As has been the case for a number of years, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations require employers of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers to test them early and often for alcohol and drugs.
In fact, employers should have six types of alcohol or controlled substance testing: (1) pre-employment; (2) post-accident; (3) random; (4) reasonable suspicion; (5) return-to-duty; and (6) follow-up. 49 C.F.R. § 382.211. If drivers refuse to submit to any of these tests, the employer cannot permit the driver to perform any safety-sensitive functions.
1. Pre-Employment Testing
While pre-employment testing for alcohol is optional, employers need to test CMV drivers for controlled substances prior to the first time the driver ever performs safety-sensitive functions. 49 C.F.R. § 382.301. Drivers may only be exempted from this requirement if he or she has participated in a drug test within the last 6 months or submitted to a random drug test for at least 12 months.
2. Post-Accident Testing
Following an accident, CMV drivers should be tested for alcohol and controlled substances as soon as practicable. 49 C.F.R. § 382.303. The driver may not use alcohol for eight hours following the accident, or until the driver undergoes a post-accident alcohol test, whichever occurs first. 49 C.F.R. § 382.209.
3. Random Testing
Random testing should be unannounced and done by a “scientifically valid method.” 49 C.F.R. § 382.305. A valid method could be a computer-based random number generator that matches with the drivers’ Social Security numbers. Random alcohol testing should be conducted on at least 10 percent of the average number of driver positions, while random controlled substance testing should be conducted on at least 50 percent of the average number of driver positions. 49 C.F.R. § 382.305(b).
4. Reasonable Suspicion Testing
Reasonable suspicion may be based on specific and articulable observations of a driver’s behavior, speech or body odors. 49 C.F.R. § 382.307. The employer or supervisor who determines reasonable suspicion exists may not administer the test.
5. Return-to-Duty Testing
A driver may not return to work unless he or she has had a return-to-work alcohol test with a result of less than 0.02 or a negative controlled substances return-to-work test. 49 C.F.R. § 382.201, 49 C.F.R. § 382.605; 49 C.F.R. § 40.305. Employers must provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers of resources for evaluating and resolving problems with controlled substance use. 49 C.F.R. § 40.287. Further, the driver must be evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine the need for rehabilitation or follow-up testing. 49 C.F.R. § 40.285.
6. Follow-Up Testing
At a minimum, drivers must be subject to six unannounced follow-up tests in the first 12 months of safety-sensitive duty following the driver’s return to safety-sensitive functions. 49 C.F.R. § 40.307.
Add a comment
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Auto Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Trucking Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Premises Liability
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Michigan Steps up Efforts to Police Auto Liability Insurance Fraud
- Court Clarifies New Tolling Provision of Michigan No-Fault Act
- Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of MAIPF Claimant’s No-Fault Action Based on Fraudulent Attendant Care Forms
- Appellate Court Rules 2019 Michigan No-Fault Law Amendments Not Retroactive, Violate State’s Constitution
- Shop Talk – July Auto Liability Update
- Appellate Court Rules No-Fault Policy Can't be Coordinated With Health Care Ministry Program
- Michigan Court of Appeals Reaffirms Assignor’s Settlement of No-Fault Benefits is Binding on Assignees Unless Insurer Receives Notice of Assignment
- Shop Talk - June Auto Liability Update
- Michigan Court of Appeals to Hear Oral Argument on Constitutionality of No-Fault Reform
- Effective Framing of Medical Records can Disprove Threshold Injuries in Transportation Litigation