HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-13-Meeting Agendawww.augustaga.gov
Finance Committee Meeting Commission Chamber- 9/13/2010- 1:15 PM
FINANCE
1. Approve funding for the August 10, 2010 Runoff.
Attachments
2. Consider a request from the Asociacion Cultural Hispanoamericana for the
City to provide the use of the Augusta Common at no cost for the 18th
Annual Hispanic Festival.
Attachments
3. 1. Approve additional category for Random Testing under Substance
AbusePolicy for both Full-Time and Part-time Security Officer positions,
Section 1.4.16.21
2. FTA/DOT update on drug testing panel, Section 1.8.1.3.5 and
1.8.1.3.8.
Attachments
4. Approve continuing service agreement with Georgia Administrative
Services (GAS) as the third party administrator for Augusta, GA’s
Workers’ Compensation claims program.
Attachments
5. Approve the replacement of EMA Dive Team Boat.
Attachments
Finance Committee Meeting
9/13/2010 1:15 PM
Approve Funding for August 10, 2010 Runoff
Department:Board of Elections
Caption:Approve funding for the August 10, 2010 Runoff.
Background:The runoff was held on August 10, 2010 as a result of the July 20, 2010
General Primary.
Analysis:The conduct of the runoff was conditional upon the results if the July 20,
2010 General Primary and was not funded as a part of the regular budget
Financial Impact:$54,500
Alternatives:None
Recommendation:Approve funding
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
Contingency or Fund Balance 101101110
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Item # 1
ELECTION COST WORKSHEET
General Primary Runoff
August 10, 2010
ITEM TOTAL COST
Poll Worker Salary 37,500.00
Poll Worker Training 0
Cell Phones 500.00
Testing of Equipment 2,000.00
Temporary Employees (Daily) 3,000.00
Election Night Workers
and Delivery Crew
3,000.00
Security 150.00
Staff Overtime/Comp Hours 0
Custodial Pay 1,150.00
Building Rental 3,400.00
Truck Rental 2,000.00
Printing – Absentee Ballots 3,500.00
Food 200.00
Mileage 100.00
Board Pay 1,000.00
Advertising 0
Postage – Absentee/Poll Worker 0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $54,500.00
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 1
Item # 1
Finance Committee Meeting
9/13/2010 1:15 PM
Asociacion Cultural Hispanoamericana
Department:Clerk of Commission
Caption:Consider a request from the Asociacion Cultural Hispanoamericana for the
City to provide the use of the Augusta Common at no cost for the 18th
Annual Hispanic Festival.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Item # 2
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
Item # 2
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
Item # 2
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
Item # 2
Finance Committee Meeting
9/13/2010 1:15 PM
Substance Abuse Policy Updates
Department:Finance/Risk Management Division
Caption:1. Approve additional category for Random Testing under Substance
AbusePolicy for both Full-Time and Part-time Security Officer positions,
Section 1.4.16.21
2. FTA/DOT update on drug testing panel, Section 1.8.1.3.5 and 1.8.1.3.8.
Background:(1) Security officers are required to submit to a physical, a polygraph and a
pre-employment drug screen prior to hiring. Following the hiring process
there is currently no follow-up on these employees’ in the way of random
testing for illegal drug usage. Since the nature of their job places those in a
position to maintain the security and safety of others these positions should
be added to Augusta’s Substance Abuse Policy for random testing. There
will be approximately 55 to 60 security officer positions which will include
positions for the new Judicial Center. (2) FTA/DOT (TRANSIT)
regulation changes involve changes to the drug testing panel. The new
regulation, effective October 1, 2010 will now include an initial test for
Acetylmorphine (Heroin detector) and initial/confirmatory test for MDMA
(Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, i.e. ecstasy). For consistency in testing
this new panel will be used for all employees.
Analysis:NA
Financial Impact:For additional safety sensitive positions the cost is expected to be minimal
cost - expected to cost less than $3,000/year. Current annual budget is
sufficient to cover this additional testing. The cost for adding the two new
substances to the drug testing process is currently unknown but is not
expected to exceed the current budget for 2010 and requested budget for
2011.
Alternatives:Additions to safety sensitive listing - do not approve, use reasonable
suspicion testing as method for determining possible abuse. FTA/DOT
updates - no alternative for those under Augusta Public Transit. Alternative
for other non-DOT safety sensitive positions is not to add these substances
to the drug testing panel.
Recommendation:Add full-time and part-time security officer positions as a new category for
random testing under Augusta’s substance abuse program. Approve new
FTA/DOT drug testing panel for all employees.
Funds are Available in
the Following 611015210 5212999
Cover Memo
Item # 3
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Risk Management
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Item # 3
PDFConvert.13711.1.Security Officer.doc
Augusta-Richmond County
Job Description
Approved Title: Deputy (Non-Certified) Job Code:
Title: Security Officer Overtime: Non-exempt
Department: Marshal’s Department Date Prepared: October 10, 2000
Reports to: Sergeant (Security Division) Job Grade: 41
GENERAL SUMMARY: Provides security within the guidelines of supervisory instructions and policies and procedures.
Reports to the Duty Officer or other designated person and works with co-workers, employees, law enforcement personnel, and
the public to secure facilities.
PRINCIPAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Enforces Department policies regarding access to and security of complex.
2. Operates screening equipment to maintain secure environment.
3. Conducts regular patrols of the building and grounds.
4. Maintains log of all incidents during shift.
5. Serves as a resource to subordinate personnel.
6. Other responsibilities as assigned by supervisor.
REQUIREMENTS
Education: High School diploma, trade school, or equivalent level of education.
Experience: 3-5 years in similar position or sufficient experience to perform principal duties and responsibilities, usually
associated with completion of apprenticeship/internship.
Knowledge/Skills/Abilities:
• Familiarity with departmental policies and procedures related to security measures.
• Good communication skills, both oral and written.
• Demonstrated ability to work independently and follow instructions.
Other:
• May supervise and/or train designated subordinate personnel.
• Posses or have ability to obtain a valid state operator/driver’s license for the type vehicle or equipment operated.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
Intermittent sitting, standing, stooping, crouching, walking, and occasional lifting of light and heavy objects. Work is performed
in buildings and outdoors with exposure to inclement weather when making rounds. Must be able to restrain persons in life-
threatening situations and distinguish between shades of color.
DISCLAIMER
The preceding job description has been designed to indicate the general nature and level of work performed by employees within
this classification. It is not designed to contain or be interpreted as a comprehensive inventory of all duties, responsibilities, and
qualifications required of employees to this job.
REVIEW/APPROVALS
______________________________________________________ ______________________
Employee Date
______________________________________________________ ______________________
Administration Staff Date
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 1
Item # 3
PDFConvert.13712.1.Security Officer - part time.doc
Augusta-Richmond County
Job Description
Approved Title: Deputy (Non-Certified) Job Code:
Title: Security Officer - (Part time) Salary - $11.61 per/hour
Department: Marshal’s Department
Reports to: Sergeant (Security Division)
GENERAL SUMMARY: Provides security within the guidelines of supervisory instructions and policies and procedures.
Reports to the Duty Officer or other designated person and works with co-workers, employees, law enforcement personnel, and
the public to secure facilities.
PRINCIPAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Enforces Department policies regarding access to and security of complex.
2. Operates screening equipment to maintain secure environment.
3. Conducts regular patrols of the building and grounds.
4. Maintains log of all incidents during shift.
5. Serves as a resource to subordinate personnel.
6. Other responsibilities as assigned by supervisor.
REQUIREMENTS
Education: High School diploma, trade school, or equivalent level of education.
Experience: 3-5 years in similar position or sufficient experience to perform principal duties and responsibilities, usually
associated with completion of apprenticeship/internship.
Knowledge/Skills/Abilities:
• Familiarity with departmental policies and procedures related to security measures.
• Good communication skills, both oral and written.
• Demonstrated ability to work independently and follow instructions.
Other:
• May supervise and/or train designated subordinate personnel.
• May be required to maintain an “on-call” status.
• Posses or have ability to obtain a valid state operator/driver’s license for the type vehicle or equipment operated.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
Intermittent sitting, standing, stooping, crouching, walking, and occasional lifting of light and heavy objects. Work is performed
in buildings and outdoors with exposure to inclement weather when making rounds. Must be able to restrain persons in life-
threatening situations and distinguish between shades of color.
DISCLAIMER
The preceding job description has been designed to indicate the general nature and level of work performed by employees within
this classification. It is not designed to contain or be interpreted as a comprehensive inventory of all duties, responsibilities, and
qualifications required of employees to this job.
REVIEW/APPROVALS
______________________________________________________ ______________________
Employee Date
______________________________________________________ ______________________
Administration Staff Date
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
Item # 3
49850 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
negotiated basis) to determine the nature and
extent of required repairs.
(2) Upon determination by the Contracting
Officer of what work is necessary, the
Contractor, if requested by the Contracting
Officer, shall negotiate prices for
performance of that work. The prices agreed
upon shall be set forth in a modification of
the job order.
(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the
price shall constitute a dispute under the
Disputes clause. In the meantime, the
Contractor shall diligently proceed to
perform the work ordered.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010–20168 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 40
[Docket OST–2010–0026]
RIN 2105–AD95
Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Transportation (the Department or DOT)
is amending certain provisions of its
drug testing procedures dealing with
laboratory testing of urine specimens.
Some of the changes will also affect the
training of and procedures used by
Medical Review Officers. The changes
are intended to create consistency with
many, but not all, of the new
requirements established by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services.
DATES: This rule is effective October 1,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Snider, Senior Policy Advisor (S–
1), Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone number 202–366–3784
(voice), 202–366–3897 (fax), or
mark.snider@dot.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
On November 25, 2008 (73 FR 7185),
the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) issued a
Final Notice of Revisions to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines for Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Programs (HHS
Mandatory Guidelines) that included
changes to the procedures for collection
and testing of urine specimens, creation
of and requirements for the certification
of Instrumented Initial Test Facilities
(IITFs), collection site oversight
requirements, and changes to the role of
and standards for collectors and
Medical Review Officers (MROs). The
HHS Mandatory Guidelines were to
become effective May 1, 2010, but on
April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809), HHS
postponed implementation until
October 1, 2010.
On February 4, 2010, DOT published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) (75 FR 5722) seeking comments
about changing part 40 to be consistent
with certain aspects of the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines. The final rule
responds to the comments and makes a
number of changes to the existing rules
governing the Department’s drug testing
program.
Principal Policy Issues
Requirements of the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of
1991
Several commenters questioned
whether and to what extent the
Department must follow the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines. Some
commenters urged the Department to
choose a different approach from the
HHS regarding the drugs for which
testing occurs, the initial testing of all
specimens for 6–Acetylmorphine (6–
AM), and the use of IITFs. Although
since its passage, the Department has
cited the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act of 1991, 49 U.S.C.
31300, et seq., 49 U.S.C. 20100, et seq.,
49 U.S.C. 5330, et seq., and 49 U.S.C.
45100, et seq. (Omnibus Act), as the
definitive authority for our reliance on
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for
scientific testing issues, several of the
commenters have challenged this or
otherwise asked the Department to
clarify what the Omnibus Act requires.
Even before the Omnibus Act, the
Department looked to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines for guidance on
scientific matters. In a 1988 Interim
Final Rule (IFR) the Department relied
upon the HHS for testing methodologies
to determine the drugs for which testing
would be done and which laboratories
to use. Specifically, the Department
noted that under ‘‘the HHS Guidelines,
a Federal agency may test a urine
sample only for certain specified drugs.
The Department’s Procedures echo this
requirement.’’ (53 FR 47002, Nov. 21,
1988; emphasis in the original) In the
same IFR, the Department required
regulated transportation employers to
use only laboratories certified under the
HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Programs.
While deciding to utilize many aspects
of the HHS Mandatory Guidelines, the
Department acknowledged ‘‘that the
Guidelines, as written by HHS to apply
to testing by Federal agencies, do not fit
perfectly the circumstances of
employers regulated by DOT * * *.
Obviously, the circumstances of
industries regulated by DOT are very
different from those of Federal
agencies.’’ (53 FR 47002) Thus, the
Department began to lay the foundation
for using the technical expertise of the
HHS for the scientific aspects of DOT’s
testing program while relying upon the
Department’s own authority and that of
DOT agencies to tailor many procedural
aspects of DOT testing to fit the
transportation industries.
In a 1989 final rule, we discussed the
applicability of the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to both
the Federal agency programs covered by
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines and the
testing that transportation employers
would conduct in response to the
Department’s requirements. The
Department acknowledged that the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines had passed
Constitutional scrutiny by the Federal
courts, all the way up to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The Federal
courts concluded that HHS had met the
Fourth Amendment balancing of the
Federal need to ensure safety by drug
testing versus individuals’ strong
interests in their right to privacy. The
HHS Mandatory Guidelines had set up
a testing system with sound
methodology that ensured privacy and
accuracy. Given these considerations,
the Department decided to rely on HHS
for the science of DOT’s testing program
and for the drugs for which we test, the
testing methodologies, and the integrity
of the HHS certified laboratories. (54 FR
49854, Dec. 1, 1989)
Congress endorsed the Department’s
decision by explicitly directing, in the
Omnibus Act, the Department to
incorporate the HHS scientific and
technical guidelines for laboratories and
testing procedures for controlled
substances. The Omnibus Act
specifically requires that we incorporate
the HHS scientific and technical
guidelines that ‘‘establish
comprehensive standards for all aspects
of laboratory controlled substances
testing’’ in order to ensure full reliability
and accuracy in testing. [49 U.S.C.
31306(c)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. 20140(c)(2)(A),
49 U.S.C. 5331(d)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C.
45104(2)(A)] The legislative history for
the Omnibus Act indicates the following
intent: ‘‘Incorporating the HHS
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 15
Item # 3
49851 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
guidelines relating to laboratory
standards and procedures for testing
controlled substances, as proposed by
the reported bill and as DOT has done
in part 40 of title 49 CFR, as it exists at
this writing, is an essential component
of the procedural safeguard.’’ Senate
Report 102–54, Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act of 1991, Report of
the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation on S.676,
102nd Congress, 1st Session, May 2,
1991, page 26 (Senate Report 102–54)
(emphasis added). The Omnibus Act
also requires the Department and DOT
agencies to look to the HHS for
laboratory certification, the procedures
for reviewing laboratories for
certification, and the procedures for the
revocation of such certification. In
addition, the Department must follow
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines
regarding establishing the list of drugs
for which we test and the procedures for
use of the Federal Drug Testing Custody
and Control Form (CCF) to establish the
chain of custody of specimens.
The legislative history of the Omnibus
Act indicates that Congress wanted the
Department and DOT agencies to
continue use of the HHS scientific and
technical guidelines and the HHS
certified laboratories to ensure accuracy,
fairness, and the constitutionality of
DOT’s drug testing program. While the
Omnibus Act was being drafted,
opponents of drug testing warned that
employees were in danger of ‘‘false
positives’’ that would result from initial
screening of urine that might indicate
levels of illegal drugs. The Senate noted
that it had addressed this concern: ‘‘By
incorporating laboratory certification
and testing procedures developed by
HHS and DOT and by providing for the
subdivision of specimens and the
opportunity for an independent test of
positive samples, the Committee has
taken affirmative steps to ensure
accuracy.’’ Senate Report 102–54, pages
6–7. The legislative history for the
Omnibus Act makes numerous
additional references to the
understanding that the Department
would work with HHS to ensure testing
accuracy.
There is also clear indication in the
legislative history that Congress
recognized that the HHS standards were
likely to be modified over time. The
Omnibus Act itself explicitly refers to
incorporating the HHS ‘‘scientific and
technical guidelines dated April 11,
1988, and any subsequent amendments
thereto * * *’’ 49 U.S.C. 31306(c)(2), 49
U.S.C. 20140(c)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5331(d)(2)
and 49 U.S.C. 45104(2). Allowing for
subsequent amendments, however, did
not mean that Congress wanted to lower
the standards for testing. ‘‘Realizing that
these guidelines possibly are subject to
future modification, the Committee has
acted to specify that the basic elements
of certain provisions now in effect are
mandated, including the need for
comprehensive standards and
procedures for all aspects of laboratory
testing of drugs, the establishment of a
minimum list of controlled substances
for which employees may be tested, the
establishment of standards and
procedures for the periodic review of
laboratories, and the development of
criteria for laboratory certification.’’
Senate Report 102–54, pages 21–22, 26
and 32.
When the Omnibus Act requires the
Department to follow HHS on specified
scientific matters, we adhere to the
requirements. When the Omnibus Act
allows the Department the option of
following HHS, we have always and
will continue to weigh the costs and
benefits of following HHS in light of our
mission. However, when the Omnibus
Act specifically requires the Department
to take a direction different from that
which HHS takes, then the Department
is prohibited from following HHS on
such matters.
In reviewing the Omnibus Act, its
legislative history, and the regulatory
history of the Department’s testing
program, it remains clear that, since the
inception of our program, the
Department has been tied to HHS for the
scientific methodology, for
identification of the drugs for which we
will require testing; the certified
laboratories we are to use; and the
technical expertise for certifying and
decertifying laboratories. These are the
core scientific laboratory functions
necessary for the Department’s program.
However, it is important to note that
the Department has discretion
concerning many other aspects of the
regulations governing testing in the
transportation industries’ regulated
programs.
As far back as 1988, our regulations
established the fundamental roles and
concepts for the current DOT regulated
industry testing program. Our early
regulations established how collections
were to be done, who could be an MRO
or a Substance Abuse Professional
(SAP), and the respective training for
and responsibilities of these important
gatekeepers. While relying on HHS for
certain scientific efforts, we did not
necessarily follow HHS regarding
collection issues, laboratory reporting
requirements, how MROs handle certain
test results, the rehabilitation and the
return-to-duty process, and other areas
covered by the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines. The Department’s regulation
and the regulations of DOT agencies set
their own processes and procedures for
all aspects leading up to and through
specimen collection and then picking
up from what processes and procedures
would occur after a laboratory
confirmed a drug test result, including
the return-to-duty process for
individuals who have non-negative test
results. In shaping our program to fit the
needs of the transportation industries,
the Department and DOT agencies have
made adaptations to meet the changing
needs of the transportation industries.
In some cases we have consequently
chosen a different path from the one
chosen by HHS on the same or similar
non-scientific issues.
The Omnibus Act acknowledged that
such Departmental and DOT agency
regulations were in place with respect to
non-scientific issues. Congress
explicitly allowed these regulations to
continue in effect, with the option for
the Department and DOT agencies to
amend or further supplement their
respective regulations in the future. 49
U.S.C. 31306(i), 49 U.S.C. 20140(f), and
49 U.S.C. 45106(c).
One example of the Department’s
divergence from HHS on non-scientific
matters covered in the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines is the issue of how to
conduct direct observation collections.
On June 25, 2008, the Department
issued a final rule (73 FR 35961) that,
among other amendments, modified 49
CFR part 40 at section 40.67(b) and
added a new paragraph 40.67(i) to
improve direct observation procedures
to better address known adulteration
and substitution threats. Although HHS
addresses direct observation collections
in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines, the
Department chose to use a different
procedure because of evidence
regarding cheating and our experience
in regulating the transportation
industries. In explaining our rationale,
we noted that the use of direct
observation collections is ‘‘a very
significant tool the Department employs
to combat attempts by employees to
cheat on their tests.’’ (74 FR 37949, July
30, 2009) In addition, we stated in the
final rule reinstating the direct
observation provisions after the court
victory, ‘‘the Department remains
convinced that conducting all return-to-
duty and follow-up tests under direct
observation is the most prudent course
from the viewpoint of safety.’’ (74 FR
37950, quoting the October 22, 2008
final rule preamble at 73 FR 62918)
The Department’s regulations
concerning direct observation
procedures were affirmed by a
unanimous court. (BNSF Railway
Company v. Department of
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 15
Item # 3
49852 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
Transportation, 566 F.3d 200 (DC Cir.
2009) In upholding the rule, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
noted that the Department had
experience, comments, and evidence to
support the need to make the
improvements to the direct observation
procedures. BNSF Railway Company v.
Department of Transportation, 566 F.3d
at 204. The Court further found that the
improved procedures were
constitutional, stating, ‘‘[g]iven the
combination of the vital importance of
transportation safety, the employees’
participation in a pervasively regulated
industry, their prior violations of the
drug regulations, and the ease of
obtaining cheating devices capable of
defeating standard testing procedures,
we find the challenged regulations
facially valid under the Fourth
Amendment.’’ Id. at 208. Hence, the
Department chose a different approach
from HHS on direct observation
procedures, tailored them to the needs
identified, and the Court upheld this
approach as constitutional.
Some of the commenters asked the
Department to consider deviating from
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines
regarding the drugs for which testing is
required. Some commenters want the
Department to exclude
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDMA) from the list of drugs, while
others want the Department to include
synthetic opiates, and others want
alternative testing methodologies to be
employed.
It is not unusual for the Department
to receive requests from commenters to
move away from the illegal drugs for
which HHS has set the protocols;
however, the Department has remained
consistent in our responses and our
reliance upon HHS as the scientific
experts in these matters. What the
Department stated in response to similar
requests in the late 1990s to move
beyond the HHS minimums still
remains true: ‘‘This is a long-standing
issue in the program, and DOT
continues to take the position that we
ought not to go beyond the testing that
HHS has authorized and for which HHS
has certified laboratories.’’ (65 FR 79484,
Dec. 19, 2000) In response to those who
have urged DOT to go beyond the drugs
for which HHS tests, we have
consistently stated: ‘‘we believe the
stability and reliability of the program
are well served by limiting testing to the
‘HHS five.’ HHS has established testing
protocols and cutoffs for these drugs,
and laboratories are subject to HHS
certification for testing of these five
drugs. This is not true for other drugs.’’
(65 FR 79491, Dec. 19, 2000) Although
the HHS has now expanded its panel to
include an additional amphetamine,
MDMA, the same reasoning holds true
and the Department will continue to
follow the HHS testing protocols for the
reasons we explained in 2000.
Also in 2000, the Department
explained, ‘‘With respect to alternative
testing technologies such as hair testing,
saliva testing, and on-site testing, which
commenters recommended in context of
several sections of the NPRM, the
Department will wait upon the action of
HHS before proposing to incorporate
additional methods. Approval of these
or other methods, and establishment of
requirements and procedures for them,
are matters primarily within the
expertise of HHS.’’ (65 FR 79489, Dec.
19, 2000) Furthermore, in the preamble
to our Specimen Validity Testing final
rule in 2008 (SVT Final Rule), we stated
that the Omnibus Act ‘‘provides only
one way to determine that an employee
has tested positive for illicit drug use—
a drug test confirmed by an HHS-
certified laboratory using HHS scientific
and testing protocols and verified by an
MRO.’’ (73 FR 35966, June 25, 2008)
The Department, as required by the
Omnibus Act, has consistently
specifically followed HHS on laboratory
certification matters, but we have also
created responsibilities for laboratories
under part 40 that do not impinge upon
the scientific and technical aspects of
drug testing. As the Department stated
in 2000, ‘‘laboratories have
responsibilities under part 40
independent of their HHS
responsibilities (e.g., with respect to
relationships with MROs, release of
information, and validity testing), and
laboratories must be accountable to DOT
in those matters.’’ (65 FR 79484, Dec. 19,
2000)
At times, we have had to adapt certain
aspects of technical drug testing matters
to fit the needs of the transportation
industries. For example, in 2003, the
Department issued an interim final rule
(2003 IFR) concerning laboratory
substitution criteria. (68 FR 31624, May
28, 2003) In the 2003 IFR, we did not,
and could not, change the HHS-
established laboratory testing
substitution criteria, but instead
addressed how laboratories were to
report out their findings to the MROs on
the CCF, what subsequent actions
would be required of the MROs with
respect to the reported result, and
whether to tell the employer to send the
employee back in for a direct
observation collection. In short, we said
that specimens reported by laboratories
as substituted with creatinine
concentration in the 2–5 ng/mL range
would not be considered by MROs to be
refusals to test. Instead, transportation
employees with such results would
require immediate recollections under
direct observation.
In a July 2008 interpretation, which is
being incorporated in this final rule at
section 40.159, the Department
instructed MROs on how to ‘‘handle
laboratory results reported as invalid
because of pH greater than or equal to
9.0 but less than or equal to 9.5.’’ This
is another example of how the
Department has adapted the HHS
scientific requirements established for
laboratories to the needs of the
transportation industries. In fact, the
HHS Mandatory Guidelines have
adopted our MRO provisions for
invalids due to pH in the 9.0–9.5 range.
We read the Omnibus Act to require
the Department to follow the HHS on
the drugs for which we test and the
testing protocols, but the Omnibus Act
allows us to, and we have chosen to,
diverge from the HHS and the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines on collections,
MROs, and what laboratories can report.
As we said in our 2008 SVT Final Rule
preamble, ‘‘Since Congress specifically
limited the scientific testing
methodology upon which DOT can rely
in making its drug and alcohol testing
regulations; we follow the HHS
scientific and technical guidelines,
including the amendments to their
Mandatory Guidelines.’’ (73 FR 35961,
June 25, 2008) In the 2008 SVT Final
Rule, we also explained that the
‘‘Omnibus Act requires the DOT to
incorporate the HHS scientific and
technical guidelines, and we do not
have the authority to impose additional
scientific and technical requirements
upon the laboratories.’’ (73 FR 35963,
June 25, 2008)
In response to the commenters who
would like us to consider alternative
specimens such as hair testing and point
of collection testing, we reiterate what
we said in response to comments on our
direct observation final rule in late
2008: ‘‘The Department is not opposed
to the use of alternative, less intrusive,
testing methods as a means of
accomplishing the safety purposes of
the program while preventing
individuals from cheating. Under the
Omnibus Transportation Employee
Testing Act of 1991, however, the
Department is authorized to use only
testing methods that have been
approved by the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). To date,
HHS has not approved any specimen
testing except urine.’’ (73 FR 62917, Oct.
22, 2008) Therefore, we cannot consider
alternative specimens at this particular
point in time. In fact, DOT would not
desire to do so without the HHS
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 15
Item # 3
49853 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
scientific and laboratory certification
processes being in place.
Several commenters have asked us to
explain how the Omnibus Act affects
the Department’s determination of
whether it will and will not follow HHS.
In response, as we explained above,
where the Omnibus Act requires the
Department to follow the HHS—for the
laboratory and testing procedures, the
Department will follow the scientific
and technical aspects prescribed by the
HHS. Where the Omnibus Act limits or
otherwise prohibits the Department
from following the HHS, the Department
must decline to follow the lead of the
HHS. For example, when HHS did not
embrace a split specimen requirement,
the Department departed from the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines due to the
Omnibus Act’s requirements for split
specimens. Where the HHS takes a
position that we are neither required to
follow nor prohibited from following,
the Department will continue to view
the HHS position as optional. We
recognize that the HHS has expertise in
the Federal employee testing program
for these optional matters, but the
Department has its own expertise as the
regulator of the largest workplace drug
and alcohol testing program in the
world. As such, we will consider the
optional matters in light of
transportation safety, the costs and
benefits to our regulated industries, and
scientific and forensic considerations.
Use of Instrumented Initial Test
Facilities
In our NPRM, we proposed allowing
DOT employers to choose between full
service laboratories and IITFs. An IITF
would be able to provide results to
employers only for negative and certain
negative dilute specimens, as well as
specimens they reject for testing. All
other specimens would be forwarded to
an HHS certified, full service laboratory.
We requested comments as to how this
process would impact the industry,
specifically employers. The majority of
commenters felt that use of IITFs would
be detrimental to the turnaround time
for reporting of non-negative results and
most did not favor use of IITFs. Other
commenters believed IITFs would be
very useful, accurate, and afford the
ability for a rapid turnaround time for
their negative results.
DOT Response
The Omnibus Act actually prohibits
the Department from following HHS on
the issue of IITFs. The Omnibus Act
requires ‘‘that all laboratories involved
in the controlled substances testing of
any individual under this section shall
have the capability and facility, at such
laboratory, of performing screening and
confirmation tests.’’ (49 U.S.C.
31306(c)(3), 49 U.S.C. 20140(c)(3), 49
U.S.C. 5331(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C.
45104(3)) An IITF can conduct the
initial screening for drugs in a urine
specimen, but is not certified to provide
a confirmation test.
Since IITFs do not have any
confirmation testing capabilities, the
Department must not use them in part
40. The Senate Report for S. 676, the bill
that subsequently became the Omnibus
Act, indicates the intent behind this
requirement was to ensure that ‘‘[a]ny
testing program would be required to
include procedures to protect individual
privacy, incorporate laboratory
certification and testing procedures
developed by [HHS] * * * require that
all laboratories involved in testing for
drugs have the capability of performing
screening and confirmation tests at such
laboratory.’’ Senate Report 102–54,
pages 10–11. Because IITFs do not offer
confirmation testing, the Department is
prohibited by the Omnibus Act from
using laboratory facilities that lack the
capability to perform both screening and
confirmation tests. Therefore, DOT
employers do not have the option of
using IITFs. For this reason there are no
provisions in this final rule for IITFs,
and they will not be authorized for use
in DOT’s program by our regulated
employers.
MDMA Testing
In the NPRM, we proposed to
incorporate testing for MDMA into part
40.
Comments
A majority of commenters favored
testing for MDMA. A few commenters
indicated that their data showed that
there would be relatively few positive
test results, creating an unnecessary cost
burden to employers. One laboratory
group opposed the inclusion of MDMA
and suggested the Department test
instead for ‘‘hydromorphone,
hydrocodone, oxycodone, and
oxymorphone.’’
Those who favored testing MDMA
represented a wide range of interests—
MRO groups, third-party administrators,
a major employer association, a major
service agent association, among them.
Most who supported testing for MDMA
said that many employers were already
testing for MDMA in their non-DOT
testing programs. They supported
putting MDMA testing into the Federal
testing arena.
Some commenters presented
information about the use of MDMA,
saying that MDMA was no longer a
threat; MDMA is strictly a drug for
younger persons; MDMA is a ‘‘club’’
drug that is not being used by
transportation employees.
Others presented data showing that
MDMA use is on the rise and the
implication is that the threat of MDMA
use will become greater as the current
transportation population is replaced
via attrition by a younger population.
DOT Response
In this rulemaking, we are adopting
the HHS laboratory testing requirements
of conducting initial testing for MDMA,
conducting confirmatory testing for
MDMA, Methylenedioxyamphetamine
(MDA), and
Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine
(MDEA). As we stated in our NPRM,
regarding such matters, ‘‘past experience
has shown that DOT has never deviated
from HHS on laboratory testing
matters—the drugs for which we test,
the specimens we test, specimen
validity testing values, initial and
confirmatory cutoff values, and
laboratory testing processes and
procedures, among others. The DOT is
required by the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act of 1991 to adhere
with the HHS on these important
laboratory testing matters.’’ (75 FR 5722–
5723, Feb. 4, 2010) We can provide
additional guidance to MROs, as
appropriate, so that these changes fit the
transportation industries. However, we
do not read our authority as allowing us
to depart from HHS on this subject.
Aside from the fact that the Omnibus
Act requires us to test the drugs for
which HHS labs are certified to test, we
note that, as some commenters said,
MDMA is not just a ‘‘club drug’’ any
more, it is being marketed to a much
larger population in American
communities.
The Department of Justice National
Drug Intelligence Center’s 2010 National
Drug Threat Assessment (http://
www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/
38661p.pdf) supports DOT’s conclusion
with regard to MDMA availability,
finding:
‘‘Asian DTOs [Drug Trafficking
Organizations] are responsible for a
resurgence in MDMA availability in the
United States, particularly since 2005. These
groups produce large quantities of the drug
in Canada and smuggle it into the United
States across the Northern Border. The
smuggling of MDMA into the United States
from Canada fueled an increase in the
availability of the drug that began in 2005,
although availability appears to be
stabilizing. Data regarding MDMA
availability are limited; nonetheless, analysis
of National Forensic Laboratory Information
System (NFLIS) data shows a 76 percent
increase in the number of MDMA
submissions from 2005 to 2008, although
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 4 of 15
Item # 3
49854 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
MDMA submissions make up a much smaller
percentage of submissions than other illicit
drugs, including cannabis, cocaine,
methamphetamine, and heroin. National
Drug Threat Survey (NDTS) data also provide
an indication of MDMA availability. The
percentage of state and local law enforcement
agencies that reported moderate or high
availability of MDMA in their areas increased
from 47.2 percent in 2005 to 51.5 percent in
2009.
Seizure data show that the amount of
MDMA seized along the U.S.-Canada border
increased 156 percent from 2007 to 2008 and
that more MDMA was seized at the Northern
Border in 2008 than in any year since 2005.
MDMA seizure totals declined in 2009 but
still exceeded 2007 totals. Although most
Northern Border seizures occur at POEs
(Points of Entry), the amount of MDMA
seized between POEs appears to be
increasing, likely because increased scrutiny
at POEs has forced smugglers to develop new
routes and smuggling methods in an attempt
to circumvent law enforcement.
For example, in 2008, more than 243,000
dosage units of MDMA were seized between
POEs, compared with none the previous year;
seizures between POEs in 2009 exceeded
those in 2008.
MDMA seizures along the Southwest
Border and through commercial air have also
increased, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Seizures at or near the Southwest Border
show an increase from 114,286 dosage units
in 2006 to 387,143 dosage units in 2009.
Furthermore, commercial air seizures spiked
in 2008, with a 91.4 percent increase from
2007 to 2008 (433,571 dosage units to
829,857 dosage units); MDMA commercial
air seizure totals for 2009 decreased,
resulting in levels comparable to 2007 levels.
Ready availability of MDMA has enabled
distributors to expand their customer base to
include new user groups, most notably
African American and Hispanic users. Asian
DTOs have begun distributing MDMA to
African American and Hispanic street gangs,
which distribute the drug along with other
illicit drugs in markets throughout the United
States, most notably in the Southeast,
Southwest, and Great Lakes Regions.
Moreover, MDMA is no longer exclusively
viewed as a ‘‘rave’’ or club drug, which also
aids distributors in selling it to
nontraditional abusers.’’
One laboratory group urged DOT to
require testing prescription medications
and synthetic drugs, rather than MDMA.
While DOT shares the group’s concern
about unauthorized use of the
prescription medications and the use of
synthetic drugs, testing for prescription
medications and synthetic drug and
testing for MDMA are separate issues.
As part of their non-DOT testing
programs, regulated employers can test
for prescription medications or
synthetic drugs and in many instances
it may be appropriate to do so.
Some DOT agencies and the United
States Coast Guard (USCG), for instance,
have medical qualification standards—
for Commercial Drivers License holders,
certified pilots and aviation mechanics,
and licensed mariners—that focus upon
the underlying medical conditions that
would require use of prescription
medications. Evaluating medical
professionals are trained to seek
information that would shed light on an
individual’s use of medicines and their
qualification to perform safety sensitive
duties.
It is also important to note that
employers can expand upon the
Department’s regulatory requirements,
as long as they do not represent the test
as being required by DOT. Under their
non-DOT testing programs, DOT-
regulated companies may test for other
drugs of their choosing. Therefore,
companies are not prohibited by DOT
from testing for additional drugs that
may be of concern within their
communities and companies.
Lowering Laboratory Cutoff Criteria for
Cocaine and Amphetamines
The Department proposed, in the
NRPM, to adopt the HHS-lowered
laboratory testing cutoffs for cocaine
and amphetamines. Initial test cutoffs
for cocaine metabolites would go from
300 to 150 ng/mL, while confirmation
test cutoffs would go from 150 to 100
ng/mL.
For amphetamines, initial test cutoffs
would go from 1000 to 500 ng/mL,
while confirmation tests for
amphetamines and methamphetamines
would go from 500 to 250 ng/mL.
Comments
Most commenters support the
Department’s conforming to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines in lowering the
cutoffs for both cocaine and
amphetamines. Most believe doing so
will enhance the safety of the traveling
public because more users of illicit
drugs and more users of non-prescribed
medications will be identified. There
was no controversy about the new
screening and confirmation test levels
for cocaine.
Some commenters believed that there
could be ‘‘false positive’’ drug tests
stemming from the new cutoffs for
amphetamines. Some others believed
the amphetamine cutoffs could even
cause laboratories to report over-the-
counter (OTC) medications as confirmed
positive test results. Some others
believed that lowering the screening
cutoffs for amphetamines will provide
little value in the confirmation process,
serving only to increase the cost of the
program.
Some commenters cited the data from
one of the laboratories—Clinical
Research Laboratory (CRL)—as reason to
support the new cutoffs, while others
cited the same data as reason to oppose
the new cutoffs.
DOT Response
As stated earlier in this document, the
Department must follow the laboratory
testing protocols and standards that are
established by HHS. Therefore, we must
and will adhere to the screening and
confirmation drug testing cutoffs that
HHS has established for the laboratories
and for which the laboratories are
certified. In addition, taken with the
comment data from Quest Laboratories,
we believe the laboratory data sets from
both Quest and CRL lead likely to some,
but not all, of the same conclusions.
Regarding cocaine, based upon data
provided by both Quest and CRL, we
can expect a marked increase in cocaine
users identified using the new screening
and confirmation cutoffs that HHS has
established. The Department, like the
overwhelming number of commenters,
considers this to be a beneficial change.
In 2009, there were nearly 13,000
positive DOT drug test results reported
by laboratories as having confirmed
positives for cocaine. Quest and CRL
data show that we can expect a
significant number of confirmed
positive test results for cocaine using
the new cutoffs. These new lower
cutoffs should result in the Department
identifying more cocaine users, further
assuring the traveling public that the
transportation system is the safest it can
be. Doing so will also permit us to
continue to further deter drug use in the
transportation industries and get those
identified as using drugs referred for
evaluation and treatment.
Regarding amphetamine and
methamphetamine, the Quest data
report on 68,000 regulated and 132,000
non-regulated specimens and indicate
that a 40% increase in screening and a
30% increase in confirmation rates are
expected; hence, a large number of
currently non-detected users would be
identified.
A second submission of amphetamine
and methamphetamine test data, this
from CRL, includes the reanalysis of a
much smaller number of regulated
specimens. Several important facts
about the CRL study protocols and
results were not fully explained or
clarified in their data submission. As a
result, we are concerned that other
commenters may have misinterpreted
the CRL data as meaning that there will
be ‘‘false positive’’ tests results for
amphetamines and that some OTC
medications—ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine—will be
confirmed and reported as positives by
laboratories.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 5 of 15
Item # 3
49855 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
We want to address these
commenters’ statements that testing at
the new amphetamine screening cutoffs
will yield ‘‘false positive’’ test results.
Neither CRL nor Quest even alluded to
there being a ‘‘false positive’’ testing
issue with the new amphetamine
cutoffs. Concerns about the risks of
‘‘false positive’’ test results are not
supported by the available data. In fact,
no reportable positive test results were
identified in the CRL and Quest data on
specimens that did not, in fact, screen
and confirm positive for a drug for
which DOT tests.
In addition, we want to clarify that no
OTC medication that CRL chose to test
for—ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine—would confirm
positive on a DOT test and would be
reported on a DOT test. We are
concerned that the CRL confirmation
testing on these specimens may have
proven misleading to the groups who
read the data and believed that our tests
for amphetamines would identify these
particular OTC medications. It is our
opinion that CRL’s inclusion of this
confirmation test data does not support
CRL’s conclusion. Laboratories simply
will not conduct confirmation testing
for or identify these OTC medications in
DOT’s program.
It is also important to note that only
confirmed positive drug tests are
reported to the MRO as positive. No
results screened positive are reported as
positive until and unless they are also
positive on a laboratory confirmation
test and for the drugs for which we test.
And, no test result is reported to the
employer until the MRO properly
verifies the result by determining if the
employee has a legitimate medical
explanation for the positive. If the
employee has a legitimate medical
explanation, the MRO will report the
result to the employer as a negative test.
These are ‘‘due process’’ steps that have
always been an integral part of DOT’s
testing program.
We realize that laboratories will
certainly screen specimens for
amphetamines at the new HHS cutoffs
and will not realize the same return rate
on confirmed positive testing as they
observe now, as CRL points out
effectively in their data. CRL is
concerned that the cost of confirming
the increased number of screened
positive tests does not warrant the
expense for such a small number of
confirmed positives, as shown by their
data.
It is important to note that the
confirmation rates for opiates and
amphetamines is now generally less
than that for THC, cocaine, and PCP.
Therefore, it is not unusual to see a
disparity between screening rates and
subsequent confirmation rates,
especially for opiates and
amphetamines.
However, we will urge HHS to closely
monitor this screening issue for
amphetamines during the first year the
new cutoffs are in place. We believe that
the issue will be properly evaluated by
HHS with DOT, the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention Drug
Testing Advisory Board (CSAP DTAB),
and laboratories in determining if the
screening cutoffs for amphetamine
would need to be modified upward if
the added cost largely outweighed the
benefits. The CSAP DTAB provides
advice to the Administrator, SAMHSA,
regarding the drug testing laboratory
certification program.
Laboratory Testing for 6–
Acetylmorphine (6–AM)
In the NPRM, we proposed to
incorporate new HHS criteria for initial
testing for 6–AM, a marker for heroin.
We also asked if there were factual,
evidence-based concerns about the need
to show morphine with a 6–AM
confirmed positive result. Also, if there
were evidence-based systematic
research and studies showing that
morphine must also be present and
quantitations reported, we asked for
solutions by laboratories and/or MROs
to adequately address the issue.
Comments
A slight majority of commenters
expressed support for the new HHS
screening and confirmation cutoffs for
6–AM. Some who support the tests for
6–AM do so because they believe
transportation safety will be enhanced
when more heroin users are identified
and removed from their safety-sensitive
duties. Several who do not support the
provision express concern about the
new cutoffs no longer requiring a test for
morphine—something they say is
imperative to ensure that the person is
actually a heroin user. At least one
commenter believes no additional
heroin users will be identified and
expresses concern about the cost of
having only one supplier of laboratory
reagent for 6–AM.
Several laboratory entities and experts
weighed in on the issue. RTI
International (RTI) agreed with HHS for
screening all specimens for 6–AM and
for dropping the requirement to ensure
a presence of morphine above 2000 ng/
mL. RTI indicated that the new testing
will increase the positive rate by 8—
29%, but failed to explain the basis for
its concern. They also quote three
studies as supporting the HHS decision.
Clinical Research Laboratory (CRL)
quoted their own study—for which we
have no way to assess the adequacy of
the study protocols—and stated that out
of 820 tests for opiates and 6–AM, all
screened at 3 ng/mL, versus the HHS
cutoff of 10 ng/mL, and all except one
had opiate positive results above the
2,000ng/mL cutoff. CRL did not attempt
to explain why this sample tested
positive for 6–AM but did not test for
morphine. They concluded that there is
no published explanation for the
detection of 6–AM without the presence
of morphine. Therefore, CRL
recommended that the Department
provide guidance to MROs and
laboratories about conferring with one
another if there were ever 6–AM
without the presence of morphine.
Quest Laboratories reviewed 1.2
million test results. Of those specimen
results, 112 tested positive for 6–AM
(heroin). The Quest study data indicated
that 7 of those 112 6–AM positives also
tested positive for morphine in the 300–
2000 ng/mL range. The remaining 105
6–AM positives had morphine
confirmed above 2000 ng/mL. Quest
suggested that ‘‘only’’ six tests out of a
million would test positive for 6–AM
and not have morphine that was present
reported to the MRO. Therefore, Quest
recommended that DOT provide
additional guidance to MROs to speak
with laboratories related to morphine
that may be present but not reported by
the laboratory.
DOT Response
As stated earlier in this document, the
Department must follow the laboratory
testing protocols and standards that are
established by HHS. Therefore, we must
adhere to the screening and
confirmation drug testing cutoffs that
HHS has established for the laboratories
and for which the laboratories are
certified.
6–AM is a unique metabolite
produced when a person uses the illicit
drug heroin. 6–AM is both excreted in
the urine and further metabolized to
morphine. Morphine can also be
excreted in the urine as a result of
codeine or morphine use. Thus,
morphine is a common metabolite of
both heroin and codeine.
It is well established that, in some
instances, individuals who are positive
for 6–AM are atypically low in the
coincident morphine concentration
found in urine. That is, their morphine
concentrations are below the HHS/DOT
cutoff of 2000 ng/mL and even below
300 ng/mL. Therefore, testing programs
focused on the morphine concentration
as the screening discriminator will fail
to identify a number of heroin users
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 6 of 15
Item # 3
49856 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
(estimated by some studies referenced
in the docket to be about 10% of the
opiate positives).
While morphine positives in the
absence of 6–AM require significant
MRO intervention to differentiate
legitimate morphine or codeine sources
for morphine, 6–AM is a definitive
marker for heroin use and thus requires
no MRO intervention. There are simply
no legitimate medical explanations for
6–AM positive tests. Although there has
been from time to time some anecdotal
suggestion that 6–AM can be produced
from morphine, existing scientific
evidence does not support such a claim.
The atypical finding of a 6–AM
positive in the absence of significant
morphine findings by CRL may be the
result of recent heroin use close to the
time of sampling, a metabolic defect in
the metabolism of 6–AM resulting in
prolonged excretion, shunting of
metabolic pathways away from
morphine, or interaction with other
substances not identified. Therefore, the
6–AM testing does not require
confirmation by the simultaneous
detection of a specified quantity of
morphine.
Multiple scientific publications have
concluded that a portion of the
population shows urinary
concentrations of 6–AM above 10 ng/mL
with morphine concentrations below
300 ng/mL, even though the Quest study
showed that none of their 6–AM
positive results had morphine below a
300 ng/mL cutoff.
Therefore, the salient facts are:
•6–AM confirmed positive tests do
not need a morphine marker;
•Data show that when one looks for
morphine as a marker, it most always
exists above the morphine confirmation
cutoffs or above Limit of Detection
(LOD); and
•If the morphine marker does not
exist on a 6–AM positive result, there is
ample scientific reason to strongly
suggest recent heroin use.
Despite these facts and until more
information is gathered from DOT’s
experience with 6–AM testing, when a
6–AM confirmed positive result is
reported and morphine for that
specimen is not reported at or above the
2000 ng/mL confirmed positive cutoff,
the laboratory and MRO must confer to
determine if there was confirmed
morphine below the 2000 ng/mL, and if
not, whether further testing is needed to
quantify the amount of morphine
present. The laboratory must report the
amount of morphine from the test to the
MRO.
If a laboratory finds no detectable
morphine at its LOD upon further
testing, the laboratory must report that
fact to DOT’s Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance (ODAPC)
immediately. Based upon the scientific
evidence that exists today, we simply do
not think that 6–AM with no morphine
detected will occur. But we will
determine what our first year of 6–AM
screening and confirmation testing
reveals in this matter. We would work
directly with MROs on these cases, if
there would be any. We would also
work with HHS to determine if
additional action is necessary.
Ultimately, the MRO, with ODAPC’s
assistance, would make a verified result
determination following these
discussions.
Last year, HHS-certified laboratories
conducted approximately 5.2 million
DOT tests. Quest estimates that there
will be 6 tests per one million that
would be reported to MROs for 6–AM
with morphine concentrations below
the established confirmation cutoffs.
Extrapolated, this would mean
approximately 30 6–AM positive
specimen tests a year will be reported to
MROs with morphine below 2000 ng/
mL. As with other 6–AM positives, the
MRO must not accept an assertion that
there is a legitimate explanation for the
presence of 6–AM in the employee’s
specimen.
Approval of Medical Review Officer
Training and Examination Groups
The HHS Mandatory Guidelines will
require that nationally-recognized MRO
certification entities or subspecialty
boards for medical practitioners in the
field of medical review must have their
qualifications, training programs, and
examinations approved by HHS on an
annual basis. The Department requested
comments on whether part 40 should
require these groups to be approved and
if the Department should seek a shared
approval process with HHS.
Comments
Commenters were rather evenly
divided about whether the Department
should require or join the approval
process of the nationally-recognized
MRO certification and subspecialty
boards. Some who support DOT’s
involvement expressed concern that
HHS would be the only approving
authority if the Department does not
share in that responsibility. Some who
did not support the Department’s
involvement in the approval process
also tended not to support HHS
approval of these boards, either. Some
commenters offered suggestions about
basic standards for national certification
groups.
DOT Response
While we believe the current MRO
training and examination boards have
very strong standards, we want to be
certain that these groups continue to
present well and accurately the
Department’s part 40 and DOT agency,
including the USCG, drug rules. After
all, no MRO wants to be in violation of
the Department’s regulations because of
erroneous information presented during
training or on a certification
examination. Consequently, it makes
sense to consider the benefits of
additional oversight of MRO
certification groups.
Some of the basic standards suggested
by one commenter were very similar to
our Subpart O requirements for national
drug and alcohol counselor certification
organizations. Our experience with
these counselor certification
organizations taught us that having
standard requirements rules out up-
front substandard counseling
organizations. Our SAP experience also
taught us that, from the beginning, the
major MRO organizations had
established highly reputable training
and examination modalities. In fact, we
used some of the MRO testing standards
in laying out the examination
requirements that SAP testing
organizations now follow.
We liked the idea submitted by one of
the commenters for basic standards for
the MRO certification organizations and
will pass these ideas to HHS. However,
we see no pressing need for the
Department to use our limited staff time
and personnel to participate in or
require approval for these established
organizations. Again, our experience has
been that these national organizations
effectively train, test, and certify MROs.
As long as they continue to do so, and
as long as there are no new MRO
certification organizations on the
horizon, we see no reason to expend
additional resources approving those
who have already demonstrated their
competence.
We will continue our practice of
helping MRO training and examination
groups to accurately update DOT’s
portions of their course materials,
manuals, and examination content. We
believe our assistance will enable us to
make sure that content is DOT-specific
and accurate.
We anticipate that HHS approval
standards would include all Federal
testing programs. However, we do not
intend to become involved in this
approval process, unless HHS identifies
significant deficits with any of the
training and examination efforts by any
of these boards that affect DOT’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 7 of 15
Item # 3
49857 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
1‘‘Proctored Versus Unproctored Online Exams:
Studying the Impact of Exam Environment on
Student Performance,’’ Kimberly K. Hollister and
Mark L. Berenson Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education Volume 7 Issue 1, Pages 271–
294 Published Online: 16 Jan 2009 2010 Decision
Sciences Institute.
‘‘On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the
same?’’ Warren, L., & Holloman, Jr., H. (2005).
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 148–151.
‘‘Questioning the hybrid model: Student
outcomes in different course formats’’ Reasons, S.,
Valadares, K., & Slavkin, M., Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, (2005) 9(1).
‘‘Comparison of outcomes on like exams
administered to in-residence and asynchronous
distance-based Pharm. D. students.’’ Ragan, R. &
Kleoppel, J. (2004). Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 8(4).
‘‘The Relationship Between Performance Levels
and Test Delivery Methods,’’ Patricia Royal, Paul
Bell; International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, July 2008 Vol.
5. No. 7.
‘‘Traditional versus Online Content Delivery and
Assessment,’’ Margaret D. Anderson and Mark
Connell, International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, February 2009,
Vol. 6. No. 2.
program. For now, DOT will not require
these MRO training and examination
organizations to obtain HHS approval.
Furthermore, MROs in the DOT program
will not be required to be trained by an
HHS-approved group, as long as the
MROs meet DOT’s qualification training
and requalification training
requirements.
Some of the commenters noted that
one MRO certification organization
reportedly provides an on-line
examination. These commenters ask the
Department to put a stop to this practice
by requiring only proctored testing. One
commenter indicated that at least the
examination for the initial MRO
certification should be proctored. We
will defer action on the issue of
proctored versus on-line examinations
until we know more about the HHS
approval process. We would note,
however, that the entire issue of
proctored versus on-line examinations
remains largely unresolved—with
supporters in both corners and with
studies and literature supporting both
camps.1
Medical Review Officer Recurrent
Requalification Training and
Examination
In our NPRM we sought comments on
whether part 40, at 49 CFR 40.121(d),
should be amended by removing the
requirement that MROs must complete
12 Continuing Education Units (CEUs)
pertaining to DOT and MRO practices
every three years, and instead require
MROs to be requalified every five years
by an MRO certification board or
subspecialty board for medical
practitioners.
Comments
Most commenters supported the idea
that the Department require MROs to be
requalified by being certified on a
regular basis. Most also wanted DOT to
continue to require MROs to have
continuing education (or, Continuing
Medical Education) related to their
MRO work. Several commenters
indicated that they did not see any
benefit to changing the requirements,
believing that initial qualification
training and the continuing education
requirement the Department established
in 2000 has proven adequate.
DOT Response
Medical review of drug test results is
more complex today than when we
established the continuing education
requirement in 2000. Therefore, we have
decided to side with the overwhelming
majority of commenters supporting
MRO requalification training and
reexamination on a regular basis. We
will require MRO requalification every
five years. However, to offset the
associated costs, we will not maintain
the requirement for continuing
education.
Over the years, it has been somewhat
difficult for us to know whether the 12
CEU hours obtained by many MROs
every three years were indeed related to
DOT’s testing program, as required.
However, based on our experience to
date, we believe that a requalification
requirement every five years will assure
DOT agency auditors and inspectors and
regulated employers that MROs are
appropriately qualified.
We anticipate that MROs will
continue to obtain CEUs by virtue of
their MD and DO licensure
requirements. In addition, the MRO
certification boards provide their
members with MRO manuals and
periodic newsletters in an effort to keep
everyone up-to-date on the
Department’s program requirements.
The MRO plays a key role in our
important Federal safety program and
maintains the Constitutionally
mandated balance between the safety
and privacy objectives of the program.
The MRO’s role in gathering and
evaluating the medical evidence and
providing due process is imperative.
These are duties that must be carried
out by the MRO and cannot be delegated
to anyone.
The MRO is charged with certain
important medical and administrative
duties. The MRO must have detailed
knowledge of the effects of medications
and other potential alternative medical
explanations for laboratory reported
drug test results. He or she is
responsible for determining whether
legitimate medical explanations are
available to explain an employee’s drug
test result. This medical review process
has become far more complex as a result
of specimen validity testing and the
myriad of medical explanations for
adulterated, substituted, and invalid
laboratory test results. These
complexities have made MRO
knowledge of the effects of drugs and
medications even more important than
it was in 2000.
Part 40 also requires the MRO to
confer with prescribing physicians in
making decisions about prescription
changes so that alternative medications
can be used that will not impact public
safety. Similarly, the MRO is required to
report to employers the employees’
prescription and over-the-counter
medication use (or dangerous
combinations of use) that the MRO
believes will negatively affect duty
performance. In addition, the MRO is
required to medically assess referral
physician examinations and evaluations
in certain positive and refusal-to-test
situations. These, too, have become
more complex over time.
For these reasons, we think
qualification training and examination
followed by requalification and an
examination every five years will be
much more effective than the current
one-time training and examination
requirement with periodic CEUs. To
ensure that MROs are well qualified, the
requalification process must be very
similar to the original qualification
training (i.e., a full training program
addressing all issues required by part
40) and an examination administered by
a nationally recognized MRO
certification board or subspecialty board
for medical practitioners in the field of
medical review of DOT-mandated drug
tests. A mere ‘‘update’’ type of training
will be considered a violation of part 40.
This regulation text lays out the
requirements for when this new
requalification training is to take place.
MROs must maintain documentation
about their qualification training and
any subsequent continuing education.
MROs would simply be required to
complete the new requalification
training and examination no later than
five years from the date of having last
met either their qualification training or
continuing education requirements.
Following the completion of the new
requalification requirements, MROs will
be required to complete requalification
training and examination every five
years thereafter.
DOT will continue to use the term
‘‘qualification training’’ rather than
‘‘certification training’’ and will use
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 8 of 15
Item # 3
49858 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
‘‘requalification training’’ rather than
‘‘recertification training’’ in part 40.
Medical Review Officer Records
Maintenance
In the NPRM we asked for discussion
related to MRO records; primarily we
asked what documentation of
consultation and deliberation should be
in MRO records. In the NPRM, we stated
that our current recordkeeping
requirements for negative and non-
negative test results would not change
based upon the new HHS MRO
recordkeeping requirements.
Comments
Six commenters addressed the issue
of MRO records. All supported the idea
that MROs should keep records and that
the time frame should be the same as
that required for employers.
One association said that DOT
inspectors are not qualified to question
MRO judgments regarding medical
information and its relevance. Another
commenter indicated that personal
information, which was not defined,
should be confidential and not part of
the MRO file. This same commenter
provided a long list of items that should
be part of the record, including various
dates and times of MRO contacts and
conversations with various Designated
Employer Representatives (DERs),
collectors, and employers. In addition,
this commenter believed that
information should be included related
to contacts with other physicians,
laboratories, and pharmacies, although
without specific detail.
DOT Response
The DOT agrees with commenters that
MRO records are very important and
integral to the MRO review process. We
believe that records and notes generated
by the review process need to be
maintained. The purpose of any record
is to ensure that proper procedures and
results were achieved under part 40
requirements. MRO records must show
why a particular specimen is negative or
non-negative. At times, the test result
must withstand legal challenges.
DOT regulations already require
MROs to follow the employer’s record
retention requirements—five years for
non-negatives and one year for
negatives. Those will not change.
The notes recorded by the MRO are
considered by the Department to be part
of the record. These notes generally
contain all the information that was
discussed by the MRO with the
employee and any supplemental
information the MRO uses to support
the various reasons the employee
provides as legitimate medical
explanation for a non-negative result.
The MRO records may include copies of
prescriptions, letters from other
physicians, and consultations by the
MRO with physicians, pharmacy
personnel, laboratory personnel, and
other appropriate individuals.
However, a listing of these contacts
without specific references as to what
was discussed would not be effective.
There must be a specific comment or
rationale to which the MRO can
subsequently refer for support and
reasoning about the outcome of the
verification process. This is especially
true if a decision is challenged in a
court or an administrative hearing
proceeding.
During the verification interview, the
employee may share personal
information. Unless a specific issue,
such as the use of psychotropic
medication, is used as a medical
explanation for a drug positive, the
MRO should not include the other
sensitive, unrelated personal
information in the record. From a
practical point of view, MROs will
primarily record information that is
specific to the issue at hand or may have
an impact upon safety. The Department
is comfortable that MROs are trained,
both in their role as physicians and as
MROs, to maintain a clear balance
between recording of pertinent
information versus not recording
sensitive information which is not
relevant to the verification process or
transportation safety.
In reference to inspectors’
qualifications to question MROs
medical decisions, we want to point out
that the purpose of an inspection is not
to challenge a physician’s medical
expertise, but rather to ensure that the
MRO is abiding by regulations and
current requirements. In most cases, the
issue would be whether there is
adequate documentation for whatever
action the MRO took. For example, if
the MRO had his or her staff confer with
the pharmacist or a prescribing
physician—instead of doing so himself
or herself, as the regulations require—
the MRO’s procedures would be
contrary to part 40.
When a positive result is downgraded
to a negative result, the inspector would
look at the reason for this downgrade. If
there is a legitimate medical
explanation, the inspector would expect
to see this clearly spelled out in the
record. For example, if a THC positive
confirmed laboratory result were
downgraded to negative because of an
explanation of ‘‘medical marijuana’’ use,
the inspector would rightfully view that
as a serious matter, because it remains
unacceptable for any safety-sensitive
employee subject to DOT drug testing
rules to use marijuana.
Additional areas of concern by DOT
inspectors and auditors focus upon the
person(s) who actually talk(s) with the
employee following a non-negative
result (e.g., the MRO vs. the MRO staff),
how requests for split specimen testing
are handled and whether requests are
handled in timely manner, and how
DERs are notified about non-negative
results. The Department also knows that
inspectors and auditors are trained to
address all of these issues, and they are
sensitive to the fact that these MRO
records contain medical information
and that they must be handled
appropriately. We want to reaffirm that
inspecting and auditing MRO records
has been, and will continue to be, one
of the mechanisms that inspectors and
auditors use to ensure compliance with
DOT regulations.
Section-by-Section Discussion
The following part of the preamble
discusses each of the final rule’s
sections, including responses to
comments on each section.
Table of Contents
The Department proposed, in the
NPRM, to modify some existing section
headings in order to reflect regulation
text changes. In all, three section
headings have been modified and one
has been added. §40.3, §40.87, and
§40.139 have been revised, and §40.140
has been added.
Section 40.3 What do the terms in this
part mean?
In order to align more closely the
definitions in §40.3 with definitions
contained in the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines, in the NPRM, the
Department proposed modifying some
existing definitions and adding several
new ones.
Five commenters supported this
proposal and responded by making
suggested additions or changes to this
section. Several commenters did not
support the changes, contending that
the Department should not allow DOT-
regulated employers to use IITFs.
Because the Department is not allowing
IITFs, no definitions related to IITFs
will be added. A few commenters did
not want the Department to change its
definition of ‘‘cancelled test’’ because
the proposed definition was confusing.
After reviewing the comments the
Department agrees with the commenters
and will keep the current definition of
‘‘cancelled test.’’ Other commenters did
not want the Department to add
definitions that were only applied to the
HHS program and not to the DOT
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 9 of 15
Item # 3
49859 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
program. We have reviewed those
definitions and decided that most will
be in the regulation. It is necessary to
harmonize our terms with HHS
definitions, in order that laboratories
and others in the drug testing industry
have consistent terms with which to
operate.
In all, 13 definitions will be modified
or added to harmonize with HHS
definitions, and one will be removed.
The new or modified definitions are
‘‘Adulterated specimen,’’ ‘‘Confirmatory
drug test,’’ ‘‘Initial drug test (also known
as a Screening drug test),’’ ‘‘Initial
specimen validity test,’’ ‘‘Invalid drug
test,’’ ‘‘Laboratory,’’ ‘‘Limit of Detection
(LOD),’’ ‘‘Limit of Quantitation,’’
‘‘Negative result,’’ ‘‘Positive result,’’
‘‘Reconfirmed,’’ ‘‘Rejected for testing,’’
and ‘‘Split specimen collection.’’ The
term ‘‘Initial validity test’’ was removed.
Section 40.87 What are the cutoff
concentrations for drug tests?
The Department will require
conducting initial and confirmation
testing for MDMA, MDA, and MDEA,
conducting initial testing for 6–AM,
lowering the initial and confirmation
cutoff concentrations for amphetamines,
and lowering the initial and
confirmation cutoff concentrations for
cocaine. We include certain instructions
for laboratories (and MROs) related to
6–AM testing. Specific discussions of
these issues are included under
‘‘Principal Policy Issues’’ in this
preamble.
Section 40.97 What do laboratories
report and how do they report it?
The Department added a paragraph to
this section instructing the laboratory to
contact ODAPC if it ever confirms 6–
AM with no detectable morphine at its
LOD, upon further testing. A fuller
discussion of this matter is in ‘‘Principal
Policy Issues.’’
Section 40.121 Who is qualified to act
as an MRO?
Commenters had a number of
suggestions related to ongoing training
for MROs. The DOT reviewed the
comments and, as discussed in the
‘‘Principal Policy Issues,’’ will require
MRO requalification, including training
and examination, every five years.
Section 40.139 On what basis does the
MRO verify test results for codeine and
morphine?
The Department has revised this
section by limiting the section to how
MROs are to verify laboratory-confirmed
codeine and morphine test results. We
removed 6–AM verification from this
section and moved it to a new section.
We also revised the section’s heading.
Section 40.140 On what basis does the
MRO verify test results for 6-
acetylmorphine (6–AM)?
This new section provides
instructions to MROs on how they are
to verify confirmed positive 6–AM
results from laboratories. Instructions
include how MROs are to handle 6–AM
confirmed positive results when
morphine is above the confirmation
cutoff, when morphine is confirmed
below the confirmation cutoff, when
morphine is confirmed above LOD, and
if ever morphine is not detected at LOD
upon further testing. A fuller discussion
of this matter is in ‘‘Principal Policy
Issues.’’
Section 40.151 What are MROs
prohibited from doing as part of the
verification process?
The Department has revised this
section by adding MDMA, MDA, and
MDEA as being among the drugs for the
presence of which there exist no
legitimate medical explanations. This
instruction is consistent with what the
Department has said about PCP and 6–
AM.
Section 40.159 What does the MRO do
when a drug test is invalid?
In response to the commenters’
concerns related to pH, this section is
based on a July 2008 guidance
authorizing MROs to consider time and
temperature in making their verification
decisions if pH is in the 9.0–9.5 range.
A fuller discussion of this matter is in
‘‘Principal Policy Issues.’’
Section 40.163 How does the MRO
report drug test results?
The majority of the commenters
wanted DOT to be clear about the
records MROs should keep and how
long MROs should keep them. Based
upon the comments, we have decided to
put more specificity about this issue
into the MRO rule text section. MROs
keep negative and cancelled drug test
reports and records for one year, and all
positive and refusal drug test reports
and records for five years. A fuller
discussion of this matter is in ‘‘Principal
Policy Issues.’’
Appendix B to Part 40—DOT Drug
Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory Report
to Employers
The Department has modified the
requirements for the semi-annual
laboratory reports to employers. The
changes require laboratories to also
report the total number of MDMA,
MDA, and MDEA positive drug test
results.
Appendix C to Part 40—DOT Drug
Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory Report
to DOT
The Department has modified the
requirements for the semi-annual
laboratory reports to DOT. The changes
require laboratories to also delineate the
positives for the newly added MDMA,
MDA, and MDEA. We are also breaking
out the other drugs for which we test in
order to make it simpler for laboratories
to report and for our staff to tally the
reports.
Other Issues
There were several comments that
addressed editorial changes and
included typographical errors. We
appreciate these comments and
incorporated a good many of the
suggestions and edits.
The Department also received several
comments that we consider to be
outside of the scope for this rulemaking.
However, in order to try to bring closure
to these issues, we will provide some
explanation and clarification.
One commenter said that section
40.25 stated that the employer was
required to obtain consent from the
applicant, but the commenter believed
that section 40.27 prohibited the
employer from obtaining consent for
release of the 40.25 information. We
would like to point out that section
40.25 requires the employee to sign this
written consent in order to perform
safety-sensitive duties and is very
specific as to the purpose of this
consent. Section 40.27 prohibits an
employer from requiring the employee
to sign a form consenting to
participation in the program, a blanket
release form for all drug and alcohol
testing information, or any type of
waiver of indemnification or liability.
There is no contradiction between these
two requirements.
Another commenter believed that the
HHS employer option for a second
collection, if the first test result was
‘‘negative dilute,’’ was not adopted by
DOT. We would point out that this
authorization has already been part of
our rule for some time and is clearly
spelled out in section 40.197.
One commenter wanted the
Department to establish a time limit on
how long an employee had to wait at a
collection site before providing a urine
specimen. This commenter thought that
two hours should be the maximum
timeframe an employee had to wait to
provide a specimen. This same
commenter also wanted clarification
about what constituted a ‘‘drug failure’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 10 of 15
Item # 3
49860 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
and that leaving the collection site for
a short time should not be considered a
refusal, unless the employee left the
collection area where the urine sample
is actually taken. Additionally, this
commenter wanted some grievance
procedures to be established should
there be problems at a collection site.
Although this commenter was
concerned about how long an employee
may have to wait to provide a specimen,
we would like to emphasize that section
40.61(b) clearly directs the collection
site to ‘‘begin the testing process without
undue delay.’’ The Department’s
position has always been that testing
should start as soon as possible after the
employee’s arrival at the site. The
Department’s position has always been
that the employee cannot leave the
collection site, i.e., the waiting area,
even for a short time. Leaving the site
provides employees the opportunity to
adulterate or substitute their specimens.
And finally, collection site problems
encountered by employees should be
raised to the employer following the
collection. The employer is ultimately
responsible for the proper operation of
its drug testing program.
One association asked for clarification
as to what the Department intended by
the term ‘‘same business day’’ as it
applies under section 40.205. This
section directs that if a problem is
identified in the testing process, anyone
involved in it should make an attempt
to correct the problem on the same
business day that notification is
received about the problem. This
commenter provided several scenarios
where the employer, the collection site,
or the service agent offices are closed,
but the information is transmitted to
them. The question is how these entities
can meet the requirement of responding
on the same day that they are notified
about a problem.
If an office is closed when
information is received, common sense
dictates that the next day the office is
open is the business day it is received.
Several commenters asked about other
HHS Mandatory Guidelines procedures
and whether the Department would
adopt them. As discussed in the NPRM,
the Department identified those HHS
Mandatory Guidelines we proposed to
adopt and which ones we did not. In
this final rule, we have again
highlighted those we have adopted.
For example, the Department will not
require observers to receive advanced,
formalized training to learn about the
steps necessary to directly observe a
collection. The current process of
having a qualified and trained collector
provide immediate, precise, and
relevant instructions to an observer at
the time of a directly observed
collection is very appropriate and
effective and has been for years. That
way, the Department can be assured that
the requisite instructions are provided
each time that direct observation is
required, no matter how many, or few,
an observer has already accomplished.
In addition, the costs associated with
formally training observers (and the
resulting limitation on available
observers) does not outweigh any
minimal benefits to arguably be
obtained by training observers in
advance instead of providing timely and
relevant instructions on site at the time
direct observation is required. The
Department is not aware of any cases
where it was not effective to have the
qualified and trained collector instruct
the observer at the time a direct
observation must occur, and to do so
each and every time, no matter whether
the observer has already been trained
and properly informed.
Also, DOT will not change our
longstanding regulatory position that a
collector need not obtain prior approval
from a collection site supervisor before
performing a directly observed
collection. Requiring collectors to get
approval from collection site
supervisors would create difficult
logistical issues that would complicate
the process. There are numerous
instances where the collector is alone or
does not have immediate access to a
collection site supervisor. In fact, the
collector may be the site supervisor.
Many collections occur off-site or in the
middle of the night, where and when
supervisors would not be available, and
requiring consultation with an
unavailable supervisor would prove
onerous and serve only to delay the
process unnecessarily. We believe
qualified collectors should continue to
make these direct observation collection
decisions and to continue basing those
decisions upon the clear requirements
set forth in part 40.
Also, we will not change the duration
of the paperwork retention requirement
for collectors. HHS will require
collectors to keep Copy 3 for two years.
The Department believes the current 30
days is sufficient in DOT’s program.
Retention for 30 days has proven a
sufficient amount of time in which to
ensure that a CCF copy with the
employee’s signature would be available
to the MRO when the MRO’s CCF copy
was not available. Requiring document
retention for two years would greatly
increase the paperwork burden without
any added safety or efficiency benefit.
Under the revised HHS Mandatory
Guidelines, Federal agencies will be
required to audit five percent or a
maximum of 50 of their collection sites
annually. The Department believes that
creating a parallel requirement for
transportation industry employers
would be very expensive to employers
in DOT’s program in terms of time and
resources, with few efficiency and/or
safety benefits. The Department would
anticipate seeing more effective
monitoring by the collection site parent
organizations in an effort to ensure for
employers that sites under their
organization umbrellas, with which
employers are contracting, are properly
conducting collections. The DOT
agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard also
provide on-site audits and inspections
of collection sites. They have also
increased their mock collection
inspections and their clandestine
inspections. All of these provide added
oversight to determine whether
collection site personnel are properly
performing collections and whether
collection sites adhere to DOT’s strong
security and integrity requirements.
The revised HHS Mandatory
Guidelines will require at least three
percent blind specimen testing,
compared to DOT’s current one percent.
We believe our current requirements
represent a good balance between
considerations of reducing burdens and
maintaining an effective check upon
laboratory performance. We have had
few, if any, laboratory accuracy
problems over the history of the
program, and we believe that we can
continue to ensure that this pattern
continues while reducing burdens and
costs on participants. Coupled with the
HHS requirements and the additional
proficiency testing required for
laboratory certification, the blinds
submitted to laboratories for quality
control testing purposes via DOT
requirements are quite ample.
In the NPRM, the Department
estimated the total annual cost of testing
for MDMA and 6–AM to be $1,361,063.
One commenter believed that estimate
to be too low, but did not offer any
recommended cost figure. We believe
there will be approximately 5 million
DOT tests per year, and an MDMA test
will cost on average $ 0.09 per test, and
6–AM will cost on average $.26 per test.
MDMA will cost approximately $450
thousand per year, and 6–AM will cost
approximately $1.3 million per year, for
a total of $1.75 million per year.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
The statutory authority for this rule
derives from the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of
1991 (49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331,
20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.) and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 11 of 15
Item # 3
49861 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
Department of Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. 322).
The Department estimates there will
be approximately 5 million DOT tests
per year. An MDMA test will cost on
average $0.09 per test, and 6–AM will
cost on average $.26 per test. MDMA
will cost approximately $450 thousand
per year, and 6–AM will cost
approximately $1.3 million per year, for
a total of $1.75 million per year. Based
upon the data discussed in the
‘‘Principal Policy Issues,’’ the increased
detection of amphetamine,
methamphetamine, and cocaine use
through drug testing is estimated to be
approximately 30% more for
amphetamines/methamphetamines, and
30% more for cocaine. In 2009, HHS-
certified laboratories reported to DOT
that there were 14,195 confirmed DOT
positive results for amphetamines/
methamphetamines. So, we estimate an
increase of over 4,000 confirmed
positive amphetamine/
methamphetamine test results. Also in
2009, laboratories reported 12,918 DOT
cocaine confirmed positive results.
Therefore, we estimate an increase of
nearly 4,000 confirmed cocaine results.
We estimate the cost associated with
this increase of 8,000 positive test
results for cocaine and amphetamines/
methamphetamines to be $500
thousand. The total program cost of the
new regulation will be $2.25 million.
It stands to reason that it will be cost
beneficial to identify the illegal drug use
of an additional 8,000 safety-sensitive
transportation employees annually,
across all modes—on roads, rails, water,
or in the air, over land and
underground. Furthermore, if
identifying the illicit drug use by these
employees prevents a single serious
accident, then the economic benefits of
the rule will outweigh its costs. As we
have stated throughout this preamble,
the Omnibus Act requires us to follow
HHS on these specific drug testing
matters.
We have concluded that this rule is
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 or DOT’s regulatory
policies and procedures. In addition to
its low costs, it modifies our overall part
40 procedures and is intended to further
align our laboratory procedures and
processes, as well as some collection
and MRO procedures, in order to
harmonize DOT procedures with
requirements that are being directed by
HHS Mandatory Guidelines, which were
themselves deemed to be non-
significant rules. The DOT also certifies,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Given the
small net change in regulatory costs
compared to the present rule, spread
over the many thousands of small
entities in the transportation industries,
the cost impact per entity is expected to
be negligible.
There are no new information
collection requirements that would be
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This rule does not
include requirements that (1) have
substantial direct effects on the States,
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, (2) impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments, or (3)
preempt State law. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40
Administrative practice and
procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol
testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing,
Laboratories, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Transportation.
49 CFR subtitle A, Authority and
Issuance.
Issued August 10, 2010, at Washington DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.
■For reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 40, as
follows:
PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR
TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE
DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
PROGRAMS
■1. The authority citation for 49 CFR
part 40 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331,
20140, 31306, and 54101 et seq.
* * * * *
■2. §40.3 is amended as follows:
■A. Revise the section heading.
■B. Revise the definitions of
Adulterated specimen, Confirmatory
drug test, Initial drug test (also known
as a Screening drug test), Invalid drug
test, Laboratory, and Limit of detection
(LOD).
■C. Add in alphabetical order
definitions of Initial specimen validity
test, Limit of Quantitation, Negative
result, Positive result, Reconfirmed,
Rejected for testing, and Split specimen
collection.
■D. Remove the definition of Initial
validity test.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§40.3 What do the terms used in this part
mean?
* * * * *
Adulterated specimen. A specimen
that has been altered, as evidenced by
test results showing either a substance
that is not a normal constituent for that
type of specimen or showing an
abnormal concentration of an
endogenous substance.
* * * * *
Confirmatory drug test. A second
analytical procedure performed on a
different aliquot of the original
specimen to identify and quantify the
presence of a specific drug or drug
metabolite.
* * * * *
Initial drug test (also known as a
‘‘Screening drug test’’). The test used to
differentiate a negative specimen from
one that requires further testing for
drugs or drug metabolites.
Initial specimen validity test. The first
test used to determine if a urine
specimen is adulterated, diluted,
substituted, or invalid.
Invalid drug test. The result reported
by an HHS-certified laboratory in
accordance with the criteria established
by HHS Mandatory Guidelines when a
positive, negative, adulterated, or
substituted result cannot be established
for a specific drug or specimen validity
test.
* * * * *
Laboratory. Any U.S. laboratory
certified by HHS under the National
Laboratory Certification Program as
meeting the minimum standards of
Subpart C of the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug
Testing Programs; or, in the case of
foreign laboratories, a laboratory
approved for participation by DOT
under this part.
* * * * *
Limit of Detection (LOD). The lowest
concentration at which a measurand can
be identified, but (for quantitative
assays) the concentration cannot be
accurately calculated.
Limit of Quantitation. For quantitative
assays, the lowest concentration at
which the identity and concentration of
the measurand can be accurately
established.
* * * * *
Negative result. The result reported by
an HHS-certified laboratory to an MRO
when a specimen contains no drug or
the concentration of the drug is less
than the cutoff concentration for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 12 of 15
Item # 3
49862 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
drug or drug class and the specimen is
a valid specimen.
* * * * *
Positive result. The result reported by
an HHS-certified laboratory when a
specimen contains a drug or drug
metabolite equal to or greater than the
cutoff concentrations.
* * * * *
Reconfirmed. The result reported for
a split specimen when the second
laboratory is able to corroborate the
original result reported for the primary
specimen.
* * * * *
Rejected for testing. The result
reported by an HHS-certified laboratory
when no tests are performed for a
specimen because of a fatal flaw or a
correctable flaw that is not corrected.
* * * * *
Split specimen collection. A
collection in which the urine collected
is divided into two separate specimen
bottles, the primary specimen (Bottle A)
and the split specimen (Bottle B).
* * * * *
■3. In §40. 87, the section heading and
paragraph (a) are revised, and paragraph
(e) is added, to read as follows:
§40.87 What are the cutoff concentrations
for drug tests?
(a) As a laboratory, you must use the
cutoff concentrations displayed in the
following table for initial and
confirmatory drug tests. All cutoff
concentrations are expressed in
nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The
table follows:
Initial test analyte Initial test cutoff concentration Confirmatory test analyte Confirmatory test cutoff con-
centration
Marijuana metabolites .................... 50 ng/mL ....................................... THCA
1 .......................................... 15 ng/mL.
Cocaine metabolites ...................... 150 ng/mL ..................................... Benzoylecgonine .......................... 100 ng/mL.
Opiate metabolites
Codeine/Morphine2 ........................ 2000 ng/mL ................................... Codeine ........................................ 2000 ng/mL.
Morphine ....................................... 2000 ng/mL.
6–Acetylmorphine .......................... 10 ng/mL ....................................... 6–Acetylmorphine ......................... 10 ng/mL.
Phencyclidine ................................. 25 ng/mL ....................................... Phencyclidine ................................ 25 ng/mL.
Amphetamines3
AMP/MAMP 4 .......................... 500 ng/mL ..................................... Amphetamine ................................ 250 ng/mL.
Methamphetamine5 ...................... 250 ng/mL.
MDMA 6 .......................................... 500 ng/mL ..................................... MDMA ........................................... 250 ng/mL.
MDA7 ............................................ 250 ng/mL.
MDEA8 .......................................... 250 ng/mL
1Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THCA).
2Morphine is the target analyte for codeine/morphine testing.
3Either a single initial test kit or multiple initial test kits may be used provided the single test kit detects each target analyte independently at
the specified cutoff.
4Methamphetamine is the target analyte for amphetamine/methamphetamine testing.
5To be reported positive for methamphetamine, a specimen must also contain amphetamine at a concentration equal to or greater than 100
ng/mL.
6Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).
7Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA).
8Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA).
* * * * *
(e) On a 6–AM confirmed positive
result:
(1) When a 6–AM confirmed positive
result is reported and morphine for that
specimen is not reported at or above the
2000 per ng/mL confirmed positive
cutoff, you must confer with the MRO
to determine if there was confirmed
morphine below 2000 ng/mL.
(2) If morphine was not confirmed
below 2000 ng/mL, you and the MRO
must determine whether further testing
is needed to quantify the amount of
morphine concentration present.
(3) If you find no detectable morphine
at LOD upon further testing, you must
report that fact to ODAPC immediately.
■4. In §40.97, paragraph (g) is added to
read as follows:
§40.97 What do laboratories report and
how do they report it?
* * * * *
(g) If you confirm 6–AM and find no
detectable morphine at LOD upon
further testing, you must report that fact
to ODAPC immediately.
■5. In §40.121, paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
§40.121 Who is qualified to act as an
MRO?
* * * * *
(d) Requalification Training. During
each five-year period from the date on
which you satisfactorily completed the
examination under paragraph (c)(2) of
this section or have successfully
completed the required continuing
education requirements which were
mandatory prior to October 1, 2010, you
must complete requalification training.
(1) This requalification training must
meet the requirements of the
qualification training under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(2) Following your completion of
requalification training, you must
satisfactorily complete an examination
administered by a nationally-recognized
MRO certification board or subspecialty
board for medical practitioners in the
field of medical review of DOT-
mandated drug tests. The examination
must comprehensively cover all the
elements of qualification training listed
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
■6. §40.139 is revised to read as
follows:
§40.139 On what basis does the MRO
verify test results for codeine and
morphine?
As the MRO, you must proceed as
follows when you receive a laboratory
confirmed positive morphine or codeine
test result:
(a) In the absence of 6–AM, if the
laboratory detects the presence of either
morphine or codeine at 15,000 ng/mL or
above, you must verify the test result
positive unless the employee presents a
legitimate medical explanation for the
presence of the drug or drug metabolite
in his or her system, as in the case of
other drugs (see §40.137). Consumption
of food products (e.g., poppy seeds)
must not be considered a legitimate
medical explanation for the employee
having morphine or codeine at these
concentrations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 13 of 15
Item # 3
49863 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
(b) For all other opiate positive
results, you must verify a confirmed
positive test result for opiates only if
you determine that there is clinical
evidence, in addition to the urine test,
of unauthorized use of any opium,
opiate, or opium derivative (i.e.,
morphine, heroin, or codeine).
(1) As an MRO, it is your
responsibility to use your best
professional and ethical judgment and
discretion to determine whether there is
clinical evidence of unauthorized use of
opiates. Examples of information that
you may consider in making this
judgment include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(i) Recent needle tracks;
(ii) Behavioral and psychological
signs of acute opiate intoxication or
withdrawal;
(iii) Clinical history of unauthorized
use recent enough to have produced the
laboratory test result;
(iv) Use of a medication from a foreign
country. See §40.137(e) for guidance on
how to make this determination.
(2) In order to establish the clinical
evidence referenced in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, personal
observation of the employee is essential.
(i) Therefore, you, as the MRO, must
conduct, or cause another physician to
conduct, a face-to-face examination of
the employee.
(ii) No face-to-face examination is
needed in establishing the clinical
evidence referenced in paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) or (iv) of this section.
(3) To be the basis of a verified
positive result for opiates, the clinical
evidence you find must concern a drug
that the laboratory found in the
specimen. (For example, if the test
confirmed the presence of codeine, and
the employee admits to unauthorized
use of hydrocodone, you do not have
grounds for verifying the test positive.
The admission must be for the
substance that was found).
(4) As the MRO, you have the burden
of establishing that there is clinical
evidence of unauthorized use of opiates
referenced in paragraph (b) of this
section. If you cannot make this
determination (e.g., there is not
sufficient clinical evidence or history),
you must verify the test as negative. The
employee does not need to show you
that a legitimate medical explanation
exists if no clinical evidence is
established.
■7. A new §40.140 is added to read as
follows:
§40.140 On what basis does the MRO
verify test results for 6-acetylmorphine (6–
AM)?
As the MRO, you must proceed as
follows when you receive a laboratory
confirmed 6–AM test result:
(a) If the laboratory confirms the
presence of 6–AM in the specimen and
there is also any level of quantitation of
morphine, you must verify the test
result positive.
(b) When a laboratory 6–AM
confirmed positive result is reported
and morphine for that specimen is not
reported at or above the 2000 per ng/mL
confirmed positive cutoff, you must
confer with the laboratory to determine
if there was confirmed morphine below
2000 ng/mL.
(1) If there was confirmed morphine
below 2000 ng/mL, you must verify the
test result positive.
(2) If morphine was not confirmed
below 2000 ng/mL, you and the
laboratory must determine whether
further testing is needed to quantify the
amount of morphine present.
(c) If a laboratory finds detectable
morphine at its LOD upon further
testing, you must verify the test result
positive.
(d) If a laboratory finds no detectable
morphine at its LOD upon further
testing, you and the laboratory must
report that fact to the ODAPC
immediately. Following your discussion
with ODAPC, you will make a verified
result determination.
■8. In §40.151, paragraph (g) is revised
to read as follows:
§40.151 What are MROs prohibited from
doing as part of the verification process?
* * * * *
(g) You must not accept an assertion
that there is a legitimate medical
explanation for the presence of PCP, 6–
AM, MDMA, MDA, or MDEA in a
specimen.
* * * * *
■9. In §40.159, paragraph (a)(6) is
added to read as follows:
§40.159 What does the MRO do when a
drug test is invalid?
(a) * * *
(6) When the test result is invalid
because pH is greater than or equal to
9.0 but less than or equal to 9.5 and the
employee has no other medical
explanation for the pH, you should
consider whether there is evidence of
elapsed time and increased temperature
that could account for the pH value.
(i) You are authorized to consider the
temperature conditions that were likely
to have existed between the time of
collection and transportation of the
specimen to the laboratory, and the
length of time between the specimen
collection and arrival at the laboratory.
(ii) You may talk with the collection
site and laboratory to discuss time and
temperature issues, including any
pertinent information regarding
specimen storage.
(iii) If you determine that time and
temperature account for the pH value,
you must cancel the test and take no
further action, as provided at paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(iv) If you determine that time and
temperature fail to account for the pH
value, you must cancel the test and
direct another collection under direct
observation, as provided at paragraph
(a)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
■10. In §40.163, paragraph (h) is added
to read as follows:
§40.163 How does the MRO report drug
test results?
* * * * *
(h) You must maintain reports and
records related to negatives and
cancelled results for one year; you must
maintain reports and records related to
positives and refusals for five years,
unless otherwise specified by applicable
DOT agency regulations.
■11. Appendix B to part 40 is revised
to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 40—DOT Drug
Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory
Report to Employers
The following items are required on each
laboratory report:
Reporting Period: (inclusive dates)
Laboratory Identification: (name and address)
Employer Identification: (name; may include
Billing Code or ID code)
C/TPA Identification: (where applicable;
name and address)
1. Specimen Results Reported (total number)
By Test Reason
(a) Pre-employment (number)
(b) Post-Accident (number)
(c) Random (number)
(d) Reasonable Suspicion/Cause (number)
(e) Return-to-Duty (number)
(f) Follow-up (number)
(g) Type of Test Not Noted on CCF
(number)
2. Specimens Reported
(a) Negative (number)
(b) Negative and Dilute (number)
3. Specimens Reported as Rejected for
Testing (total number)
By Reason
(a) Fatal flaw (number)
(b) Uncorrected Flaw (number)
4. Specimens Reported as Positive (total
number) By Drug
(a) Marijuana Metabolite (number)
(b) Cocaine Metabolite (number)
(c) Opiates (number)
(1) Codeine (number)
(2) Morphine (number)
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 14 of 15
Item # 3
49864 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 157/Monday, August 16, 2010/Rules and Regulations
(3) 6–AM (number)
(d) Phencyclidine (number)
(e) Amphetamines (number)
(1) Amphetamine (number)
(2) Methamphetamine (number)
(3) MDMA (number)
(4) MDA (number)
(5) MDEA (number)
5. Adulterated (number)
6. Substituted (number)
7. Invalid Result (number)
■12. Appendix C to part 40 is revised
to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 40—DOT Drug
Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory
Report to DOT
Mail, fax, or e-mail to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance, W62–300, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 366–3897. E-mail:
ODAPCWebMail@dot.gov.
The following items are required on each
report:
Reporting Period: (inclusive dates)
Laboratory Identification: (name and address)
1. DOT Specimen Results Reported (total
number)
2. Negative Results Reported (total number)
Negative (number)
Negative-Dilute (number)
3. Rejected for Testing Results Reported (total
number)
By Reason
(a) Fatal flaw (number)
(b) Uncorrected Flaw (number)
4. Positive Results Reported (total number)
By Drug
(a) Marijuana Metabolite (number)
(b) Cocaine Metabolite (number)
(c) Opiates (number)
(1) Codeine (number)
(2) Morphine (number)
(3) 6–AM (number)
(d) Phencyclidine (number)
(e) Amphetamines (number)
(1) Amphetamine (number)
(2) Methamphetamine (number)
(3) MDMA (number)
(4) MDA (number)
(5) MDEA (number)
5. Adulterated Results Reported (total
number)
By Reason (number)
6. Substituted Results Reported (total
number)
7. Invalid Results Reported (total number)
By Reason (number)
[FR Doc. 2010–20095 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:09 Aug 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM 16AUR1WR
e
i
e
r
-
A
v
i
l
e
s
o
n
D
S
K
G
B
L
S
3
C
1
P
R
O
D
w
i
t
h
R
U
L
E
S
Attachment number 3
Page 15 of 15
Item # 3
Administrative Regulation No. 3-1
Effective Date: January 16, 1996
Revised Date: September 7, 2010
Revised/Approved Date:
AUGUSTA POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE
1 POLICY AND PURPOSE:
1.1 In recognition of the continued and growing problem of substance abuse, it is the policy of the
Augusta to take all reasonable measures to assure that drug and/or alcohol use by employees does
not jeopardize the safety of its operations or otherwise adversely affect Augusta employees, the
community, or the public's trust in its ability to carry out its responsibilities.
1.1.1 Augusta cannot and will not tolerate lapses in employee control of the ability to operate
safely and productively. The policy of Augusta is that if an employee required under this
Policy to be tested for substance abuse either refuses or fails such test, the employee will be
subject to disciplinary measures up to and including termination.
1.1.2 The employees’ cooperation with and adherence to the Augusta’s policies and procedures
regarding substance abuse are conditions of their continued employment. If an employee
violates or is insubordinate by refusing to cooperate with any of these policies and
procedures, the employee is subject to disciplinary measures up to and including termination.
1.1.3 The following is the Augusta Substance Abuse Policy. The use of the term "Augusta", in
this document, refers to the Augusta government. Augusta will make a public
announcement of this Policy. Employee training will be undertaken to ensure that each
individual employee understands the Policy's requirements and his/her obligation to
cooperate fully in the testing program.
1.1.4 All references within this Policy to regulations, processes and procedures are available to any
employee for review in the Risk Management Office located in Room 217, Municipal
Building, 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia 30911.
1.1.5 Augusta reserves the right to amend this Policy at any time, in its sole discretion, with 60
days' written notice to employees before implementation of the amendment(s).
1.1.6 PRESCRIPT NOTE: Federal law requires testing of certain employees within transit
systems and holders of Commercial Drivers Licenses (49 CFR Parts 40 & 655). The
testing requirements and procedures for these employees may be different than for
employees tested under authority of Augusta. Where a requirement of this Policy differs
as to regular and transit or CDL employees, such difference will be noted. From time to
time Federal and State will update/revise their respective regulations. When such
updates/revisions occur they will automatically become a part of this policy when they
become Final Rule.
1.2 IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS POLICY TO:
1.2.1. Provide for a drug-free workplace;
1.2.2. Provide for the safety of employees, the department and the public.
1.2.3 Detect and deter the misuse of drugs and alcohol by employees of Augusta.
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 2 of 30
1.2.4 Comply with Federal, State and local regulations, policies or authority regarding substance
abuse testing of employees.
1.3 REFERENCES:
1.3.1 Federal Register. 49 CFR Part 40 (as amended): Procedures for Transportation Workplace
Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs; Final Rule
1.3.2 Federal Register. 49 CFR Part 655 (amended 8/2001) (replaces 653/654): Prevention of
Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations
1.3.3 The Drug-Free Workplace Act, 1988 (PL 100-690)
1.3.4 Georgia Code Title 50, Chapter 24, Drug-Free Workplace
1.3.5 Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 382 (as amended); Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use
and Testing (Federal Highway Administration, DOT).
1.4 DEFINITIONS:
1.4.1 Accident. For purposes of this Policy, "accident" means an occurrence or incident which
results in a post-accident drug screen as outlined in Part 2.4 herein, including:
For regular employees:
1.4.1.1 An incident involving a vehicle that has resulted in damage to property or physical
injury to a person(s). This Section includes Transit employees and CDL Holders
under the authority of Augusta; and/or
1.4.1.2 An occurrence or incident which results in the employee seeking, requiring and/or
receiving medical treatment for injuries suffered in connection with the
occurrence or incident. This Section includes Transit employees and CDL holders
under the authority of Augusta.
For Transit Employees and CDL Holders:
1.4.1.3 A vehicular accident which results in a fatality;
1.4.1.4 A vehicular accident which results in the Transit Employee or CDL Holder
receiving a moving traffic citation under State or local law;
1.4.1.5 A vehicular accident where one or more of the vehicles involved receive
disabling damage and cannot be moved from the scene under its own power
(including a single-vehicle accident) For the purposes of this definition,
disabling damage means damage which precludes departure of the vehicle from
the scene of the occurrence in its usual manner in daylight after simple repairs.
Disabling damage includes damage to vehicles that could have been operated
but would have been further damaged if so operated, but does not include
damage which can be remedied temporarily at the scene of the occurrence
without special tools or parts, tire disablement without other damage even if no
spare tire is available, or damage to headlights, taillights, turn signals, horn,
mirrors or windshield wipers that make them inoperative;
1.4.1.6 (URBAN Transit Employees): A vehicular accident in which the performance of
the Transit Employee or CDL Holder could have contributed to the accident, as
determined by management using the best information on hand at the time of the
determination; and/or
1.4.1.7. A vehicular accident in which any individual suffers a bodily injury and is
immediately transported away from the scene of the accident for medical
treatment.
1.4.2 Adulterated specimen. A specimen that contains a substance that is not expected to be
present in human urine, or contains a substance expected to be present but is at a
concentration so high that it is not consistent with human urine.
Attachment number 4
Page 2 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 3 of 30
1.4.3 Alcohol. The intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol, or other low molecular
weight alcohols contained in any beverage, mixture, mouthwash, candy, food, preparation or
medication.
1.4.4 Canceled Test. A drug test that has been declared invalid by a Medical Review Officer. A
canceled test is neither a positive nor a negative.
1.4.5 Contractor. A person or organization(s) providing a service for Augusta or its subordinate
departments, divisions, sections or agencies under a specific understanding or arrangement.
The understanding can be a written contract or an informal arrangement that reflects an
ongoing relationship between the parties.
1.4.6 Controlled Substances. (For the purposes of this Policy, see sub- paragraph 1.4.11 ("Drugs")
below.
1.4.7 Designated Employer Representative (DER):
An employee authorized by the employer to take immediate action to remove employees
from safety-sensitive duties and to make required decisions in drug testing. The DER also
receives drug test results and other communications for the employer. For the purpose of
this policy, the Designated Employer Representative (DER) is the Risk Management
Manger, Sandra Wright. In the absence of the Risk Management Manager, it shall be the
Risk Management Loss Control Officer, Joe Crozier. This also meets the requirements of 49
CFR Parts 40 and 655.
1.4.8 Department of Transportation (DOT): Department of the federal government which includes
the, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Motor Carrier’s Safety Administration, Research and Special
Programs, and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
1.4.9 Direct Observation Collection: Procedure is the same as a routine collection procedure with
the additional requirement that an observer of the same gender as the individual physically
watches the employee urinate into the collection container.(DOT rule change 2008).
1.4.10 Dilute Specimen: A specimen with creatinine and specific gravity values that are lower than
expected for human urine.
1.4.11 Drugs. For the purposes of this Policy, "Drugs" include illegal street drugs, legal drugs
either taken for non-medical reasons or without a valid prescription, and alcohol. It DOES
NOT include prescription medication prescribed for the employee by a qualified health care
provider and taken in accordance with that physician's instructions. Some of the drugs which
are considered controlled substances under Federal, State or local laws include, but not
limited to: marijuana, heroin, hashish, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants and designer drugs,
and depressants and stimulants which are not prescribed for current personal treatment by a
licensed physician.
1.4.12 Evidentiary Breath Testing Device (EBT): A Device approved by the NHTSA for the
evidential testing of breath at the 0.02 and the 0.04 alcohol concentrations.
1.4.13 Illegal Substances. For the purposes of this Policy, see sub- paragraph 1.4.5 ("Drugs") above.
1.4.14 Medical Review Officer.(MRO) A licensed physician (medical doctor or doctor of
osteopathy) responsible for reviewing laboratory results generated by the Drug Testing
program, who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical
training to interpret and evaluate an individual's positive test result together with his or her
medical history and any other relevant biomedical information; knowledge of adulteration or
substituted specimens. The MRO must also meet additional qualification training
requirements which can be found in Part 40.121 of the Federal Regulations.
A test result will not be deemed positive for the purpose of disciplinary action until ruled
positive by the Medical Review Officer (MRO).
Attachment number 4
Page 3 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 4 of 30
1.4.15 Negative-Dilute: A drug test which is negative for the five drug/drug metabolites but has a
specific gravity value lower than expected for human urine, second collection is required
under direct observation.
1.4.16 Safety-Sensitive Employee. Safety-sensitive employees are those who perform any of the
following tasks or duties, or have the following qualifications/job requirements:
1.4.16.1 Certified Law Enforcement Officers;
1.4.16.2 Jailers of Richmond County Sheriff's Office
1.4.16.3 911 operators/ communications officers;
1.4.16.4 Fire Fighters;
1.4.16.5 Crash Fire and Rescue employees (Bush Field);
1.4.16.6 Certified Correctional Officers;
1.4.16.7 Employees who mix chemicals with water;
1.4.16.8 Employees who fuel or maintain aircraft;
1.4.16.9 Employees who maintain airfield facilities, including aircraft ramps, taxiways or
active runways or median areas around ramps, taxiways and runways;
1.416.10 Employees whose responsibilities include airfield operations or planning
activities, in areas described in (1.4.8.9);
1.4.16.11 Employees who maintain, repair, or install traffic control markers, signs or
devices to include painting lane markers or directional indicators;
1.4.16.12 Employees of the Recreation Department, whose job responsibilities include
supervising youth (defined as "minor children"),; also those coordinating food
and beverage concessions sold to the public at events, requiring on-going
compliance for health standard.
1.4.16.13 Operators of heavy equipment or construction type equipment, without regard to
whether a CDL license is required
1.4.16.14 Employees who operate Augusta vehicles for which a Commercial Drivers'
License (CDL) is required while performing safety-sensitive functions, as defined
as:
1.4.16.14.1 While on duty, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been
relieved from duty by the employer;
1.4.16.14.2While on duty inspecting equipment as required by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's), or otherwise inspecting,
servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;
1.4.16.14.3While on duty at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle;
1.4.16.14.4While on duty, other than driving time, spent on or in a commercial
motor vehicle (except for time spent resting in the sleeper berth);
1.4.16.14.5While on duty and loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle,
supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a
vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate
the vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or
unloaded;
1.4.16.14.6While on duty performing the driving requirements associated with an
accident;
1.4.16.14.7While on duty repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in
attendance upon a disabled vehicle
1.4.16.15 Employees who service or repair Augusta vehicles;
1.4.16.16 Control room operators, utilities department
1.4.16.17 First line supervisors of anyone listed above if their job duties require they perform
the listed functions
1.4.16.18 Employees of the Transit Department performing safety-sensitive functions
Attachment number 4
Page 4 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 5 of 30
("Transit Employees"). Such functions include:
1.4.16.18.1 Operation of a revenue service vehicle, including when not in
revenue service;
1.4.16.18.2 Operation of a non-revenue service vehicle, when required to be
operated by a holder of Commercial Driver's license
1.4.16.18.3 Control of dispatch or movement of a revenue service vehicle;
Maintenance of revenue service vehicles or equipment used in
revenue service; and
1.4.16.19 Carrying a firearm for security purposes. First line supervisors of anyone listed
above are also defined as "Transit Employees" and are subject to testing under
this Policy if the position requires the employee to perform any of the duties
listed above.
1.4.16.20 Employees of animal control who have access to and /or administer
controlled substances, which are stored on the premise.
1.4.16.21 Security Officers both full-time and part-time responsible for building,
court and airport security
1.4.17 Substance Abuse Professional (SAP): A licensed physician (medical doctor or doctor of
osteopathy) or licensed or certified psychologist, social worker, employee assistance
professional, or addiction counselor (certified by the National Association of Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission or by the International Certification
Reciprocity Consortium/Alcohol and other Drug Abuse) with knowledge of and clinical
experience in the diagnosis and treatment of drug and alcohol related disorders.
1.4.18 Substituted specimen: A specimen with creatinine and specific gravity values that are so
diminished that they are not consistent with normal human urine.
1.4.19 Test Refusal: The following are considered a refusal to test and are treated the same as a
positive test result if the employee:
1.4.19.1 Fails to appear for any test (excluding pre-employment) within a
reasonable time, as determined by the employer, after being directed to do so by
the employer.
1.4.19.2 Fails to remain at the testing site until the testing process is complete
1.4.19.3 Fails to provide a urine or breath specimen for any drug or alcohol test (for
FTA/DOT this complies with Part 40 regulations).
1.4.19.4 In the case of a directly observed or monitored collection in a drug test, fails to
permit the observation or monitoring of your provision of a specimen.
1.4.19.5 Fails to provide a sufficient amount of urine or breath when directed, and it has
been determined, through a required medical evaluation, that there was no
adequate medical explanation for the failure.
1.4.19.6 Fails or declines to take a second test the employer or collector has directed you to
take.
1.4.19.7 Fails to undergo a medical examination or evaluation, as directed by the MRO as
part of the verification process, or as directed by the DER as part of the “shy
bladder” or “shy lung” procedures.
1.4.19.8 Fails to cooperate with any part of the testing process (e.g. refuse to empty pockets
when so directed by the collector, behave in a confrontational way that disrupts
the collection process.
1.4.19.9 If the MRO reports that there is a verified adulterated or substituted test result
1.4.19.10 Failure or refusal to sign Step 2 of the alcohol testing form.
1.4.19.11 If you refuse to take a test.
1.5 PROHIBITIONS:
Attachment number 4
Page 5 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 6 of 30
1.5.1 The possession, unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution or presence in the body, of
alcohol, drugs, controlled substances or prescription medicine for which no valid
prescription is held, in the workplace, is strictly prohibited.
1.5.2 It is illegal and a violation of this Policy to take a medication prescribed for someone
else - prescription medicine must be prescribed for the user by a licensed physician.
1.5.3 All employees are prohibited from consuming alcohol for four (4) hours prior to reporting
for duty and for eight hours after an accident, or until he/she has been tested pursuant to
this Policy. This prohibition applies equally to Transit Employees and CDL Holders by
virtue of federal regulations
1.5.4 Any and all employees who are on an on-call work status will not consume alcohol while
on-call status.
1.6 CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATIONS:
The following violations will result in an employee being placed on three days administrative leave
with pay with a recommendation of termination. At such time the recommendation of termination
will be forwarded to the Human Resources Director for review. The Human Resources Director will
schedule a conference with the Administrator or his/her designee to review the recommended
termination (See Augusta Administrative Regulation 3-3).
1.6.1 Employees who have drug test results confirmed by the Medical Review Officer as positive
for a prohibitive substance,
1.6.2 Employees who have a confirmed alcohol content of .04 or above, while on duty, confirmed
by an evidentiary breath testing devise or blood alcohol content,
1.6.3 Employees who refuse to test under the provisions of this policy,
1.6.4 Employees who adulterate or substitute their specimens and reported by GC/MS and
confirmed by the MRO,
CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS :
1.6.5 Employees whose blood alcohol content is between .02 to .039 will be removed from duty
for a minimum of 8 hours and will receive appropriate disciplinary action appropriate to the
“Progressive discipline” policy provisions.
1.6.6 Negative Dilute when reported by the MRO will require a second test under direct
observation
1.7 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
1.7.1 If any employee is prescribed a drug whose use may affect their job performance, that
employee must immediately notify the supervisor of the prescription. For example, if an
employee's prescription drug label reads that the user should not operate a car or machinery
while taking the drug or that the drug causes drowsiness, and the employee operates a car or
machinery in the course of employment, or if the employee is a safety-sensitive employee,
that employee must notify his/her supervisor of the prescription prior to coming on duty.
1.7.2 An employee who is not on-call status, but is called during non-working hours and who have
been drinking alcohol must inform the caller that the employee have been consuming alcohol
and cannot respond to the request. No disciplinary action will be taken against the employee
for not responding due to the consumption of alcohol when the employee is not on-call.
1.7.3 Appropriate law enforcement agencies will be notified of any controlled substances found on
Augusta property and these substances will be disposed of in accordance with policies and
procedures of the law enforcement agency called.
1.7.4 Employees must notify the department head if the employee is convicted of any Georgia
Controlled Substances Act statute in connection with activity occurring in the workplace.
This notification must be made within 5 days of the conviction.
1.8 TESTING PROCEDURES:
Attachment number 4
Page 6 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 7 of 30
1.8.1 Drugs Urine tests will be used for the detection of drugs and controlled substances
1.8.1.1 Regular employees. Standards, procedures and processes for drug testing are
available for review at the Risk Management office.
1.8.1.2 Transit employees and CDL Holders. Standards, procedures and processes for testing
of Transit employees and CDL Holders are found in the federal regulations cited in
paragraph 1.3 above, and are available for review at the Risk Management Office.
1.8.1.3 Every urine specimen shall, at a minimum, be tested for the following illegal drug
usage at levels approved by FTA/DOT regulations:
1.8.1.3.1 Marijuana;
1.8.1.3.2 Cocaine;
1.8.1.3.3 Opiates;
1.8.1.3.4 Codeine/Morphine
1.8.1.3.5 6-Acetylmorphine (Heroin detector)
1.8.1.3.6 Phencyclidine (PCP)
1.8.1.3.7 Amphetamines
1.8.1.3.8 MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine – i.e. ecstasy)
1.8.2 Alcohol Breath and/or blood tests will be used for the detection of alcohol
1.8.2.1 Regular employees. Standards, procedures and processes for alcohol tests are
available for review at the Risk Management office.
1.8.2.2 Transit employees and CDL Holders: Standards, procedures and processes for
testing of Transit employees and CDL Holders are found in the federal regulations
cited in paragraph 1.3 above, and are available for review at the Risk Management
Office.
1.9 ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR POSITIVE TEST:
1.9.1 Laboratory. Once a specimen has been tested as positive on an initial screening, a
confirmatory test will be conducted prior to the laboratory's reporting the specimen as a
positive result. Such test shall be performed by GCMS method.
1.9.1.1 Regular Employees. Once confirmed, the laboratory will report the results with
allied documentation to the MRO, through the DER /Risk Management Office.
1.9.1.2 Transit Employees and CDL Holders: All laboratory reports will be sent from the
laboratory testing facility directly to the MRO.
1.9.2 Medical Review Officer. The MRO will verify all positive test results by first reviewing
laboratory reports, and confirming that a proper chain of custody (procedures to account for
the integrity of each specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of collection
to final disposition) was followed.
1.9.2.1 The MRO will then contact the employee to discuss the positive result.
1.9.2.2 If verification of prescription drug use is required in connection with the MRO's
investigation of a positive result, the MRO shall meet personally with the
employee.
1.9.2.3 Otherwise, the MRO may contact the employee by telephone.
1.9.2.4 If the MRO finds that a valid medical reason explains the positive result, the MRO
will report the test results to Risk Management as negative.
1.9.2.5 If the MRO is unable to find a valid medical reason for a positive result, the
positive result will be reported to the Designated Employer Representative as
positive.
1.9.2.6 As a qualified medical professional, the MRO's medical judgment cannot be
overturned by an arbitrator, employer, or anyone else in the testing program (in
accordance with Federal Regulations - 40.149)
1.9.3 Risk Management.
Attachment number 4
Page 7 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 8 of 30
For all employees other than Transit Employees and CDL Holders, Risk Management
receives positive reports from the laboratory and forwards those reports to the MRO.
(Reports for Transit Employees and CDL Holders are forwarded from the laboratory directly
to the MRO, as outlined in paragraph 1.9.1.2 above.
1.9.3.1 Risk Management is informed of a confirmed positive test result, by the MRO; the
Risk Manager (DER) will recommend to the appropriate department director that
the employee should be placed on three days administrative leave with pay with a
recommendation of termination from employment for a violation of this policy.
1.9.4 Department Management. Upon notification by Risk Management that an employee has
tested positive for an illegal substance or be under the influence of alcohol, department
management will immediately remove the employee from duty and initiate a letter of
termination to the employee, refer the employee to a Substance Abuse Professional and
inform the employee of their right to appeal the decision.
1.9.5 Positive Alcohol Tests
1.9.5.1 An employee with a confirmed blood-alcohol level of 0.04 or higher is in
violation of this Policy. Actions in paragraph 1.9.4 above will apply.
1.9.5.2 Employees who are found to have an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater but
less than 0.04 will not be permitted to perform the job duties until: The employee's
alcohol concentration measures less than 0.02; or the start of the employee's next
regularly scheduled duty period, but not less than eight hours following
administration of the test.
1.10 TESTING OF ADDITIONAL SAMPLE. In accordance with federal and state regulations for
Transit employees and CDL holders and Augusta authority for all other employees, urine drug
tests shall be according to the split sample method, whereby the sample provided is divided into
two bottles. Upon being notified of a positive test result by the MRO, a Transit Employee or
CDL Holder may request that the split sample be tested. This request must be made within 72
hours of the MRO's notification. Requests made after 72 hours will only be accepted if the
delay was due to documentable facts that were beyond the control of the employee. Testing of
the split sample will be according to federal regulations.
1.10.1 EMPLOYEE PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY: While
awaiting results of split sample, employee will not be allowed to use accrued
vacation time.
1.10.2 PAYMENT FOR TESTING: An employee's economic status will not bar them from
having the split tested. If an employee cannot afford to pay for the testing up front,
as a courtesy, Augusta will pay for this cost. Should the results from testing the split
sample uphold the original positive test result, the cost of the split test will be
deducted in full from the employee's next paycheck.. If there are not enough funds in
the employee's paycheck to cover the testing cost(s) this does not relieve the
employee from reimbursing Augusta for all associated cost incurred.
1.11 REVIEW OF TERMINATION RECOMMENDATION: The Human Resources Director or
designee will schedule a grievance with the Administrator or designee to review the departmental
recommendation of termination. The Administrator or designee will either uphold the
recommendation for termination or reject the recommendation
1.12 REHIRING TERMINATED EMPLOYEES
1.12.1 Employees being terminated for violation of this Policy will not be considered for rehire
by Augusta for a period of one year from the date the individual successfully completes
an approved rehabilitation program (acceptable proof of completion of an approved
rehabilitation program will be required before rehiring will be considered).
1.12.2 Employees who resign after being notified of a positive test result, by the MRO or
Attachment number 4
Page 8 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 9 of 30
through the administrative process, will not be considered for rehire by Augusta, for a
period of one year from the date the individual successfully completes an approved
rehabilitation program. Acceptable proof of completion of an approved rehabilitation
program will be required before rehiring will be considered.
1.13 ALCOHOL TESTING OF TRANSIT EMPLOYEES and CDL HOLDERS:
Federal regulations stipulate specific criteria to be applied when Transit Employees and
CDL Holders are tested for alcohol. Those regulations provide, in part, that:
1.13.1 Alcohol tests will only be conducted just before, during or just after the performance of
safety sensitive job functions.
1.13.2 Alcohol testing will be conducted if the employee is injured, from a job related activity
(on-the-job injury) and medical treatment is provided to the employee.
1.13.3 Transit employee or CDL Holder with a blood-alcohol level of .04 or higher is in
violation of federal regulations and this Policy. Such employee will be immediately
removed from his/her safety-sensitive duties and will be terminated. As part of this
process the employee will be advised of programs available for rehabilitation, if
applicable.
1.13.4 Transit Employees or CDL Holder found to have an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or
greater but less than 0.04 will not be permitted to perform safety sensitive functions
until: The employee's alcohol concentration measures less than 0.02; or the start of the
employee's next regularly scheduled duty period, but not less than eight hours following
administration of the test.
1.14 REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING:
1.14.1 Refusal to submit a urine, breath and/or blood sample when required under this Policy
will be considered the same as a positive test result.
1.14.2 Refusal can include;
1.14.2.1 Fail to appear for any test (except pre-employment test) within a reasonable
time, as determined by the employer;
1.14.2.2 Fail to remain at the collection site until the collection process is complete;
1.14.2.3 Fail to provide a urine specimen for any drug test;
1.14.2.4 Fail to permit observation or monitoring of your provision of a specimen;
1.14.2.5 Fail to provide a sufficient urine specimen without a valid medical reason as
verified by the MRO;
1.14.2.6 Fail or decline to take a second test the employer or collector has directed
you to take
1.14.2.7 Fail to undergo a medical examination or evaluation, as directed by the
MRO as a part of the verification process or as directed by the DER
(Designated Employer Representative);
1.14.2.8 Fail to cooperate with any part of the testing process (e.g. refuse to empty
pockets, behave in a confrontational way that disrupts the collection
process);
1.14.2.9 If MRO reports a verified adulterated or substituted test result, this is
considered a refusal;
1.14.2.10 If you refuse to take a drug test.
1.14.3 Any employee who is suspected of providing false information in connection with a test, or
who is suspected of falsifying test results through tampering, contamination, or substitution
shall be required to undergo an observed collection.
1.14.4 Confirmation of tampering, contamination, adulteration or substitution may result in
recommendation of termination from employment.
1.15 CONFIDENTIALITY:
Attachment number 4
Page 9 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 10 of 30
1.15.1 The privacy interests of employees and the legitimate interests of the Augusta in
implementing and maintaining a substance abuse program will be accomplished by:
1.15.1.1 Limiting the extent of inquiries to those necessary to effectuate this Policy;
1.15.1.2 Assuring that disclosure of, and access to, information generated under this Policy
is on a strict need-to-know basis; and
1.15.1.3 Informing employees of the purpose for which the information is sought.
1.15.2 If a third party requests information (for example, in the context of a reference check),
regarding Augusta’s decision not to hire an applicant or not to transfer or promote or to
terminate an employee, and that decision is based on a violation of this Policy by the
applicant or employee, the reason given for such decision will be that the applicant or
employee did not comply with policy. No further information will be given to any third
party without the prior written consent of the applicant or employee, except in the following
circumstances:
1.15.2.1 Information may be given to Risk Management, to laboratories and to the MRO
for the purpose of administering this Policy;
1.15.2.2 Information may be given to the employee's department head, when a
recommendation of disciplinary action has been made and it is that department
head's responsibility to carry out such disciplinary action;
1.15.2.3 Information may be released to the Department of Labor and appropriate
representatives of Augusta in the event an employee discharged for violations of
this Policy applies for and/or appeals a denial of unemployment compensation;
1.15.2.4 Information may be released pursuant to an order from a court of competent
jurisdiction or other tribunal;
1.15.2.5 Information may be released to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
or the Human Relations Commission if requested in connection with any inquiry
or investigation by either such body; and
1.15.2.6 Information may be released to those persons or bodies hearing any appeal by an
employee of any action taken pursuant to this Policy.
1.15.3 Release of Information as to Transit Employees or CDL Holder:
1.15.3.1 Augusta shall release information regarding a Transit Employee or CDL Holder
record as directed by specific written consent from the employee authorizing
release of the information to an identified person.
1.15.3.2 Transit Employee or CDL Holder is entitled, upon written request, to obtain
copies of any records pertaining to his or her use of a prohibited substance,
including any records pertaining to test results.
1.15.3.3 Augusta may disclose information that is required to be maintained to the decision
maker in a lawsuit, grievance, or other proceeding initiated by or on behalf of the
employee tested.
1.15.3.4 When requested by the National Transportation Safety Board as part of an
accident investigation, Augusta shall disclose information related to its
administration of drug and alcohol tests following the accident.
1.15.3.5 Records shall be made available to subsequent employers upon receipt of written
request from the Employee.
1.15.3.6 Augusta shall disclose data for its drug and alcohol testing program and any other
information pertaining to its anti-drug program, when requested by the Secretary
of Transportation or any Department of Transportation agency with regulatory
authority over the Augusta transit system or Federal Highway Administration -
DOT.
1.16 CONTRACTORS:
Attachment number 4
Page 10 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 11 of 30
Persons engaged by Augusta as independent contractors shall be required to comply with Georgia's
Drug-Free Workplace Act, O.C.G.A. sec. 50-24-1 et seq., before they may perform services for
Augusta. Compliance shall be in the form of certification before beginning services (see Appendix
1), and documentation of continuing compliance as reasonably requested by Augusta.
Contractors who are also providing repair and maintenance services on DOT regulated vehicles are
required to also be in compliance with applicable provisions of the DOT/FTA drug and alcohol
testing regulations (Title 49 Part 40) if services are more than ad hoc or one time repairs. As long as
Augusta’s population is less than 200,000 this does not apply to contractors doing business with
Augusta it will only apply if and when the local population exceeds 200,000.
1.17 CHANGES TO POLICY:
At times, State or Federal law may require that additional employees be tested for illegal substances,
or that additional or different testing mechanisms and procedures be implemented. Said State or
Federal law requirements will supersede the relevant provisions of this Policy, and this Policy may
or may not be amended to reflect those changes prior to their effective date. Affected employees
will be notified in advance of any implementation of changes as a result of State or Federal law
requirements.
1.18 CONTACT PERSONS:
The proponent agency for this Policy is the Risk Management Division of the Finance Department.
Any comments, questions or recommendations applying to this policy or testing program should be
referred to the Risk Management Manager, 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia, 30911 (706) 821-
2301 or FAX (706) 821-2502. Because the MRO is not an employee of Augusta any employee
wishing to contact the MRO should contact the Risk Management Manager. The Employee
Assistance Program is "CONCERN"- EAP; located at 961 Broad Street - 722-2353 or 1-800-285-
2353.
SECTION 2 - INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO TESTING
2.1 APPLICANTS/NEW EMPLOYEES:
All applicants who have been extended a conditional job offer will be required to undergo the
following as part of the employment process:
2.1.1 Regular New Hires
2.1.1.1 Submit to a substance abuse test for illegal substances prior to becoming an
an employee of Augusta. Such screening must be completed within 24 hours of
the time the applicant is instructed to submit to the screening. Any screening not
completed within that 24 hour period will not be accepted
2.1.1.2 Sign a Substance Abuse Coverage Form (Form SA 1, a copy of which is attached
as Appendix 2) within 45 days of the first day of work.. This form states that the
applicant has read, understands and agrees that he/she is subject to this Policy as a
condition of employment with Augusta. The signed form will be retained in the
employee's personnel file.
2.1.1.3 Sign a Test Consent Form (SA-3, a copy which is attached as Appendix 3). This
form authorizes Augusta and/or its representatives to perform the appropriate tests
to identify the presence of drugs or controlled substances and releases test results
as necessary to administer this Policy. The signed form will be forwarded to Risk
Management where it will be retained in the employee's drug test file.
2.1.1.4 Refusal of an applicant to sign SA-3 will remove the applicant from consideration
for employment with Augusta since the employment process cannot be completed.
2.1.2 Transit Applicant or New Hire and Holders of Commercial Driver's License
Attachment number 4
Page 11 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 12 of 30
2.1.2.1 Submit to a pre-employment substance abuse screening for illegal substances
prior to becoming an employee of Augusta. Such screening must be completed
prior to performing any safety sensitive function.
2.1.2.2 Sign a Substance Abuse Coverage Form (Form SA-2, a copy of which is attached
as Appendix 2) within 45 days of the first day of work, which form states that the
applicant has read, understands and agrees that he/she is subject to this Policy as a
condition of employment with Augusta. The signed form will be retained in the
employee's personnel file.
2.1.2.3 No Form SA-3 (Consent Form) is required. This is due to prohibition by FTA for
employee to sign any type of waiver including a consent form.
2.1.2.4 Sign an Information Request Form allowing AUGUSTA to submit request on
drug testing history from any DOT-regulated employers for whom you have
worked within the previous two years. (appendix 7 SA-7)
2.1.2.5 If you have failed or refused a DOT drug or alcohol pre-employment test
within the previous two years you must provide this information when requested.
2.2 TRANSFERS/PROMOTIONS:
2.2.1 Any employee who transfers or is promoted into a safety-sensitive position will be drug
tested prior to assuming the duties of the position.
2.2.2 Any employee who is promoted or transferred so as to become a Transit Employee or CDL
Holder will be drug tested, in accordance with Federal regulations, prior to assuming the
duties of that position.
2.3 RETURN TO DUTY:
2.3.1 Regular Employees:
2.3.1.1 Employees who have successfully completed a rehabilitation program will be
required to take a drug and/or alcohol test with a negative result prior to returning
to work.
2.3.1.2 Employees registering between .02 to .04 (but not including .04) on an alcohol
breath-testing devise will be tested prior to returning to duty to ensure the blood
alcohol content is below .02
2.3.2 Transit Employees or CDL Holders:
2.3.2.1 Transit Employees or CDL Holders who are out of work due to workers
compensation leave for 8 days or more will be drug tested prior to resuming
safety sensitive duties.
2.3.1.2 Transit Employees or CDL Holders are required to take a pre-employment
substance abuse test if they have not performed a safety-sensitive function for 90
consecutive calendar days regardless of the reason (exception – if employee has
remained in random pool during that time, no pre-employment test is required)
2.4 POST-ACCIDENT:
2.4.1 Regular Employees.
2.4.1.1 Any employee involved in an incident involving a vehicle where there is property
damage or injury to another person will be drug and alcohol tested. Under the
authority of Augusta this includes Transit employees and CDL holders.
2.4.1.2 Any employee involved in an accident or incident in the course of employment
who is injured and who requires and/or receives medical treatment for the injury
will be drug and alcohol tested.
2.4.1.3 Employees who receive medical treatment for an occupational exposure (exposure
to disease, bloodborne pathogen) will not be drug or alcohol tested, if the
treatment is solely for the occupational exposure. Any employee will be drug and
alcohol tested when, while operating a government motor vehicle, an accident
occurs and results in a fatality.
Attachment number 4
Page 12 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 13 of 30
2.4.2 Transit Employees and CDL Holders Federal regulations establish the criteria for post-
accident testing for Transit Employees or CDL Holders. Testing will be administered when:
2.4.2.1 a fatality occurs from an accident;
2.4.2.2 the employee receives a citation under State or local law for a moving traffic
violation arising from the accident;
2.4.2.3 a vehicle accident occurs and any of the vehicles cannot move from the accident
scene under there own power. This also applies to a single vehicle accident; or
2.4.2.4 the performance of an employee could have contributed to the accident, as
determined by management using the best information at the time of the decision.
2.4.3 Employees will be tested as soon as possible after the accident but not more than 32 hours
after the accident. If a test has been required by law enforcement and employer cannot test
employee within given time limit, employer can request a copy of the test results from the
authorizing agency.
2.4.4 Employees who are injured in the course of their employment, and refuse medical treatment
may be tested under the provisions of "For Cause" testing. The injury must be of such
gravity as to obviously require medical attention.
2.5 FOR-CAUSE (REASONABLE SUSPICION):
2.5.1 Any employee may be tested for illegal substances and/or alcohol when, based on specific,
contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or
body odors of an employee, it is determined that there is reasonable suspicion that the
employee is violating this Policy.
If you suspect an employee to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs while at work,
the following steps are to be taken when requesting a drug screen:
Step 1: Call Risk Management Manager 821-2486 or Human Resources Director 821-
2309.
Step 2: Relay all known factors/information concerning reasons for suspicion (not just a
“gut” feeling, must be able to give description/specifics/observation at that
moment in time not days earlier). Use the FOR CAUSE TEST
AUTHORIZATION FORM, Form SA-3, found in the Substance Abuse Policy.
Fill out items #1, #2 to include all reasons, #3 and date. Then submit to Risk
Management. The information is then evaluated and support/approval may or
may not be given based on certain criteria.
Step 3: Approval – if the request is approved, the employee in question is to sign the
Substance Abuse Consent Form (Form SA-3) PRIOR to being taken for testing.
When fully executed, this form is then to be delivered in to Risk Management.
Step 4: ALCOHOL – If the employee is being tested for alcohol:
a. The employee is to be taken to the designated collection site by the Director or
high ranking supervisor (the fact of testing is to be kept totally confidential).
b. If the test result is negative the employee is allowed to return to work.
c. If the breath/blood test is confirmed positive, the employee is to be processed
through the normal termination process channels (i.e. placing employee on
three-day administrative leave with pay with recommendation of termination).
d. Under no circumstances is the employee allowed to operate a vehicle, to
include his/her own personal vehicle. A taxicab will be provided to transport
the individual directly to his/her residence if a family member is not available.
This will be arranged through Risk Management.
Step 5: OTHER DRUGS – If the employee is being tested for drugs other than alcohol:
Attachment number 4
Page 13 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 14 of 30
a. The employee is taken by the Director or high ranking supervisor (the fact of
testing is to be kept totally confidential) to the designated collection site for
testing.
b. When the collection process has been completed the employee is NOT
allowed to return to work and is placed on administrative leave (leave with
pay) pending the outcome of the testing.
c. If the test results are negative the employee is allowed to return to work
2.5.2 An illegal substance screening which shows that a specimen may have been diluted,
tampered with, or substituted will be considered reasonable suspicion for additional, for-
cause testing.
2.5.3 The number of employees requested to participate in a for-cause screening based on a
workplace incident may range from a single individual to all personnel who were involved in
the incident or had access to the work area in which the incident occurred.
2.5.4 To initiate a for-cause screening, the appropriate Department Head will use the For-Cause
Test Authorization Form (SA-4) attached as Appendix 4.
2.6 RANDOM TESTING PROGRAM:
2.6.1 General.
2.6.1.1 Employees classified as safety-sensitive will be randomly tested for illegal
substances. A safety-sensitive employee may be tested up to once per month.
2.6.1.2 Criteria and standards for random testing for regular employees are available for
review in the Risk Management Office. Criteria and standards for random testing
of Transit Employees and CDL Holders are found in the federal regulations cited
above, which are available for review in the Risk Management Office.
2.6.2 PROGRAM INTEGRITY: To ensure the selection process maintains true random
integrity, no names, social security numbers, employee numbers or any other identification
of individuals will be provided to the agency which is responsible for selecting the random
numbers to be tested, which numbers are generated through a computer program.
2.6.3 Random Selection/Testing Process
STEP 1: Notification Process
Risk Management
a. Request sequence numbers from designated service provider on a
monthly basis
b. Receive numbers, match numbers with names in spreadsheet
maintained in Risk Management
c. Generate letter for each individual selected, attach Consent Form
and Collection Site Checklist. Letters grouped by department, give
to Risk Manager for signature.
d. Send letters to Department Point of Contact via courier (point of
contact determined by Department Director
Department Point of Contact
a. Receives packet of letters from Risk Management containing
monthly selections for drug screening. Point of Contact secures
letters to maintain confidentiality of information. Remainder of
internal process is developed by department (employees who are
selected are not to have notice of their selection prior to receipt of
notification letter from Risk Management. Testing is to be spread
out throughout the month - do not try to test all employees within a
few days.
Attachment number 4
Page 14 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 15 of 30
Suggestion for internal process: When feasible, only Point of
Contact gives letter to each employee.
b. After employee receives this notification, the Point of Contact
places the current date and time in appropriate area on letter
Employee then signs and dates Consent Form, witnessed by person
giving the notice. (Important: once notified, the employee has 30
minutes to arrive at the collection facility listed in letter).
c. Consent Form is left with Point of Contact who sends form back to
Risk Management to be maintained in employee drug testing file.
d. Employee carries letter showing date and time along with Collection
Procedures Checklist to the facility designated as the collection site.
STEP 2: Collection Site
a. Upon arrival at collection site, employee follows guidelines of
collection site (signing in, providing photo identification - driver's
license, etc.).
b. Employee gives letter to Collection Site who verifies timeliness of
arrival.
c. Employee and Collector will initial appropriate step, as it is
completed on Collection Procedures Checklist.
STEP 3: Notification by Laboratory of Testing Results
a. Risk Management is notified directly of all drug test results except
those under Federal and DOT Regulations (those results go directly
to the designated Medical Review Officer). Notification is done
through a dedicated fax machine for drug testing results only.
b. Upon receipt of a drug screen showing a positive test result, Risk
Management immediately delivers appropriate paperwork to the
Medical Review Officer for determination of test results. Medical
Review Officer contacts employee at work or home (whichever is
the most expedient).
c. Upon questioning employee concerning test results, Medical Review
Officer makes official determination of positive or negative test
results.
d. Medical Review Officer contacts Risk Manager with official results,
which are then faxed for documentation purposes.
e. Upon receipt of documentation, Risk Management contacts
appropriate Department Director of employee. Verbal notification is
given with instructions on policy, which is followed up by written
notification and instructions. Written notification includes a sample
letter for Department Director to use for notification to employee
SECTION 3 - ANNUAL TRAINING
3.1 NEW EMPLOYEES:
All full-time, regular new employees will be required to attend orientation prior to beginning their
normal work schedule. The orientation will include a program for Drug Awareness/ Effects of Drug
Abuse and a briefing on this Policy.
3.2 TRANSIT EMPLOYEES and CDL HOLDERS:
3.2.1 All Transit Employees and CDL Holders, whether full-time or part-time, will be required to
attend an orientation prior to performing any safety sensitive function. Orientation will
include a program for Drug Awareness/ Effects of Drug Abuse and a briefing on this Policy.
Attachment number 4
Page 15 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 16 of 30
Transit Employees and CDL Holders will also be required to attend a one- hour training
session on the effects and consequences of prohibited drug use on personal health, safety,
and the work environment and on the signs and symptoms, which may indicate, prohibited
drug use. An additional hour of training will be required regarding alcohol.
3.2.2 Supervisors of Transit Employees and CDL Holders who may make reasonable suspicion
determinations will be required to attend one hour of training on drug abuse and one hour on
alcohol abuse.
3.3 ANNUAL TRAINING:
All employees will be required to attend a one-hour class on the effects of Drug and Alcohol abuse
each year.
SECTION 4 - REHABILITATION POLICY
4.1 REHABILITATION POLICY:
4.1.1 Voluntary Participation.
When a regular employee (not probationary, part-time or temporary) comes forward PRIOR
to notification of a random or for-cause test or PRIOR to an accident and/or injury, seeking
help with a substance abuse problem, that employee will be allowed to enter an approved
rehabilitation program, as outlined below. The employee is subject to all of the provisions of
the rehabilitation policy.
If a regular employee DOES NOT come forward as described above, and tests positive on an
illegal substance screening, that employee will be immediately recommended for termination
from employment.
4.1.1.1 Any employee who desires to voluntarily participate in rehabilitation will be
allowed to enter an approved detoxification and/or rehabilitation program with no
Augusta participation in cost other than as provided under the employee's group
health insurance program.
4.1.1.2 The employee will be allowed the use of any accrued leave time (sick and/or
vacation) during his/her absence from work for this treatment. If there is no leave
time available, the employee will be placed on leave without pay.
4.1.1.3 Prior to returning to work, the employee shall submit to the Risk Management
Division, in writing, proof of completion of the program and competence to return
to work.
4.1.1.4 Employees who have completed a detoxification and/or rehabilitation program
will not be afforded any further opportunity by Augusta or through Augusta's
resources to re-enter a detoxification and/or rehabilitation program for a second
time.
4.1.2 Participation in Rehabilitation Directly through EAP.
If any employee comes forward voluntarily directly to the Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) (without first going through either Human Resources or Risk Management), and the
EAP finds that the employee is a risk to the safety of himself/herself and/or others, the EAP
will notify Risk Management that the employee is seeking treatment directly through EAP.
4.1.2.1 The employee will not be terminated from employment unless the employee
fails to enter and successfully complete the substance abuse program designed for
him/her by the EAP; however, such employee shall be placed on leave until such
time as he/she is no longer considered a risk to the safety of himself/herself
and/or others.
4.1.2.2 The EAP will keep Augusta informed of the employee's progress through the
rehabilitation program.
4.1.2.3 The employee will be required to sign a statement prior to being admitted to
Attachment number 4
Page 16 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 17 of 30
the EAP acknowledging that Augusta may be notified of his entry into the
program under the above circumstances.
4.1.3 Failure to Complete Rehabilitation.
Employees who do not successfully complete a rehabilitation program will be terminated
and may not be considered for re-hiring for a period of one year from the date of termination.
4.1.3.1 Acceptable proof of satisfactory completion of a rehabilitation program will be
required before re-hiring will be considered.
4.1.4 Disciplinary Action.
Referral to the EAP does not deprive Augusta of the option of taking disciplinary action
against any employee in accordance with this Policy.
4.2 POST REHABILITATION:
4.2.1 Any employee who successfully completes a rehabilitation program and returns to work will
be considered a probationary employee for the next three-year period.
4.2.1.1 The classification of "probationary" applies to substance abuse testing only, when
used in the context of this Policy. The employee shall be responsible for the costs
of such tests.
4.2.1.2 An employee's refusal or failure of any such test will cause the employee to be
immediately terminated.
4.2.2 Prior to returning to work, the employee will be tested for illegal substances and will be
tested on an unannounced basis thereafter during the period of probation, said testing not to
exceed 12 times each year.
SECTION 5 . RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE
5.1 Administrative Regulation 3-1, Augusta Substance Abuse Policy revisions are effective November
2008 or until notice is given that this regulation is modified, reissued or cancelled.
5.2 No qualifying statement, previously established rule(s) or procedure(s) shall be used to negate the spirit
or intent of this statement or policy.
SECTION 6. APPENDICES:
1. Contractor Certificate (FORM SA-1)(Appendix 1)
2. Substance Abuse Coverage Form (FORM SA-2)(Appendix 2)
3. Test Consent Form (FORM SA-3)(Appendix 3) (Not for use by Transit/CDL - Fed Regulation)
4. For Cause Test Authorization Form (FORM SA-4)(Appendix 4)
5. Supervisor Referral Form (FORM SA-5) (Appendix 5)
6. Collection Site Checklist (FORM SA-6)(Appendix 6)
7. Information Request Form (FORM SA-7)(Appendix 7) (Transit/CDL Pre-Empl)
8. Alcohol Fact Sheet
9. Substance Abuse Index
Augusta Commission Approved: June 2, 2009
Revision Effective Date: August 2, 2009 ___________________________________________
Fred Russell, Administrator
Attachment number 4
Page 17 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 18 of 30
APPENDIX 1
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATE
I,___________________________________________of________________________________________
(Contractor/Vendor's Certifying Official) (Company Name)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
(Address)
certify that a drug-free workplace will be provided for the employees of this company during the performance
of this contract pursuant to section 50-24-3 of O.C.G.A.
I further certify that in accordance with O.C.G.A. 50-24-3 paragraph (a) subsection (2), that should this
company require the services of a subcontractor as part of this contract, that all subcontractors will be
required to provide this company with a certificate of compliance for the establishment of a Drug Free Work
Place. I understand that a drug-free work place may be provided by my:
(1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution,
dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the
contractor's/subcontractor's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against
employees for violations of such prohibition;
(2) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
b. The contractor's/subcontractor's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance program; and
d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
(3) Providing each employee with a copy of the statement provided for in paragraph (1) above.
(4) Notifying each employee in the statement provided for in paragraph (1) above, that as a condition of
employment, the employee shall:
a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
b. Notify the contractor/subcontractor of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation
occurring in the work place within five days of the conviction;
(5) Notifying the contracting principal representative within ten days after receiving from an employee
or a subcontractor a notice of conviction as provided under paragraph (4),b above or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such a conviction;
(6) Making a good faith effort on a continuing basis to provide a drug-free workplace for employees;
and
(7) Requiring that such contractor/subcontractor include in any agreement or contract with a
subcontractor a provision that such subcontractor will provide a drug-free workplace for his
employees by complying with the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) listed above.
_________________________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________________________
(Printed Name & Title)
FORM SA-1
Attachment number 4
Page 18 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 19 of 30
APPENDIX 2
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COVERAGE FORM
I, ____________________________________, have read and understand the Augusta Substance Abuse
Policy (the "Policy").
I further understand that the manufacture, use, possession, sale or distribution or presence in body of
alcohol, drugs or illegal substances in the work place is strictly prohibited and will lead to my immediate
discharge from employment.
For purposes of this Policy, "drugs" or "illegal substances" or "controlled substances" is defined to
include illegal street drugs, legal drugs either taken for non-medical reasons or without a valid prescription
and alcohol, but not to include prescription medication taken in accordance with a physician's prescription
and instructions. I also understand that the presence of such substances in my system during work hours
places unacceptable risk and burden on the safe and efficient operation of my job, and, consequently, is
strictly forbidden.
I understand that if I am a Transit employee or an employee required to have a CDL I will be tested in
accordance with testing requirements established by Federal regulations. I understand that if I work in a
safety-sensitive position (as that is defined in the Policy), I may be tested for illegal substances on a random
basis. I also understand that Augusta has a zero tolerance policy for safety - sensitive employees, such that I
will be terminated for any violation of the Substance Abuse Policy.
I understand that based on reasonable suspicion, I may be tested for illegal substances (a "for-cause
test").
I understand that if I successfully complete a rehabilitation program and return to work for the Augusta
Commission, I may be tested for illegal substances on a random basis up to twelve times per year for three
years and that it is my responsibility to pay for these tests as a condition of my employment.
I understand that if I am involved in an accident, which results in property damage or injury to another
person; or in my requiring and/or receiving medical attention for injuries, I may be tested for illegal
substances (a "post-accident test"). I understand that Federal testing requirements, for Transit employees
and holders of CDL licenses, may require drug and/or alcohol testing in cases of vehicle accidents, even
though there may be no injuries.
I also understand that my arrest and/or conviction for off-the-job drug and/or alcohol activities, including
driving under the influence, may constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion and a for-cause illegal
substances screening, and may cause me to have action taken against me, taking into consideration (among
other things), the nature of the charges, my job assignment and my record with the Augusta Commission.
I understand that it is my responsibility to read the Augusta Substance Abuse Policy entirely, and that my
cooperation with, and adherence to, policies and procedures regarding substance abuse are conditions of my
employment and that if I violate or am insubordinate by refusing to cooperate with any of these policies and
procedures, I am subject to discipline up to and including discharge.
Employee Signature:_____________________________________ Date:____________________________
FORM SA-2
Attachment number 4
Page 19 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 20 of 30
APPENDIX 3
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST CONSENT FORM
I, __________________________________, do hereby give my consent to the Augusta (or its agent(s)) to
collect a urine, breath and/or blood sample from me to determine if I have used illegal drugs or misused
alcohol and/or drugs or controlled substances (including the misuse of any legal drugs).
I further give my consent to Augusta to forward the sample(s) to a qualified laboratory for its performance
of appropriate tests thereon to identify the presence of substances illegal under the Substance Abuse Policy.
I further give the testing laboratory my permission to release the results of such test to Augusta, Risk
Management and/or the Medical Review Officer for the Augusta government.
I understand that refusal to submit to testing or providing false information in connection with a test is
considered the same as a positive test result.
I hereby certify that I will not adulterate or substitute any urine sample given under the Substance Abuse
Policy.
Employee Signature: __________________________________________
DATE:_________________________________________
WITNESS:____________________________________
DATE:________________________________________
FORM SA-3
Attachment number 4
Page 20 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 21 of 30
APPENDIX 4
***PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL***
FOR-CAUSE/REASONABLE SUSPICION DRUG TEST AUTHORIZATION FORM
FOR-CAUSE TEST is requested for:
Print Employee Name:
Payroll #:
Department:
Job Title
Physical Signs or Symptoms
1. Possessing, dispensing, or
using prohibited substance.
2. Slurred or incoherent speech
3. Bloodshot or watery eyes
4. Odor of alcohol
5. Odor of Marijuana
6. Runny nose or sores around
nostrils.
7. Puncture marks or "tracks"
8. Loss of physical control, poor
coordination, unsteady gait.
9. Extreme fatigue or sleeping
on the job.
10. Flushed or very pale face
11. Nausea or vomiting
12. Disheveled appearance or
out of uniform
13. Dizziness or fainting
14. Highly excited or nervous
15. Dilated or constricted
pupils or unusual eye movement
16. Excessive sweating or
clamminess of skin
17. Shaking hands or body
tremors.
18. Dry mouth
19. Breathing irregularity or
difficult breathing
20. Inappropriate wearing of
sunglasses.
21. Other (describe below)
5. Has there been a change to the employee's quality and quantity of work? NO If so describe:
6. Has the employee's work relationships changed with fellow employees? NO If so, describe:
7. Does the employee appear to "bring his personal/family problems" to work more than usual? NO If so,
describe:
8. Have you noticed any recent changes in personality, moods, or behavior? NO If so, describe:
FORM SA-4 Page 1 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 21 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 22 of 30
PAGE 2 FOR-CAUSE REASONABLE SUSPICION DRUG TEST AUTHORIZATION FORM
NATURE OF INCIDENT/CAUSE FOR SUSPICION
1. Observed possession or use of a prohibited substance
2. Apparent drug or alcohol intoxication.
3. Observed abnormal or erratic behavior.
4. Other:
2. Test requested by:
Signature
Date:
Printed Name:
Payroll #:
Job Title:
Department:
3. TEST AUTHORIZED BY:
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
Empl #:
Job Title:
Department:
Additional Information
______________________________________________________________________
FORM SA-4 Page 2 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 22 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 23 of 30
APPENDIX 5
CONCERN: EAP SUPERVISORY REFERRAL FORM
- C O N F I D E N T I A L -
NOTE: NOT FOR INCLUSION IN PERSONNEL FILE - Please print or type
This form is to be used as a guide in determining the extent and exact nature of the decline of
your employee's job performance. Please review the form with your employee, and be sure that
both parties sign. Please call if you have any questions. Upon completion of the form please
forward to: CONCERN, Employee Assistance Program, 2610-B Commons Blvd,
Augusta, GA 30909
Telephone: 706-667-2353, Toll Free 1-800-285-2353, FAX: 706-667-2303
Name and Title of Employee :
Company: Augusta Government Department:
CHANGES IN WORK BEHAVIOR
(√_) (Please explain in detail indicating when you first noticed changes.)
Frequent short absences
Tardiness
Unexplained disappearances from work station:
Reduced quantity of work
Reduced quality of work
Erratic work performance
Missed deadlines
Complaints from fellow workers
Errors due to inattention or poor judgment
Repeated minor accidents on or off job
Inability to concentrate
Irritability:
Overreaction to criticism
FORM SA-5 Page 1 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 23 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 24 of 30
CONCERN: EAP SUPERVISORY REFERRAL FORM Complaints of not feeling well: Undependable statements: Deteriorating appearance: Outside forces (i.e., family and financial garnishments) beginning to interfere with work: Hospitalized more than should be expected: Changes in personality pattern: The above listing is intended only as a guide. These indicators are most reliably applied to employees who have been good performers in the past but who have had a recent decline in job performance. Additional Information: (Please list any additional information or comments, which you feel, could be helpful. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
RELEASE OF INFORMATION: (To be reviewed and signed during interview) I authorize CONCERN: EAP to advise the person listed below whether or not I scheduled and/or kept an appointment for services. EMPLOYEE: ________________ DATE: _____________________
Supervisor Title:
Telephone Date:
CONTACT PERSON: TELEPHONE: (If different from above)
FORM SA-5 Page 2 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 24 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 25 of 30
APPENDIX 6 Collection Procedures Check List
Employee Last Name: ______________ First Name__________ Employee number: _________
PLEASE READ!!!!
In an effort to provide the best protection possible for each employee and the collection agent, this checklist is being provided for
use with each collection. Your participation is required to ensure that each step of the collection process is completed to standard.
You will be required to initial each block by the procedure you were involved in. Your initials signify that the procedure was
completed properly. If there is any deviation of procedures you should make a note at the bottom of the sheet and sign your name.
Designated Employer Representative is Sandy Wright, Risk Management…direct any questions of concerns to the DER.
# Procedure Collector Donor
1 Prepare collection site; ensure coloring agent present in commode.
2 Verify identity of employee with picture ID.
3 Prepare Top section of Chain of Custody form: (donor ID, reason for test)
4 If required: ask donor to remove bulky or unnecessary items (exterior clothing, store in
secure area.
5 Employee washes hands and returns to the collector.
6 Collector gives (sealed collection bottle) or lets donor pick (non-sealed collection
bottle). NOTE: only one collection container allowed in the rest room.
7 Employee/donor provides urine sample in the collection container and immediately
provides the container to the collector. (Note: do not flush the commode until told to
do so)
8 Collector annotates the temperature on the Chain of Custody form and insures there is
at least 45 ml. If the temperature is outside the acceptable range follow the procedures
of SAMSHA.
9 Donor observes the splitting of the sample and sealing.
10 Collector splits the sample, writes the date on the labels/seals and seals the containers
(In the presence of the donor).
11 Donor initials security seal.
12 Donor flushes the commode and washes hands.
13 Donor reads the certification statement of the Chain of Custody form and signs the
form.
14 Collector completes the Chain of Custody form and provides copy to the
employee/donor.
Collector Comments:
Employee Comments:
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above procedures were satisfactorily completed and that any questions concerning the procedure
by the employee were satisfied at the time of the collection. I also state that I was given the opportunity to write
comments concerning any aspect of the collection process.
__________________________________ _____________ ____________________________________
(Signature of Collector) (Date) (Signature of Employee)
NOTE: This form is an internal document for use by Augusta Risk Management and is not required by DOT/FTA
FORM SA-6
Attachment number 4
Page 25 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 26 of 30
APPENDIX 7
Information Request Form (Pre-Employment Transit)
I, _________________________________________ hereby allow Augusta Transit (Applicant) (Transit Agency)
to contact my former DOT -regulated employer(s), from the past two years, to request the
following information in accordance with 49CFR part 40.25.
1. Alcohol test results of 0.04 or higher alcohol concentration. 49CFR part 40.25(b)(1)
2. Verified positive drug tests. 49CFR part 40.25(b)(2)
3. Refusals to be tested (including verified adulterated or substituted drug test results.)
49CFR part 40.25(b)(3)
4. Other violations of DOT agency drug and alcohol testing regulations. 49CFR part
40.25(b)(4)
5. With respect to any employee who violated a DOT drug and alcohol regulation,
Documentation of the employee's successful completion of DOT return-to-duty
Requirements (including follow-up tests). 49CFR part 40.25(b)(5)
Please list former employer(s) with contact information.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
In respect to DOT drug and alcohol testing regulations over the past two years……
Have you ever had an alcohol test results of 0.04 or higher? Yes___ No ___
Have you ever had a verified positive drug test? Yes___ No ___
Have you ever refused to be tested (including verified adulterated or
substituted drug test results.) Yes___ No ___
Have you violated any DOT agency drug and alcohol testing regulation? Yes___ No ___
If you have violated a DOT drug and alcohol regulation, do you have documentation of successful
completion of DOT return-to-duty requirements (including follow-up tests)?
Yes___ No___
FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CONSENT, INCLUDING FORMER EMPLOYER(S)
INFORMATION, ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS AND SIGNATURE, WILL RESULT IN
YOU BEING DISQUALIFIED FOR A SAFETY SENSITIVE POSITION WITH AUGUSTA
TRANIT, AS PER 49CFR PART 40.25(a).
Applicant Signature ___________________________________ Date ___________
Witness Signature ____________________________________ Date ___________
FORM SA-7
Attachment number 4
Page 26 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 27 of 30
APPENDIX 8
ALCOHOL FACT SHEET
Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug that has been consumed throughout the world for centuries.
It is considered a recreational beverage when consumed in moderation for enjoyment and relaxation
during social gatherings. However, when consumed primarily for its physical and mood-altering
effects, it is a substance of abuse. As a depressant; it slows down physical responses and
progressively impairs mental functions.
Signs and Symptoms of Use
◊ Dulled mental processes
◊ Lack of Coordination
◊ Odor of alcohol on breath
◊ Possible constricted pupils
◊ Sleepy or stuporous conditions
◊ Slowed reaction rate
◊ Slurred speech
(NOTE: Except for the odor, these are general signs and symptoms of any depressant substance)
Health Effects
The chronic consumption of alcohol (average of three servings per day of beer [12 ounces], whiskey
[1 ounce], or wine [6 ounce glass]) over time may result in the following health hazards:
◊ Decreased sexual functioning
◊ Dependency (up to 10 percent of all people who drink alcohol become
physically and/or mentally dependent on alcohol and can be termed "alcoholic").
◊ Fatal liver diseases
◊ Increased cancers of the mouth, tongue, pharynx, esophagus, rectum, breast and malignant
melanoma.
◊ Kidney disease
◊ Pancreatitis
◊ Spontaneous abortion and neonatal mortality
◊ Ulcers
◊ Birth defects (up to 54 percent of all birth defects are alcohol related).
Social Issues
◊ Two-Thirds of all homicides are committed by people who drink prior to the crime.
◊ Two to three percent of the driving population is legally drunk at any one time. This rate is
doubled at night and on weekends.
◊ Two thirds of all Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related vehicle accident
during their lifetimes.
◊ The rate of separation and divorce in families with alcohol dependency problems is 7 times
the average
FORM SA-8 Page 1 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 27 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 28 of 30
APPENDIX 8 continued:
ALCOHOL FACT SHEET (Continued)
◊ Forty percent of family court cases are alcohol problem related.
◊ Alcoholics are 15 times more likely to commit suicide than are other segments of the
population.
◊ More than 60 percent of burns, 40 percent of falls, 69 percent of boating
accidents, and 76 percent of private aircraft accidents are alcohol related.
THE ANNUAL TOLL
◊ 24,000 people will die on the highway due to the legally impaired driver.
◊ 12,000 more will die on the highway due to the alcohol-affected driver.
◊ 15,800 will die in non-highway accidents.
◊ 30,000 will die due to alcohol-caused liver disease.
◊ 10,000 will die due to alcohol-induced brain disease or suicide.
◊ Up to another 125,000 will die due to alcohol-related conditions or accidents.
Workplace Issues
◊ It takes one hour for the average person (150 pounds) to process one serving of an
alcoholic beverage from the body.
◊ Impairment in coordination and judgment can be objectively measured with as little as
two drinks in the body.
◊ A person who is legally intoxicated is 6 times more likely to have an accident than a sober
person.
FORM SA-8 Page 2 of 2
Attachment number 4
Page 28 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 29 of 30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
AUGUSTA POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Administrative Regulation No. 3-1
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Augusta Policy and Procedures on
Substance Abuse on the date written below.
I further acknowledge and understand that it is my responsibility to read and
understand the policies and procedures included in this administrative
regulation.
By way of this acknowledgement, I acknowledge that I have been informed that
the Augusta-Richmond County Commission may add to, revoke, and/or modify
the policies and procedures from time to time.
Date Employee Signature
Employee Printed Name
Employee Number
FORM SA-9
Attachment number 4
Page 29 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 30 of 30
SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY INDEX
INDEX
Section Paragraph TITLE PAGE
1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
1.1 Policy Statement 1
1.2 Policy Intent 1
1.3 References 2
1.4 Definitions 2
1.5 Prohibitions 4
1.6 Consequences for Violations 5
1.7 Notification Requirements 5
1.8 Testing Procedures 5
1.9 Actions Required for Positive Test 6
1.10 Testing of Additional Sample 7
1.11 Review of Termination Recommendation 7
1.12 Rehiring Terminated Employees 7
1.13 Alcohol Testing of Transit Employees 7
1.14 Refusal to Submit to Testing 8
1.15 Confidentiality 8
1.16 Contractors 9
1.17 Changes to Policy 10
1.18 Contact Persons 10
2 INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO TESTING
2.1 Applicants/ New Employees 10
2.2 Transfers/Promotions 11
2.3 Return to Duty 11
2.4 Post Accident 11
2.5 For Cause 12
2.6 Random 13
3 TRAINING
3.1 New Employees 14
3.2 Transit Employees 15
3.3 Annual Training 15
4 REHABILITATION POLICY
4.1 Rehabilitation Policy 15
4.2 Post Rehabilitation 16
5 PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED POLICIES 18
APPENDICES 1 thru 10
1 Contractor Certificate (SA-1) 19
2 Substance Abuse Coverage Form (SA-2) 20
3 Test Consent Form (SA-3) 21
4 For Cause Test Authorization Form (SA-4) 22
5 Supervisor Referral Form (EAP) (SA-5) 24
6 Collection Procedure Checklist (SA-6) 26
7 Information Request Form (Transit) (SA-7) 27
8 Alcohol Fact Sheet (SA-8) 28
9 Acknowledgement of Receipt (SA-9) 29
10 Substance Abuse Policy Index 30
Attachment number 4
Page 30 of 31
Item # 3
Augusta Substance Abuse Policy Administrative Regulation No. 3-1 Oct 1, 2010
Page 31 of 30
Attachment number 4
Page 31 of 31
Item # 3
Finance Committee Meeting
9/13/2010 1:15 PM
Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administration Service Agreement
Department:Finance/Risk Management Division
Caption:Approve continuing service agreement with Georgia Administrative
Services (GAS) as the third party administrator for Augusta, GA’s Workers’
Compensation claims program.
Background:The service agreement for Worker’s Compensation third party
administration (TPA) is up for renewal. Georgia Administrative Services is
our current provider and is providing a high level of service as Augusta’s
TPA for its Worker’s Compensation Program. Claims and payments have
been handled in a timely manner as have mandatory filings with the State
Board of Worker’s Compensation, the Subsequent Injury Trust Fund and
excess insurance company. Georgia Administrative Services has been found
to be highly knowledgeable and efficient in the administration of this
area. They are the only TPA service known to have their home office in the
State of Georgia which tends to give them an advantage in the area of
Georgia worker’s compensation law. Continuing service with GAS would
give continuity to claims currently managed under their administration.
Analysis:
Financial Impact:3-Year contract reflects no price increase and results in a total three year
cost of $232,833($77,611 /year).
Alternatives:Place service agreement out for bid. A negative impact is likely with this
alternative. Unlike health insurance, workers’ compensation injury files,
opened and closed, would need to be transferred to new TPA. New TPA
would then need to familiarize themselves with all open claim files (very
time consuming), with professional network currently in place and with the
operations of Augusta GA Worker’s Compensation processes and
procedures in order to properly administer account.
Recommendation:Approve 3-year service agreement with Georgia Administrative Services for
third party administration services for Workers’ Compensation claims with
an option thereafter to extend the agreement for 1 year increments up to 3
years.
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
621015233 Cover Memo
Item # 4
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Item # 4
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
Item # 4
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
Item # 4
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
Item # 4
Finance Committee Meeting
9/13/2010 1:15 PM
Replacement of EMA Dive Team Boat
Department:Emergency Management Agency
Caption:Approve the replacement of EMA Dive Team Boat.
Background:At this time the Dive Team has not got a boat. The engine on the Remaining
Boat was 18 years old and would not be cost effective to rebuild. Also the
old boat was to small for operation with divers and equipment and safety
divers.
Analysis:Sec. 1-10-50. Emergency procurement selection method. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of this chapter, the Procurement Director, Augusta-
Richmond County Administrator or constitutional officer may make or
authorize others to make emergency procurement of equipment, supplies,
services, general construction, or public works type construction services
when there exists a threat to public health, welfare, or safety, or where daily
operations are affected; provided that such emergency procurement shall be
made with such competition as is practicable under the circumstances. As
soon as practicable, a record of each emergency procurement shall be made
and shall set forth the contractor's name, the amount and type of the
contract, a listing of the item(s) procured under the contract, and the
identification number of the contract file. A written report explaining the
determination of the basis for the emergency and for the selection of the
particular contractor shall be included in the contract file, and a copy of
same provided the Augusta-Richmond County Commission at their next
regular meeting in the case of public works contracts as defined by Georgia
State Law or other Augusta-Richmond County purchases when the value of
the purchase exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). In the event an
emergency should arise after office hours or on holidays or weekends which
requires immediate action on the part of the using agency involved and
where it is not possible or convenient to reach the Procurement Director,
constitutional officer, or Administrator, the using agency head is authorized
to make purchases. Such purchases shall be well documented, packaged for
payment, and forwarded to the Procurement Director within twenty-four
(24) hours, if possible, after o
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:None
Recommendation:Replace the Boat
Funds are Available in
Cover Memo
Item # 5
the Following
Accounts:272-03-9215/5422910 272-03-9215/5316210
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 6
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 7 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 8 of 9
Item # 5
Attachment number 2
Page 9 of 9
Item # 5