Drug Testing Compliance is Moving Again: Is Your Program Keeping Up?

Several drug and alcohol testing updates are moving at the same time right now.

ODAPC has completely revised its urine specimen collection guidelines. A new Federal Custody and Control Form is already in circulation. The DEA is holding formal hearings on marijuana rescheduling. Meanwhile, the FDA has been considering a change that could help remove one of the barriers delaying DOT oral fluid testing.

Each update affects a different part of the testing process, but they all raise the same larger question:

Does your written drug and alcohol testing policy match what your supervisors, DERs, collectors, and service agents are actually doing?

A policy may look complete when it is sitting in a binder. However, the gaps usually become more obvious when a driver is sent for a test after hours, a collector runs into a problem, a supervisor reports possible impairment, or a new federal form suddenly appears at the collection site.

ODAPC Has Completely Revised Its Urine Collection Guidelines

On June 30, 2026, the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance released a revised version of its DOT Urine Specimen Collection Procedures Guidelines. This was not just a minor update to a few pages; ODAPC describes it as a complete revision that replaces all previous versions of the guidance.

The revised guidelines include updated information concerning collector training and documentation, acceptable employee identification, directly observed collections, refusals to test, electronic CCF printing problems, use of the new Federal CCF, and circumstances in which a collection may eventually switch between urine and oral fluid.

ODAPC also added a suggested format for documenting collector qualification training.

For employers, the first question to consider may be surprisingly simple:

What happens when an electronic CCF will not print correctly? Does the collector know what documentation is required? Does the collection site have a current process for determining whether an employee’s identification is acceptable? Are collectors following the revised procedures for directly observed collections?

These may sound like collection-site questions, but what happens when the collector needs direction from the employer?

Does the collector have the correct DER’s name and phone number? Is someone available to answer after regular business hours? Does the backup DER understand what authority they have to provide instructions?

A collector may know how to perform a collection correctly and still be unable to complete the process properly if the employer has not provided clear instructions.

The revised guidance also places more attention on employer standing orders. These are written instructions explaining which specimen type should be used and how certain problem collections should be handled. These will be especially important once oral fluid officially comes into play.

So, does your company have standing orders? Or are you expecting the collection site to make those decisions for you when a problem occurs?

The New Federal CCF Is Already in Effect

The revised 2026 Federal Custody and Control Form, commonly called the CCF, became effective April 27, 2026. It can be used as either a paper or electronic form and has an expiration date of April 30, 2029.

Some of the changes may appear minor. Fields have been moved, contact information has been reorganized, and “Date of Birth” is now labeled “Birthdate.”

However, one change deserves closer attention.

The drug analytes and checkboxes have been removed from Step 1F. That section is now labeled “Other tests to be performed (specify).” The collector is not supposed to enter the standard drug-testing panel there. Instead, the laboratory determines the correct panel through the account number listed on the CCF.

This raises a few practical questions.

Does your laboratory have separate account numbers for DOT and non-DOT testing? What happens when an employer uses multiple panels? Could a collector select the wrong employer account in an electronic system even though the rest of the form appears correct?

The form may no longer display the standard panel, but the employer still needs confidence that the correct test was ordered.

The 2023 CCF has not (and will not) disappeared overnight. DOT-regulated employers and their service agents may continue using it during the transition. No memorandum for the record is required when the 2023 form is used through May 30, 2027. Beginning May 31, 2027, continued use of the older form requires a memorandum for the record under 49 CFR § 40.205(b)(2).

That gives employers and collection sites time to transition, but time can also create confusion.

Will some of your locations be using the 2023 form while others use the 2026 form? Has your electronic CCF provider completed its update? Are paper forms stored in company vehicles, mobile collection kits, or satellite offices? Who is responsible for removing outdated forms before the transition period ends?

A revised form is not only a paperwork update. It affects the laboratory, collector, MRO, C/TPA, DER, and any electronic systems used to order and process the test.

Marijuana Rescheduling: What Should Employers Be Considering?

The formal DEA hearings regarding the proposed transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III began June 29 and are scheduled to conclude no later than July 15, 2026.

One point needs to remain clear: July 15 is the scheduled conclusion of the hearing proceedings. It is not necessarily the date that marijuana will be rescheduled or that any change will take effect.

At the time of this article’s publication, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.

For DOT-regulated employers, the current direction is still clear. DOT marijuana testing requirements have not changed. Safety-sensitive employees covered by DOT regulations must continue to be tested for marijuana, and laboratories, MROs, SAPs, employers, and service agents must continue following Part 40.

Employers should not remove marijuana from a DOT testing panel or change how a DOT marijuana result is handled based only on the pending proposal or hearing.

The more complicated discussion involves non-DOT testing.

Does state law permit the testing? Is marijuana included because someone intentionally chose that testing panel, or is it included simply because the company has always ordered a standard five-panel test?

What is your organization actually trying to determine through the test?

Is the concern off-duty use? On-duty possession? Workplace impairment? A federal contract? A state-mandated requirement? Or is the employee also working in a position covered by DOT regulations?

Those are not all the same issue, and one policy provision may not adequately address all of them.

For New York employers, this discussion already requires particular care. New York generally limits when an employer may test for cannabis or take action based on lawful off-duty cannabis use unless an exception under Labor Law § 201-D or another applicable legal requirement applies.

A positive cannabis test also does not automatically establish that an employee was impaired while working.

New York employers may still prohibit cannabis use and possession during work and may take action when an employee displays specific, objectively observable symptoms that decrease job performance or interfere with workplace safety. However, supervisors need to be able to explain what they actually observed. The smell of cannabis by itself is not considered an articulable symptom of impairment under the state’s guidance.

Does it separate a positive test from observed impairment? Does it explain what supervisors should document? Does it address off-duty use, use during work hours, possession on company property, and operation of a company vehicle separately?

Most importantly, are supervisors trained to recognize and document articulable symptoms without jumping directly to a conclusion?

As the federal rescheduling process moves forward, employers may need to make deliberate decisions about their non-DOT testing panels. Some employers may continue cannabis testing where it is legally permitted. Others may limit testing to positions covered by mandatory requirements. Some may remove marijuana from certain non-DOT panels while strengthening their reasonable suspicion and impairment procedures.

The answer may not be the same for every employer—or even for every position within the same organization.

Before changing a policy, employers should be asking:

Those questions should be answered before the first disputed result, not after it.

Could the FDA Proposal Help Move DOT Oral Fluid Testing Forward?

The FDA recently accepted public comments on a proposal that could remove one of the barriers delaying oral fluid testing in federally regulated drug-testing programs. The public comment period closed on June 30, 2026.

However, this proposal is not yet a final decision.

The proposal is sometimes described as removing the “FDA requirement for oral fluid devices,” but that explanation may be too broad. FDA proposed removing an exception that currently prevents certain qualifying Class II clinical toxicology test systems from receiving a 510(k) exemption when they are intended for use in federal drug-testing programs.

In layman’s terms, finalizing the exemption could make it easier for laboratories and manufacturers to move forward with the devices and testing systems needed for federally regulated oral fluid testing.

But would that mean DOT employers could immediately begin oral fluid testing?

No—not yet.

DOT oral fluid testing still cannot begin until HHS has certified at least two laboratories: one to test the primary specimen and another capable of testing the split specimen. DOT employers must also use an oral fluid collection device approved for use with the applicable HHS-certified laboratory.

The FDA proposal could help remove one regulatory barrier, but it is not the last step required before DOT oral fluid testing becomes operational.

That leaves employers with a useful planning window.

Is your collection site preparing collectors to perform both urine and oral fluid collections? Will the same collection site be able to provide both services after hours?

How will your standing orders explain which specimen type should be used for pre-employment, random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, return-to-duty, and follow-up testing? Is oral fluid even an option that will be considered by your drug and alcohol policy?

What should happen during a shy-bladder or dry-mouth situation? What happens if an employee is suspected of attempting to tamper with a specimen? Who has the authority to approve a change in specimen type?

DOT has made it clear that the employer—not the employee—selects the specimen type.

That decision should not be left to whichever collector happens to be working when the employee arrives.

Is your program prepared to make that decision, communicate it clearly, and apply it consistently once oral fluid testing becomes available?

The Bigger Question: Does Your Program Work Outside the Policy Binder?

None of these updates should be reviewed in isolation.

The revised urine collection guidelines affect collectors and collection sites. The new CCF affects laboratories, electronic systems, employer account numbers, and test-panel setup. Marijuana rescheduling may eventually affect policy decisions, particularly for non-DOT employees. The FDA proposal may help move DOT oral fluid testing closer to becoming operational.

Where do all of those pieces come together?

They come together in the employer’s policy, standing orders, supervisor training, service-agent agreements, and day-to-day procedures.

Could your DER explain how each of these updates affects your organization?

Could a backup DER provide the correct instructions during an after-hours collection? Could a supervisor explain the difference between suspected cannabis use and objectively observable signs of impairment? Could your collection site confirm which CCF it is using and how the correct testing panel is selected?

When those answers are unclear, it may be time to take a closer look at the program as a whole.

Occupational Safety On Site works with employers to review how their written policies, testing procedures, collection-site instructions, and service-agent responsibilities fit together. That may include identifying differences between DOT and non-DOT testing, reviewing standing orders, discussing testing-panel options, and helping supervisors understand how to recognize and document reasonable suspicion appropriately.

The purpose is not to change a policy simply because a new federal notice was published.

The purpose is to make sure the policy still works when someone actually has to use it.

---

This article is intended to provide general compliance information and should not be considered legal advice. Employers should consult qualified legal counsel before changing employment policies or drug-testing practices, particularly when state-specific cannabis laws or medical cannabis protections may apply.

Official Sources and Further Reading

The following government notices, regulations, and guidance documents provide additional information about the updates discussed in this article.

• ODAPC Notice: Updated Urine Collection Specimen Procedures Guidelines
• ODAPC Revised 2026 Federal CCF Notice
• DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Regulatory Actions
• DEA Hearing on Proposed Marijuana Rescheduling Begins June 29
• Federal Register: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana
• DOT Notice on Testing for Marijuana
• New York State Department of Labor: Adult-Use Cannabis and the Workplace
• New York Labor Law § 201-D
• New York Cannabis Law § 127
• New York Cannabis Law § 42—Medical Cannabis Protections
• New York Office of Cannabis Management: Employer Fact Sheet
• ODAPC Notice: FDA Seeks Public Comment on the 510(k) Requirement
• Federal Register: Proposed 510(k) Exemptions for Certain Federal Drug-Testing Devices
• Federal Register: 2026 Updates to DOT Oral Fluid Testing Procedures
• ODAPC Summary: Addition of Oral Fluid Testing
• DOT Oral Fluid Specimen Collection Procedures Guidelines

---

Need Help Reviewing Your Drug and Alcohol Testing Program?

Regulatory updates are only one part of maintaining a compliant program. Employers also need to understand how those updates affect their written policies, testing panels, standing orders, supervisor training, collection-site procedures, and service-agent relationships.

Occupational Safety On Site can help you review how the pieces of your program work together, identify areas that may need clarification, and prepare for upcoming changes before they create problems during an actual test.

Have you reviewed your drug and alcohol testing program recently?