F.Y.I for D.O.T Truck Drivers

[RLew420]

I don't frequent this site much anymore but thought it my duty to let all of you truck drivers out there know that the Department of Transportation has set some new standards. If you have in the past failed a drug test and are in a follow up program or need to have a return to work drug test (which has recently happened to me) something has changed. They now physically stand over your shoulder and watch you urinate the doctor told me he had to watch the urine come out of my penis (my union is currently filing a greivance in my behalf but this did happen). I have been in a follow up drug program for about 6 months and this is the first time it has happened to me so i asked why the change and was told by the nurse that it is a new policy put in place by the d.o.t and there was nothing they could do about it. So I just wanted to let all you folks that sub know before you get caught and lose your jobs. Again this is only for drivers that have previously failed a test but it still sucks either way. The clinic that i visited sends all of there specimens to quest diagnostics if that helps any also.

RLew420 Reviewed by RLew420 on 09-29-2009. F.Y.I for D.O.T Truck Drivers I don't frequent this site much anymore but thought it my duty to let all of you truck drivers out there know that the Department of Transportation has set some new standards. If you have in the past failed a drug test and are in a follow up program or need to have a return to work drug test (which has recently happened to me) something has changed. They now physically stand over your shoulder and watch you urinate the doctor told me he had to watch the urine come out of my penis (my union is Rating: 5

[zodiac66]

Yes, that is true ..as of Aug.2009 this is the new policy...they call it (DO) Direct Observance ...

[killerweed420]

Yeah this just for reasonable cause cases where someone got caught cheating or there was reasonable cause to think they were cheating. But eventually all truck drivers will probably end up being observed. Its another one of the lies our government spreads around with the help of the media. The usuage of drugs in truck driving is so small anymore as to be almost insignificant. Was all lot more drug use in trucking 30 yaers ago before they finally passed some hours of service laws so you didin't have to work 22 hours a day.

[zodiac66]

Yeah this just for reasonable cause cases where someone got caught cheating or there was reasonable cause to think they were cheating. But eventually all truck drivers will probably end up being observed. Its another one of the lies our government spreads around with the help of the media. The usuage of drugs in truck driving is so small anymore as to be almost insignificant. Was all lot more drug use in trucking 30 yaers ago before they finally passed some hours of service laws so you didin't have to work 22 hours a day.

Exactly!..truck driver here...the days of some dood with a big ass beard and shit are over...many young cats truck driving these days..atleast for out here in Cali.

[dejayou30]

Yeah this just for reasonable cause cases where someone got caught cheating or there was reasonable cause to think they were cheating.

I was recently involved in the drug testing industry, and unfortunately ALL random drug tests for any job regulated by the DOT are direct observance now, not just reasonable suspicion cases. They changed their policy towards the end of 2008. Also, if I remember right, I think now they also go in the room with you during pre employment tests for DOT jobs, but they don't directly observe. Tough news for truck drivers that use cannabis.

[killerweed420]

Just checked. There have been no updated rules. You are only observed if you were caught cheating before or they have reasonable suspicion you are cheating.

[dejayou30]

Well, the DOT sent out a notice to the company I worked for stating that all DOT regulated random drug screens would be directly supervised, and the company had to implement new plans to accommodate the change. It was a pretty big deal for the company, as a lot of areas of the DOT's testing management that the company dealt with had to be changed. Where is your source that you checked? Not calling you a liar or anything, I am just curious of your source, as I saw the notice from the DOT, and I don't think the company would waste their time announcing the change and then implementing new procedures for something that wasn't legit. :jointsmile:

[killerweed420]

Here's the FCMSA law. I got off there website today.

[dejayou30]

Ah, perhaps that's why we are coming up with different facts. The FMCSA is a smaller subdivision of the DOT, so the DOT still has the ultimate authority and can make someone submit to an observed random test.

[Burnt Toast]

Killerweed is absolutely right and you, Deejay, are absolutely wrong. Weve had this argument before on another thread, and youve been proven wrong then and there, but yet you still insist on spreading misinformation after misinformation. Why is that?

The FMSCA link KW provided is the actual regulation mandated by DOT. Since the FMSCA link somehow doesnt faze you, well here is the actual regulation, from DOT website, and yes it is updated (note the date at the end):

Subpart E - Urine Specimen Collections

§ 40.67 When and how is a directly observed collection conducted?

(a) As an employer, you must direct an immediate collection under direct observation with no advance notice to the employee, if:

(1) The laboratory reported to the MRO that a specimen is invalid, and the MRO reported to you that there was not an adequate medical explanation for the result;

(2) The MRO reported to you that the original positive, adulterated, or substituted result had to be cancelled because the test of the split specimen could not be performed; or

(3) The laboratory reported to the MRO that the specimen was negative-dilute with a creatinine concentration greater than or equal to 2 mg/dL but less than or equal to 5 mg/dL, and the MRO reported the specimen to you as negative-dilute and that a second collection must take place under direct observation (see §40.197(b)(1)).

(b) As an employer, you must direct a collection under direct observation of an employee if the drug test is a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test.
(c) As a collector, you must immediately conduct a collection under direct observation if:
(1) You are directed by the DER to do so (see paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section); or

(2) You observed materials brought to the collection site or the employee's conduct clearly indicates an attempt to tamper with a specimen (see §§40.61(f)(5)(i) and 40.63(e)); or

(3) The temperature on the original specimen was out of range (see §40.65(b)

(5)); or (4) The original specimen appeared to have been tampered with (see §40.65(c)(1)).
(d)(1) As the employer, you must explain to the employee the reason for a directly observed collection under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.

(2) As the collector, you must explain to the employee the reason, if known, under this part for a directly observed collection under paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(e) As the collector, you must complete a new CCF for the directly observed collection.

(1) You must mark the â??reason for testâ?� block (Step 1) the same as for the first collection.
(2) You must check the â??Observed, (Enter Remark)â?� box and enter the reason (see §40.67(b)) in the â??Remarksâ?� line (Step 2).
(f) In a case where two sets of specimens are being sent to the laboratory because of suspected tampering with the specimen at the collection site, enter on the â??Remarksâ?� line of the CCF (Step 2) for each specimen a notation to this effect (e.g., collection 1 of 2, or 2 of 2) and the specimen ID number of the other specimen.

(g) As the collector, you must ensure that the observer is the same gender as the employee. You must never permit an opposite gender person to act as the observer. The observer can be a different person from the collector and need not be a qualified collector.

(h) As the collector, if someone else is to observe the collection (e.g., in order to ensure a same gender observer), you must verbally instruct that person to follow procedures at paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section. If you, the collector, are the observer, you too must follow these procedures.

(i) As the observer, you must request the employee to raise his or her shirt, blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist; and lower clothing and underpants to show you, by turning around, that they do not have a prosthetic device. After you have determined that the employee does not have such a device, you may permit the employee to return clothing to its proper position for observed urination.

(j) As the observer, you must watch the employee urinate into the collection container. Specifically, you are to watch the urine go from the employee's body into the collection container.

(k) As the observer but not the collector, you must not take the collection container from the employee, but you must observe the specimen as the employee takes it to the collector.

(l) As the collector, when someone else has acted as the observer, you must include the observer's name in the â??Remarksâ?� line of the CCF (Step 2).

(m) As the employee, if you decline to allow a directly observed collection required or permitted under this section to occur, this is a refusal to test.

(n) As the collector, when you learn that a directly observed collection should have been collected but was not, you must inform the employer that it must direct the employee to have an immediate recollection under direct observation.

[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41950, Aug. 9, 2001; 68 FR 31626, May 28, 2003; 69 FR 64867, Nov.9, 2004; 73 FR 35970, June 25, 2008; 73 FR 70283, November 20, 2008; 74 FR 37949, July 30, 2009]

As you can see, the regulation only allows observed testing for the situations outlined in the regulation. NOWHERE does it mention observed testing for random testing situations. If observed testing for randoms were allowed, DOT wouldve implemented it in this latest revision of the regs. Therefore that little story youve told about recieving such a notice in late 2008 is more than suspect.

The quoted reg still doesnt convince you? Here is the direct link: http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/NEW_DOCS...7_20090831.doc


And if that somehow doesnt convince you, then you just plain have a problem with comprehension. Regardless, for the good of the forum, please stop spreading misinformation unless you can provide solid proof to the contrary (I wish you luck on that).