C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES › Subpart A—General

49 C.F.R. § 392.4

Drugs and other substances

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

(a) No driver shall be on duty and possess, be under the influence of, or use, any of the following drugs or other substances:

(1) Any 21 CFR 1308.11 Schedule I substance;

(2) An amphetamine or any formulation thereof (including, but not limited, to “pep pills,” and “bennies”);

(3) A narcotic drug or any derivative thereof; or

(4) Any other substance, to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle.

(b) No motor carrier shall require or permit a driver to violate paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Paragraphs (a) (2), (3), and (4) do not apply to the possession or use of a substance administered to a driver by or under the instructions of a licensed medical practitioner, as defined in § 382.107 of this subchapter, who has advised the driver that the substance will not affect the driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

(d) As used in this section, “possession” does not include possession of a substance which is manifested and transported as part of a shipment.

[61 FR 9567, Mar. 8, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 37153, July 11, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Wilbur Toledo, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 892 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilbur Toledo, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 892 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (1983). The district court correctly noted that although peyote is neither a narcotic nor an amphetamine, it could render a driver “incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle” and thus falls under subsection (3) of the regulation.”
State of Maine v. Richard K. Ntim Jr., 2013 ME 80 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “[¶37] Although the regulations prohibit drivers from possessing narcotics or other substances “which render[] the driver incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle,” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (a) (2012), they contain no provision authorizing the inspection of passengers or their…”
Meghoo v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 752 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (a). 6 . 49 C.F.R. § 392.”
Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 483 (D.N.M. 1986). · cites it 3× “The DOT regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (1983), which was in effect on March 13, 1984, stated: (a) No person shall operate, or be in physical control of, a motor vehicle if he possesses, is under the influence of, or is using, any of the following substances: (1) A narcotic drug…”
Vargas v. FMI, Inc., 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “( 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (b) (2014).) No motor carrier shall “require or permit a driver to” be under the influence of alcohol “within 4 hours before going on duty or operating, or having physical control of, a commercial motor vehicle.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 117 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 . In addition, “[n]o motor carrier shall require or permit a driver to violate” the above-referenced paragraph.”
Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1976). “5, 49 C.F.R. 392.4, 49 C.F.R. 391.51, it is appropriate to invoke the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction to require the parties to submit to the Department of Transportation (DOT) the question of the use by interstate bus operators of maximum age restrictions for driver applicants.”
Coleman v. Keystone Freight Corp., 142 F. App'x 83 (3rd Cir. 2005). “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (4) (2005). Other regulations prohibit a driver from operating a commercial vehicle "while the driver's ability or alertness is so impaired or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, to make unsafe for him to begin or…”
McClintock v. Pollawit (D. Mass. 2025). · cites it 3× “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (a)(1). Marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC,” i.”
12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1233, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,916 W. J. Usery, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1976). “5, 49 C.F.R. 392.4, 49 C.F.R. 391.51, it is appropriate to invoke the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction to require the parties to submit to the Department of Transportation (DOT) the question of the use by interstate bus operators of maximum age restrictions for driver applicants.”
Israel Arce v. CTA (7th Cir. 2018). “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (c). There is no evidence to support that Mr.”
Israel Arce v. CTA (7th Cir. 2018). “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.4 (c). There is no evidence to support that Mr.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.