49 C.F.R. § 40.65

What does the collector check for when the employee presents a urine specimen?

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

As a collector, you must check the following when the employee gives the collection container to you:

(a) Sufficiency of specimen. You must check to ensure that the specimen contains at least 45 mL of urine.

(1) If it does not, you must follow “shy bladder” procedures (see § 40.193(b)).

(2) When you follow “shy bladder” procedures, you must discard the original specimen, unless another problem (i.e., temperature out of range, signs of tampering) also exists.

(3) You are never permitted to combine urine collected from separate voids to create a specimen.

(4) You must discard any excess urine.

(b) Temperature. You must check the temperature of the specimen no later than four minutes after the employee has given you the specimen.

(1) The acceptable temperature range is 32-38 °C/90-100 °F.

(2) You must determine the temperature of the specimen by reading the temperature strip attached to the collection container.

(3) If the specimen temperature is within the acceptable range, you must mark the “Yes” box on the CCF (Step 2).

(4) If the specimen temperature is outside the acceptable range, you must mark the “No” box and enter in the “Remarks” line (Step 2) your findings about the temperature.

(5) If the specimen temperature is outside the acceptable range, you must immediately conduct a new urine collection using direct observation procedures (see § 40.67) or an oral fluid collection.

(6) In a case where a specimen is collected under direct observation because of the temperature being out of range, you must process both the original specimen and the specimen collected using direct observation (including oral fluid) and send the two sets of specimens to their respective laboratories. This is true even in a case in which the original specimen has insufficient volume and the temperature is out of range. You must also, as soon as possible, inform the DER and collection site supervisor that a collection took place under direct observation and the reason for doing so.

(7) In a case where the employee refuses to provide another specimen (see § 40.191(a)(3)) or refuses to provide another specimen under direct observation (see § 40.191(a)(4)), you must notify the DER. As soon as you have notified the DER, you must discard any specimen the employee has provided previously during the collection procedure.

(c) Signs of tampering. You must inspect the specimen for unusual color, presence of foreign objects or material, or other signs of tampering (e.g., if you notice any unusual odor).

(1) If it is apparent from this inspection that the employee has tampered with the specimen (e.g., blue dye in the specimen, excessive foaming when shaken, or smell of bleach), you must immediately conduct a new urine collection using direct observation procedures (see § 40.67) or an oral fluid collection.

(2) In a case where a specimen is collected under direct observation because of showing signs of tampering, you must process both the original specimen and the specimen collected using direct observation and send the two sets of specimens to the laboratory. This is true even in a case in which the original specimen has insufficient volume but it shows signs of tampering. You must also, as soon as possible, inform the DER and collection site supervisor that a collection took place under direct observation and the reason for doing so.

(3) In a case where the employee refuses to provide a specimen under direct observation (see § 40.191(a)(4)), you must discard any specimen the employee provided previously during the collection procedure. Then you must notify the DER as soon as practicable.

(d) Direct observations. If a new urine collection using direct observation procedures or an oral fluid collection is required under § 40.65(b)(5) or (c)(1), you must check if the employer has a standing order on which specimen collection to perform. If there is no standing order, you must contact the DER on whether to continue with a directly observed urine collection or an oral fluid collection.

[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41950, Aug. 9, 2001; 88 FR 27641, May 2, 2023; 91 FR 25511, May 11, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: MacK v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 225 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
MacK v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 225 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “See 49 C.F.R. 40.65(b)(1) (2002). Under the applicable regulations, such conduct merited the same administrative action as a positive drug test result.”
Duane Dewey Anderson v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 97, 354 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2003). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 40.65 (a), 40.193(a). He testified at trial that he provided more than the required amount.”
Heyl v. Babbitt, 364 F. App'x 653 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “See 49 C.F.R. § 40.65 (a). Heyl’s “[f]ail[ure] to remain at the testing site until the testing process is complete” constitutes a refusal to test.”
Ydil Pham v. NTSB (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 40.65 (a). If the test subject fails to do so, the collector must follow “shy-bladder” procedures, under which the collector must discard the specimen and “[u]rge the [subject] to drink up to 40 ounces of fluid.”
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, & Gadimina Enter., Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing (Iowa Ct. App. 2024). “49 C.F.R. § 40.65 (b)(6) (stating that for drug-testing in industries subject to the authority of the United States Department of Transportation, the collector must “process both the original” out-of-temperature 19 “specimen and the specimen collected using direct observation .”
Heyl v. Babbitt, 364 F. App'x 653 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “See 49 C.F.R. § 40.65 (a). Heyl’s “[f]ail[ure] to remain at the testing site until the testing process is complete” constitutes a refusal to test.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 40.65(b)(1) — 1 case
MacK v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 225 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “See 49 C.F.R. 40.65(b)(1) (2002). Under the applicable regulations, such conduct merited the same administrative action as a positive drug test result.”
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.