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
Topics
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Transportation
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Underinsured Motorist Insurance (UIM)
- Negligence
- Appellate Law
- Insurance
- Fraud Activity
- insurance policy
- Civil Litigation
- Sanctions
- Premises Liability
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- Bankruptcy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
Recent Updates
- Ruling Clarifies Application of Michigan No-Fault Act’s Fee Schedule for Motorcycle Accident Claims Regardless of When Policy was Issued
- Michigan Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Push to Retroactively Apply Amended No-Fault Act
- Michigan Appeals Court Affirms Key Limits on Underinsured Motorist Coverage
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Limits Scope of Preemption Governing Freight Broker’s Selection of Motor Carrier
- Fee Schedule Applies to Third-Party Claims for Excess Allowable Expenses
- Appellate Court Rules Insured Entitled to Unlimited Attendant Care Benefits
- Case Update: Appellate Court Updates Recent Decision to Published Status, Expanding Definition of ‘Unlawful’ Under Michigan PIP Law
- Having a ‘Cowboy Attitude' About No-Fault Insurance Limits Could Cost You
- How well do you Know Your Policyholders? Recent Appellate Case Encourages Full Discovery of Potential Rescission During Litigation
- Published Opinion Warns Insurers that Medical Claims can Survive MCL 500.3145 Indefinitely Without an Appropriate Denial



