49 C.F.R. § 40.203

What problems cause a drug test to be cancelled unless they are corrected?

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

(a) As the MRO, when a laboratory discovers a “correctable flaw” during its processing of incoming specimens (see § 40.83), the laboratory will attempt to correct it. If the laboratory is unsuccessful in this attempt, it will report to you that the specimen has been “Rejected for Testing” (with the reason stated).

(b) The following is a “correctable flaw” that laboratories must attempt to correct: The collector's signature is omitted on the certification statement on the CCF.

(c) As the MRO, when you discover a “correctable flaw” during your review of the CCF, you must cancel the test unless the flaw is corrected.

(d) The following are correctable flaws that you must attempt to correct:

(1) The employee's signature is omitted from the certification statement, unless the employee's failure or refusal to sign is noted on the “Remarks” line of the CCF.

(2) The certifying scientist's signature is omitted on Copy 1 of the CCF for a positive, adulterated, substituted, or invalid test result.

(3) The collector uses a non-Federal form or an expired CCF for the test. This flaw may be corrected through the procedure set forth in § 40.205(b)(2), provided that the collection testing process has been conducted in accordance with the procedures in this part in an HHS-certified laboratory.

[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41954, Aug. 9, 2001; 75 FR 59108, Sept. 27, 2010; 76 FR 59578, Sept. 27, 2011; 82 FR 52246, Nov. 13, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: UGI Utils., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 851 A.2d 240 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
UGI Utils., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 851 A.2d 240 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “199 (a) (enumerating fatal flaws that occur during the laboratory’s processing *251 of samples); see also 49 C.F.R. § 40.203 (a) (listing correctable flaws occurring during laboratory's processing of sample).”
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.