alternative, the Court concludes that even if Plaintiffs claims are not expressly preempted, they are preempted under an implied theory of preemption.”

Potter v. Chicago Heights Motor Freight, Inc., 396 N.E.2d 1366 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979). “§304 (1976); see 49 C.F.R. §386.1 (1976).) The law as in effect at the time of the accident 3 limited the application of the rule-making powers to “* ° * the transportation of passengers or property engaged in interstate or foreign commerce 0 e V’ ( 49 U.”

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.