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. § 392.7

Equipment, inspection and use

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

(a) No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed:

Service brakes, including trailer brake connections. Parking (hand) brake. Steering mechanism. Lighting devices and reflectors. Tires. Horn. Windshield wiper or wipers. Rear-vision mirror or mirrors. Coupling devices. Wheels and rims. Emergency equipment.

(b) Drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment must make an inspection of the following components, and must be satisfied they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road. Drivers who operate the equipment over the road shall be deemed to have confirmed the following components were in good working order when the driver accepted the equipment:

—Service brake components that are readily visible to a driver performing as thorough a visual inspection as possible without physically going under the vehicle, and trailer brake connections —Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and conspicuity marking material —Wheels, rims, lugs, tires —Air line connections, hoses, and couplers —King pin upper coupling device —Rails or support frames —Tie down bolsters —Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks —Sliders or sliding frame lock[33 FR 19732, Dec. 25, 1968, as amended at 60 FR 38746, July 28, 1995; 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001; 73 FR 76823, Dec. 17, 2008; 74 FR 68708, Dec. 29, 2009; 79 FR 75449, Dec. 18, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981). · cites it 4× “See 49 CFR §§ 392.7 , 392.8 (1980). Petitioners are not compensated by their employer for the time spent complying with these requirements.”
Calhoun v. United States Dep't of Labor, 576 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 9× “) Instead, he argues that operating his vehicle on the days in question without completing his preferred pre-trip inspection would have violated two general FMCSRs, 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.7 and 396.13 (2008). The first of these regulations provides that “[n]o commercial motor vehicle…”
Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2005). “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (2003) (providing that no commercial vehicle may be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts are in good working order: service brakes and trailer brake connections; hand brake; steering mechanism; lighting devices and reflectors;…”
Adam Bloom v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., United Parcel Serv., Inc., Intervenor, 603 F.2d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (1976), reprinted in Appendix (App.”
Irizarry v. Lily Transp. Corp., 266 F. Supp. 3d 600 (D. Conn. 2017). “49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (a). Based on the provisions of the Pennsylvania statutes, the Court cannot conclude that' having an up-to-date registration in the.”
Valadez v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 1254 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “at 17 (citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.7 , 396.3 ). Plaintiffs note that Defendant's Roadside Inspection Policy establishes progressive discipline for violations during roadside inspections, including warning letters, and being placed on a six month "Safety Hold," and cancellation of…”
Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 509 (D.R.I. 1982). “The State inspection requirement, likewise, does not directly conflict with the HMTA regulations or the similar Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.7 , 392.8 and 396. Therefore, the State inspection regulation is not inconsistent with the HMTA…”
Michael Harrison v. Admin. Review Bd., U.S. Dep't of Labor, Roadway Express, Inc., Intervenor, 390 F.3d 752 (2d Cir. 2004). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.7 , 396.13. 1 In any case, petitioner disclaimed reliance below on the “refuses to operate” subsection of § 31105(a)(1), relying only on the “filed a complaint” subsection.”
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Saint E. Bell, Jr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 700 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1983). “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (1981). The collective bargaining agreement provides in part: [E]mployees shall immediately, or at the end of their shift, report all defects of equipment.”
Est. of Jason Allen v. Arbor Springs Water Co., No. 368366 (Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2026). · cites it 13× “3 Indeed, “[t]he Legislature 2 A party aggrieved by a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition may proceed to final judgment and raise the trial court’s errors in deciding the motion in an appeal taken from the final judgment.”
J.H.O.C. v. Volvo Trucks North Am., Inc., 303 F. App'x 828 (11th Cir. 2008). “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (providing that no commercial vehicle may be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts are in good working order: service brakes and trailer brake connections; hand brake; steering mechanism; lighting devices and reflectors; tires;…”
Edward Evans v. Usf Reddaway, Inc., No. 17-35603 (9th Cir. July 16, 2018). “3 ), and conducting mandatory vehicle safety inspections ( 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.7 , 392.9). Evans’ complaints—dirt, dust, gravel, ruts, poor lighting, and lack of fencing/security at the two Reddaway terminals—relate to general workplace safety conditions at the lots, rather than…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
49 C.F.R. § 392.7(a): 1 case
Est. of Jason Allen v. Arbor Springs Water Co., No. 368366 (Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2026). “3 Indeed, “[t]he Legislature 2 A party aggrieved by a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition may proceed to final judgment and raise the trial court’s errors in deciding the motion in an appeal taken from the final judgment.”
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.