C.F.R. » Title 49 » PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAMS › Subpart D—Collection Sites, Forms, Equipment and Supplies Used in DOT Urine and Oral Fluid Collections

49 C.F.R. § 40.41

May employers use the CCF for non-Federal collections or non-Federal forms for DOT collections?

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

(a) No, as an employer, you are prohibited from using the CCF for non-Federal collections. You are also prohibited from using non-Federal forms for DOT collections. Doing either subjects you to enforcement action under DOT agency regulations.

(b) (1) In the rare case where the collector, either by mistake or as the only means to conduct a test under difficult circumstances (e.g., post-accident or reasonable suspicion test with insufficient time to obtain the CCF), uses a non-Federal form for a DOT collection, the use of a non-Federal form does not present a reason for the laboratory to reject the specimen for testing or for an MRO to cancel the result.

(2) The use of the non-Federal form is a “correctable flaw.” As an MRO, to correct the problem you must follow the procedures of § 40.205(b)(2).

[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41950, Aug. 9, 2001. Redesignated and amended at 88 FR 27639, June 1, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2006 · leading case: Crager v. Bd. of Educ. of Knott Cnty., Ky., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Ky. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crager v. Bd. of Educ. of Knott Cnty., Ky., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Ky. 2004). “33 ; the privacy of the collection process, 49 C.F.R. § 40.41 ; the requisite steps for preserving the chain of custody, 49 C.”
Mancini v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 26 A.D.3d 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “The hearing officer found that respondent’s main witness, the urine collector, had violated regulations mandating privacy in a single-toilet room (49 CFR 40.41 [e] [1]; 40.63 [d] [1]), and that petitioner’s failure to provide a urine sample was therefore not a violation of the…”
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.