(b) The following are examples of the kinds of serious noncompliance that, as a matter of policy, the Department views as appropriate grounds for starting a PIE proceeding. These examples are not intended to be an exhaustive or exclusive list of the grounds for starting a PIE proceeding. We intend them to illustrate the level of seriousness that the Department believes supports starting a PIE proceeding. The examples follow: (1) For an MRO, verifying tests positive without interviewing the employees as required by this part or providing MRO services without meeting the qualifications for an MRO required by this part; (2) For a laboratory, refusing to provide information to the Department, an employer, or an employee as required by this part; failing or refusing to conduct a validity testing program when required by this part; or a pattern or practice of testing errors that result in the cancellation of tests. (As a general matter of policy, the Department does not intend to initiate a PIE proceeding concerning a laboratory with respect to matters on which HHS initiates certification actions under its laboratory guidelines.); (3) For a collector, a pattern or practice of directly observing collections when doing so is unauthorized, or failing or refusing to directly observe collections when doing so is mandatory; (4) For collectors, BATs, or STTs, a pattern or practice of using forms, testing equipment, or collection kits that do not meet the standards in this part; (5) For a collector, BAT, or STT, a pattern or practice of “fatal flaws” or other significant uncorrected errors in the collection process; (6) For a laboratory, MRO or C/TPA, failing or refusing to report tests results as required by this part or DOT agency regulations; (7) For a laboratory, falsifying, concealing, or destroying documentation concerning any part of the drug testing process, including, but not limited to, documents in a “litigation package”; (8) For SAPs, providing SAP services while not meeting SAP qualifications required by this part or performing evaluations without interviews meeting the requirements of § 40.291(a)(1); (9) For any service agent, maintaining a relationship with another party that constitutes a conflict of interest under this part ( e.g., a laboratory that derives a financial benefit from having an employer use a specific MRO); (10) For any service agent, falsely representing that the service agent or its activities is approved or certified by the Department or a DOT agency (such representation includes, but is not limited to, the use of a Department or DOT agency logo, title, or emblem). (11) For any service agent, disclosing an employee's test result information to any party this part or a DOT agency regulation does not authorize, including by obtaining a “blanket” consent from employees or by creating a data base from which employers or others can retrieve an employee's DOT test results without the specific consent of the employee; (12) For any service agent, interfering or attempting to interfere with the ability of an MRO to communicate with the Department, or retaliating against an MRO for communicating with the Department; (13) For any service agent, directing or recommending that an employer fail or refuse to implement any provision of this part; or (14) With respect to noncompliance with a DOT agency regulation, conduct that affects important provisions of Department-wide concern ( e.g., failure to properly conduct the selection process for random testing).
Reproduced verbatim from the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), the official U.S. government source. X3 Fleet Safety LLC is a compliance-services company, not a law firm; this page is regulatory reference, not legal advice. X3 is not affiliated with FMCSA or USDOT.