NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
298-102

Preface

This annual report represents the cooperative efforts of many people.  Extensive appreciation is extended to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and the following individuals who were instrumental in guiding this project and contributing to its success:

Michael Taborn
Director, Office of Transit Safety and Security
Federal Transit Administration

Jerry Powers
Drug and Alcohol Program Manager
Federal Transit Administration

Michael R. Redington
Program Manager/Transportation Industry Analyst
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

 

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures.  Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286                                                                         

Updated 6/17/98

Executive Summary

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations require that each recipient (both direct and indirect) of FTA funds (1) implement an anti-drug program to deter and detect the use of prohibited drugs, (2) establish a program to prevent the misuse of alcohol, and (3) report the results of its programs to FTA upon request.  Compliance with FTA’s drug and alcohol testing program is a condition of Federal assistance.  Failure of a recipient to establish and implement a drug and alcohol testing program - either in its own operations or in those of an entity operating on its behalf - may result in the suspension of FTA funding to the recipient. 

In 2001, FTA eliminated its requirement that all direct funding recipients report their drug and alcohol testing program data to FTA annually, and began using a stratified random sampling technique to select the funding recipients required to submit their data.  This system was designed to produce an accurate representation of the overall transit industry, in lieu of universal reporting.  The intent was to reduce the paperwork burden on a portion of the industry and to reduce FTA’s tabulation and analysis effort.  Sample sizes are determined for each of the three size groups[1] recognized by FTA (large, small, and rural) to ensure a distribution that accurately reflects the relative populations of the three groups.  In 2002, 535 large employers, 36 small employers, and 237 rural employers were required to report their data.

2002 Testing Results

Results are summarized for the following areas:

• Violation rates (positive tests and test refusals combined) for random testing
• Accidents resulting in positive post-accident tests
• Positive test rates for four types of testing—random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and pre-employment
• Return to duty
• Random violation rate annual trends since 1996

Random Violation Rates

FTA considers random testing to be the most effective deterrent to drug use and alcohol misuse.  The results of random tests also provide the best indication of the overall level of drug use and alcohol misuse, and are used by FTA in determining minimum annual random testing rates for the following year.  For this reason, employers were requested to report the number of refusals to take a random test, as well as the number of positive test results.  Accordingly, violation rates are presented for random tests.  Violation rate is used here to refer to the number of positives and refusals combined per person selected to take a random test:

Drug violation rate[2] = (verified positives + refusals) ÷ (specimens collected + refusals)
Alcohol violation rate = (confirmed positives[3] + refusals) ÷ (screens collected + refusals)

The official violation rates used to determine the random testing rates for 2003 are not the actual percentages of the results reported.  The results from the small and rural employers were given more weight than those from large employers because large employers have many more employees than small and rural employers.  In 2002, 95.5 percent of the reported persons selected for a random drug test and 95.2 percent of those reported selected for a random alcohol test were reported by large employers.  However, only 66 percent of the employers subject to the testing regulations were large employers.  The same statistical procedure used to determine representative sample sizes was applied to the random test results.

The remainder of the data presented here reflect the actual reported (not weighted) test results.

The random violation rates for tests actually reported in 2002 were lower than the official rates for both drugs and alcohol.  As shown in the graph at the top of the     next page, the actual rates were 0.97 percent for drugs and 0.17 percent for alcohol.  Results were reported for 82,584 persons who were selected for a drug test and for 26,478 persons who were selected for an alcohol test.  Of those selected for a drug test, 732 had a verified positive result, and 718 refused to take the test.  Of those selected for an alcohol test, 36 had a confirmed blood alcohol level of at least .04, and 13 refused to take the test. 

As shown in the following three graphs, the random violation rates were much higher for contractors than for transit agency employees, and the drug rates were much higher for small employers than for the other two size categories while the alcohol rates were similar for all three size categories.  More than 80 percent of those selected for a random test (both drugs and alcohol) were transit agency employees.  More than 95 percent of those selected (both drug and alcohol) worked for a large employer.

As shown on the map at right, the random drug violation rate was lowest in the New England states (Region 1) at 0.62 percent, and was highest in the Middle Atlantic states (Region 3) at 1.32 percent.  Only four regions had rates lower than the national average of 0.97 percent.

As shown on the map at right, the random alcohol violation rate was lowest in New York and New Jersey (Region 2) at 0.09 percent, and was highest in the central states (Region 7) at 0.37 percent. 

Refusal data were not collected by employee category or by drug type.

Accidents Resulting in Positive Post-Accident Tests

In 2002, employers reported 127 accidents that resulted in a positive post-accident drug test and 4 accidents that resulted in a positive post-accident alcohol test.  These numbers when normalized to the entire number of employers required to test by FTA were 245 and 6, respectively.  One of the accidents reported with a positive drug test resulted in one fatality.

Transit agencies reported 72 of the 126 non-fatal accidents with positive drug tests, and all 4 accidents with positive alcohol tests.  All but 6 of the accidents with positive drug tests were reported by large employers.  All the accidents with positive alcohol tests were reported by large employers.  The positive drug test following the fatality was reported by a large transit agency in FTA Region 9.

Positive Test Rates[4] for Four Types of Testing

Because return to duty and follow-up tests represent a different segment of the test population (i.e., specimens produced by persons who have already been removed from duty for drug or alcohol violations and have completed a rehabilitation program) and not all employers offer rehabilitation, the data from those tests are not included in presentations of overall rates. 

As shown in the graph at right, the reasonable suspicion positive rates were much higher than the random, post-accident, or pre-employment rates for both drugs and alcohol.  The random rate was lowest of the drug rates, significantly lower than the positive rates for any of the other three test types.  The post-accident rate was the lowest of the alcohol rates.

As shown in the following three graphs, the positive drug rates for the four test types combined are more than two and one-half times as high for contractors as for transit agency employees, the alcohol rates are slightly higher for contractors,  and small employers had the highest rates for drugs but reported no positives for alcohol.  Of the 133,775 drug specimens collected for four test types combined, 95 percent were from large employers.  Of the 45,601 alcohol screens collected, 95.5 percent were from large employers.

Because refusal data are not reported by employee category, random positive rates are presented below by employee category, as well as the rates for all four test types combined.  The armed security personnel category had the lowest random drug rate and the lowest combined rate for drugs.  The revenue vehicle operation category had the highest random rate and the highest combined rate for drugs.  The revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance category had the highest random rate and the highest combined rate for alcohol.

As shown in the following charts, marijuana was detected as often as all of the other drugs combined in random testing, and more often than the others combined in reasonable suspicion tests and for all four test types combined.  Marijuana was tested most often in post-accident tests, and cocaine was a close second.  Cocaine was detected more often than the others combined in pre-employment tests while marijuana was detected in fewer than 20 percent of those tests.

 

Return to Duty Data

In 2002, employers reported that 358 safety-sensitive employees were returned to duty following a positive drug test or refusal, and 52 were returned following a positive alcohol test or refusal.  These numbers when normalized to the entire number of employers required to test by FTA were 677 and 98, respectively. 

Transit agencies returned 326 of the employees following a drug positive test or refusal, and returned 45 following an alcohol positive or refusal.  Large employers returned 345 of the 358 returned following a drug positive or refusal, and returned 49 of the 52 returned following an alcohol positive or refusal.

Before being returned to duty, employees must complete a rehabilitation program and submit a negative test for the substance for which they were removed from safety-sensitive duty.  Many employers require both a drug and alcohol return to duty test.  The returned employees must then complete a series of follow-up tests (for the substance for which they were removed, or both drugs and alcohol) for a specified period following return to duty.

In 2002, 623 return to duty drug tests and 5,502 follow-up drug tests were reported.  As shown at right, the return to duty positive rate was the higher of the two, and both were far less than 2 percent.  Only 2 of the 396 return to duty alcohol tests reported were positive, and only 15 of 4,389 follow-up alcohol tests reported were positive.  

The following six graphs subdivide the return to duty and the follow-up rates by employer type, employer size, and large employers and employer type combined.  The follow-up drug test rates for contractors were slightly higher than those for transit employees for all employers and for large employers.  The return to duty drug test rate for large employers was also higher for contractors, but the rate for all employers was higher for transit employees.  There was only one return to duty drug positive reported by small employers and only one reported by rural employers.  There was only one follow-up drug positive reported by small employers and only two reported by rural employers.   Because these numbers are so low, the high rates for those employers are not statistically reliable.  Thus, the drug test rates for small and for rural employers in both the return to duty and the follow-up graphs are presented on a separate scale from the other rates on those graphs.  There were no return to duty or follow-up alcohol positives reported by either small or rural employers.

Trends: 1996 Through 2002

Because the data reporting requirement changed in 2001, the only rates that can be reliably compared for each year of reporting (from 1996 to 2002) are random violation rates.  As mentioned earlier, the results actually reported in 2001 and 2002 do not accurately reflect total FTA testing due to the large proportion of results reported by large employers.  The results from random testing were weighted to obtain “official” random violation rates that reasonably estimate the rate for all persons tested, enabling reliable comparison with the years before 2001 when all employers were required to report.  Weighted rates are not available for any test types other than random or any subsets of random testing.

As shown in the following graph, the drug violation rate rose in 2002, for the first time since employers in all size categories were required to report.  The official weighted rate for 2002 rose above 1.0 percent, following its drop to 0.98 percent in 2001.  Because it did not remain above 1.0 for the second consecutive year, the FTA Administrator did not have the option to reduce the random drug test quota for 2003.  Although the official drug violation rate rose by more than 7 percent in 2002, equaling the rate in 2000 of 1.05, it was still nearly 35 percent lower than the rate in 1996. 

As also shown in the next graph, the official random alcohol violation rate rose by more than 20 percent in 2002 (to 0.22 percent), equaling the highest rate (set in 1998).  Despite its relatively high level, the 2002 alcohol violation rate remained well below the threshold of 0.50 percent for raising the testing rate from 10 to 25 percent.                                                                                                  

Official Random Drug and Alcohol Test Violation Rate: 1996 to 2002

 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
   1.1  Regulatory Background
   1.2  Reporting and Certification Requirements
   1.3  Reporting Assistance
   1.4  Data Analysis and Validation
   1.5  Organization of Report 

2. Overview of Part 40 and Part 655 Testing Requirements
   2.1  Overview of Required Testing Program
   2.2  Safety-Sensitive Functions
   2.3  Types of Tests       
   2.4  Types of Drugs

3. Drug and Alcohol Test Data
   3.1  Random Test Violation Data
      3.1.1  Random Test Violation Data by Employer Type and Size
      3.1.2  Random Violation Data by FTA Region
   3.2  Accident and Fatality Data Associated with Positive Post-Accident Tests
   3.3  Data for Four Test Types
      3.3.1  Data for Four Test Types by Employer Type and Size
      3.3.2  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category
         3.3.2.1  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category and Employer Type
         3.3.2.2  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category and Employer Size
      3.3.3  Data for Four Test Types by FTA Region
   3.4  Test Data by Type of Drug
      3.4.1  Data by Test Type, Employer Type, and Drug Type
      3.4.2  Data by Test Type, Employer Size, and Drug Type
      3.4.3  Data by Test Type, Employee Category, and Drug Type
   3.5  Non-Positive Alcohol Violations
      3.5.1  Confirmed Alcohol Specimens Between 0.02 and 0.039
      3.5.2  Non-Test Alcohol Violations

4. Return to Duty Data
   4.1  Employees Returned to Duty in 2002
   4.2  Return to Duty Test Data
      4.2.1  Return to Duty Test Data by Employer Type and Size
      4.2.2  Return to Duty Test Data by Employee Category
      4.2.3  Return to Duty Test Data by FTA Region
      4.2.4  Return to Duty Test Data by Type of Drug
   4.3  Follow-Up Test Data
      4.3.1  Follow-Up Test Data by Employer Type and Size
      4.3.2  Follow-Up Test Data by Employee Category
      4.3.3  Follow-Up Test Data by FTA Region
      4.3.4  Follow-Up Test Data by Type of Drug

5. Trend Analysis
   5.1  Official Random Violation Rates from 1996 through 2002
   5.2  Actual Rates for Results Reported in 2001 and 2002

Appendix A.  Glossary
Appendix B.  FTA Regions
Appendix C.  Accident and Fatality Data Associated with Positive Post-Accident Tests by FTA Region

 

1.  Introduction

This report is the seventh annual summary of data submitted for entry in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Drug and Alcohol Management Information System (DAMIS).  The report summarizes data reported for calendar year 2002, and includes trend analyses based on the annual data submitted for calendar years 1996 through 2002.  DAMIS contains the data from all the drug and alcohol tests conducted under FTA regulations between 1996 and 2000, but contains 2001 and 2002 data from only selected agencies, as explained in Section 1.2.  DAMIS also contains the data from all the tests conducted by large agencies in 1995. 

FTA regulations require recipients and subrecipients of funding under Title 49 of United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 5307, 5309, and 5311, and 23 U.S.C. Section 103(e)(4) and their contractors to implement and maintain a program to deter and detect use of prohibited drugs and misuse of alcohol by safety-sensitive employees, unless the recipient is also an operating railroad regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

1.1  Regulatory Background

FTA issued its first drug and alcohol testing regulations on February 15, 1994 as two separate rules:  49 CFR Part 653, Prevention of Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations, and 49 CFR Part 654, Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Transit Operations.  The FTA rules were issued in response to The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, enacted by Congress in 1991. They expanded the minimum uniform DOT testing program requirements published earlier in 1994 in 49 CFR Part 40, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs.

The Omnibus Testing Act was intended to promote the health and safety of transportation employees and the traveling public.  It required all DOT administrations to issue regulations requiring funding recipients to perform four types of testing of all safety-sensitive employees for five controlled substances and alcohol, and to establish a prescribed program of rehabilitation and follow-up testing for employees who are given the opportunity to return to safety-sensitive duty after testing positive or refusing to be tested.  The Act also required recipients to follow the testing procedures established by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 

DOT revised and reissued Part 40 in 2000.  In 2001, FTA issued CFR Part 655, Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations, to expand the revised department-wide minimum requirements to transit operations.  Part 655 supersedes and combines Parts 653 and 654.  The current Part 40 and 655 testing requirements are summarized in Chapter 2 of this report.

1.2  Reporting and Certification Requirements

Part 655.72 eliminated the requirement that all direct funding recipients report their drug and alcohol testing program data to FTA annually.  It requires that recipients report their data only if requested by FTA.  In 2001, FTA developed a stratified random sampling technique to produce an accurate representation of the overall transit industry, in lieu of universal reporting.  The intent was to reduce the paperwork burden on a portion of the industry and to reduce FTA’s tabulation and analysis effort. 

Recipients requested to report must do so on standard forms by March 15.  All direct recipients must annually prepare and maintain a summary of the results of the programs that they oversaw during the previous calendar year.  All direct recipients must also annually certify regulatory compliance of those programs, and submit the certifications to their FTA regional office.  FTA operating funds are granted directly to most large transit agencies.  All other operating grants are provided to the states or to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which distribute the funds to individual transit agencies.

Some recipients and subrecipients (transit agencies funded by states or MPOs) rely on additional public or private entities to provide services in whole or in part.  The states and MPOs must ensure the accuracy and timeliness of each report submitted by their subrecipients.  All direct recipients must ensure the accuracy and timeliness of each report submitted by a service provider, operating or maintenance contractor, consortium or joint enterprise, or a third-party administrator acting on the behalf of a transit agency. 

Failure of a recipient to establish a drug and alcohol testing program and to annually certify regulatory compliance and report information as requested, either in its own operations or in those of a subrecipient or an entity operating on its behalf, may result in the suspension of FTA funding to the recipient.  Falsifying compliance information or certifications is a criminal offense.

1.3  Reporting Assistance

The required reporting forms are available in paper, on data diskette, and on the Internet. Copies of reporting guidance and reporting forms and diskettes are available from the DAMIS Project Office at (617) 494-6336.  The FTA Safety and Security Clearinghouse can be reached at (617) 494-2108 for additional copies of this report, as well as previously published annual reports.  Other technical assistance materials, including the Implementation Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Regulations in Mass Transit and Best Practices Manual: FTA Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, can be obtained from the FTA Office of Safety and Security at (202) 366-2896 and on the Office of Safety and Security’s Web site: http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/damis.

1.4  Data Analysis and Validation

Data submitted for entry in DAMIS are subjected to extensive analysis and validation, both manual and automated.  The process entails detailed review of the consistency and reasonableness of the data in each report, identification of errors or questionable entries, and resolution of any problems in consultation with the reporting agencies.  This process enables detection and correction of errors of significant magnitude.  However, some statistically minor errors may remain.

1.5  Organization of Report

The remainder of this report contains five chapters and three appendices:

• Chapter 2 presents an overview of the current Part 40 and 655 testing requirements, including descriptions of safety-sensitive functions, the types of tests to be performed, and the substances to be tested for. 
• Chapter 3 compares the results of the required drug and alcohol tests listed in Chapter 2 and pre-employment alcohol tests. The results are further compared by employer type (transit agencies and contractors), employer size (large, small, and rural), the employee categories listed in Chapter 2, FTA region, and drug type.
• Chapter 4 provides statistics on the number of employees returned to safety-sensitive duty in 2002 following a positive test or refusal, and summarizes the results of the tests (described in Chapter 2) that are required for such persons, using the same categories of comparison as in Chapter 3. 
• Chapter 5 presents random violation rates from 1996 through 2002, and compares selected rates for 2002 with those for 2001. 
• Appendix A lists the terms, and their definitions, associated with the FTA drug and alcohol testing program.
• Appendix B lists the ten FTA regions and their headquarters.
• Appendix C  presents by FTA region the number of accidents reported in which a transit agency employee or contractor tested positive in an FTA post-accident test.

 

2.  Overview of Part 40 and Part 655 Testing Requirements

This chapter summarizes the requirements of the FTA Drug and Alcohol Testing Program (in Section 2.1) and describes in detail FTA safety-sensitive functions, the tests required by FTA, and the drugs that safety-sensitive employees must be tested for (in Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, respectively).

2.1  Overview of Required Testing Program

Employees who perform any of five safety-sensitive functions must be tested for five controlled substances in four circumstances.  Such employees must also be tested for alcohol use in each of those circumstances except pre-employment, though employers may, and many do, require pre-employment tests per Part 40 testing procedures.  An additional circumstance (return to duty/follow-up) is required for safety-sensitive employees who are given an opportunity to resume safety-sensitive duties after testing positive for drugs or alcohol or refusing to submit to a required test.

Any employee who has a verified positive drug test, has a confirmed alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater, or refuses to submit to a test must be immediately removed from safety-sensitive duty.  The employee must then be informed of the resources available for evaluating and resolving problems associated with prohibited drug use and alcohol misuse, including the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of substance abuse professionals (SAPs) and counseling and treatment programs.  The employer then decides the disciplinary action to take.  To return the employee to a safety-sensitive function, the employer must ensure that the employee successfully completes a course of treatment prescribed by a SAP and produces a negative return to duty test for drugs or alcohol or both, depending on the violation.  Once returned to duty, the employee must continue a treatment program administered by the SAP, which includes a series of follow-up tests.

Additionally, an employee with a confirmed alcohol concentration of at least 0.02 but less than 0.04 must be removed from duty for at least 8 hours or until a re-test conducted by the employer shows an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02.  If the employee is removed from duty for 8 hours, a re-test need not be administered unless the employee exhibits signs of alcohol use upon returning to duty.

Part 40 also prohibits use, manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of all controlled substances by safety-sensitive employees.  Furthermore, Parts 40 and 655 prohibit safety-sensitive employees from consuming alcohol in three circumstances:

• While performing a safety‑sensitive function
• Four hours before performing a safety‑sensitive function unless the employee produces a breath specimen with a concentration below 0.02  (Employees must be given the opportunity to acknowledge use of alcohol in the past 4 hours and to be tested when they arrive for duty.) 
• Eight hours following an accident that meets FTA post-accident testing criteria (described in Section 2.3) or until an alcohol test is performed unless the employee’s involvement can be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident and there were no fatalities

2.2  Safety-Sensitive Functions

The revenue vehicle operation safety-sensitive job category includes employees who operate a revenue service vehicle, regardless of whether it is in service and regardless of whether a fare is collected.

The revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance category includes employees who maintain revenue service vehicles or equipment.  It also includes many maintenance contract employees who perform routine, ongoing repair or maintenance for FTA recipients and subrecipients that have employees, including supervisors, who perform or could be called upon to perform any of the FTA safety-sensitive functions.  Maintenance contractors of 5311 funding recipients are not subject to the testing regulations.

Revenue vehicle control/dispatching includes employees who control the movement of revenue service vehicles.  This function was much debated during the recent rule revision process because the title “dispatcher” covers a broad range of duties, not all of which are safety sensitive, throughout the industry.  The key consideration is the type of work performed rather than a particular job title.  FTA decided not to attempt a universal definition of “dispatchers” in Part 655.  Instead, each employer determines whether its particular dispatcher performs or may perform a safety-sensitive function.

CDL/non-revenue vehicle includes employees not included in another safety-sensitive category who operate a non-revenue service vehicle (e.g., ancillary vehicle) that requires a Commercial Drivers License (CDL).

Armed security personnel are employees who provide security and carry a firearm.

2.3  Types of Tests

Random testing is considered by FTA to be the most effective deterrent to drug use and alcohol misuse, as well as the most reliable indicator of drug use and alcohol misuse within an agency and in the industry as a whole, provided it is unannounced and unpredictable.  Thus, random testing is required to be conducted throughout all workdays and hours of service, and must be conducted at least once per calendar quarter.  Selections for testing must be based on a scientifically valid random-number selection method, to ensure that all safety-sensitive employees have an equal chance of being selected for testing each time a selection is made. 

In 2002, the number of random drug tests conducted had to equal at least 50 percent of the number of persons in the selection pool when selections were made, and the number of alcohol tests had to equal at least 10 percent of the pool.  These percentages can be amended (per Part 655.45) by the FTA Administrator based on the combined percentage of positive tests plus test refusals, i.e.:

    (verified positives + refusals) ÷ (specimens collected + refusals)
    (confirmed positives + refusals) ÷ (screens collected + refusals)

The Administrator has the option to reduce a random drug or alcohol testing rate of 50 percent to 25 percent if the combined percentage of positives plus refusals is less than 1.0 for two consecutive calendar years.  The Administrator has the option to raise a drug or alcohol testing rate from 25 percent to 50 percent if the combined percentage of positives plus refusals for the previous calendar year was at least 1.0.  Additionally, the Administrator can reduce an alcohol testing rate of 25 percent or 50 percent to 10 percent if the combined percentage of positives plus refusals was less than 0.5 for two consecutive calendar years.  Conversely, the Administrator can also raise a rate of 10 percent to 25 or to 50 percent if the combined percentage in the previous calendar year was at least 0.5 or 1.0, respectively. 

It is important to note that the combined percentages used in 2001 and 2002 for determining the testing rate for the following year are not the actual percentages from all the tests reported.  As mentioned in Chapter 1, only a portion of the employers were required to submit data in 2001 and 2002, and sample sizes were determined for each of the three size groups recognized by FTA (large, small, and rural) to ensure a distribution that accurately reflects the relative populations of the three groups.  However, because large employers have many more employees than small and rural employers, the distribution of the actual number of employees selected for random testing did not accurately reflect the relative populations of the three groups.  More than 95 percent of the random test orders reported in both 2001 and 2002 were by large employers while only slightly more than 60 percent of the employers subject to the testing regulations are large employers.  Consequently, the same statistical procedure used to determine representative sample sizes was applied to the random test results.  The results from the small and rural employers were given more weight than those from large employers.

As shown in Chapter 3, the weighted “official” combined percentage of alcohol positives plus refusals was 0.22 in 2002 while the actual percentage was 0.19, and the weighted “official” combined percentage for drugs was 1.05 while the actual percentage was only 0.97.  This distinction was particularly significant in 2002 because a drug rate below 1.00 percent would have permitted the Administrator to lower the drug testing rate to 25 percent.  Based on the official rates, however, the random testing quotas for 2003 cannot change.   

The testing rate for employers who belong to a consortium applies to the total number of safety-sensitive employees in the consortium’s pool.  As a result, some individual employers may not appear to meet the random testing requirement. 

Post-accident testing refers to tests required following an accident involving a fatality or an accident that meets any of three other criteria and the employee’s involvement cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor: (1) when a person suffers a bodily injury and immediately receives medical attention away from the scene, (2) when any vehicle involved incurs damage requiring it to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other vehicle, or (3) the mass transit vehicle involved is a rail car, trolley car, trolley bus, or vessel and is removed from revenue service due to the accident.

Employees to be tested include the vehicle operator and any other safety-sensitive employee not in the vehicle whose performance could have contributed to the accident.  Both drug and alcohol tests must be administered as soon as possible, but no later than 8 hours after the accident for alcohol and 32 hours for drugs.  The results of a blood, urine, or breath test conducted by Federal, state, or local officials having independent authority for the test cannot be used to meet FTA requirements unless the employer is unable to perform a post-accident test within the required time period, the test conforms to the applicable Federal, state, or local testing requirements, and that the test results are obtained by the employer.

Reasonable suspicion testing refers to a drug and/or alcohol test that is ordered by a trained supervisor based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odor of a safety-sensitive employee.

Pre-employment testing refers to testing of candidates for a safety-sensitive position (including existing non-safety-sensitive employees as well as applicants for employment) and for employees who have not performed a safety-sensitive function for more than 90 consecutive calendar days, regardless of the reason, and were removed from the employer’s random selection pool during that time.  A negative pre-employment test for drugs is required by FTA as a condition for performing safety-sensitive duties under these circumstances.  Pre-employment alcohol tests are not required but are permitted under Part 655 providing they are performed in accordance with the testing procedures in Part 40.  The alcohol tests are included in the data presented in Chapter 3 because they are conducted per DOT standards and are required by many employers. 

The Omnibus Testing Act required a negative pre-employment alcohol test, but FTA suspended the requirement on May 10, 1995, as the result of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision.  FTA decided to allow but not require pre-employment alcohol testing in Part 655. All of the other eight DOT administrations with testing programs added this section to their rules.

Part 655 also eliminated the term “hire” in the pre-employment provision.  Previously, employers were required to administer a drug test and receive a negative result before hiring an employee.  FTA deleted the term to provide employers discretion to administer a pre-employment drug test anytime before an employee first performs a safety-sensitive function and before an employee returns to safety-sensitive duty after being removed from the random pool for an extended period.  Part 655 also established a limit, 90 consecutive calendar days, on the amount of time an employee can be removed from the pool without a negative drug test before returning to work.

Return to duty testing refers to a drug and/or alcohol test that is required for a safety-sensitive employee who completes a course of treatment prescribed by a SAP after testing positive for drugs or alcohol or refusing to submit to a required test.  A negative result for the type (drug or alcohol) of positive or refused test is required before the employee can be returned to duty.  SAPs often require the employee to submit to both a drug and an alcohol test even if only one of the tests was at issue.

Follow-up testing refers to a drug and/or alcohol test that is required for an employee who is returned to safety-sensitive duty.  The employee is subject to at least six unannounced tests for at least 12 months after returning to duty.  The exact number and frequency of tests is prescribed by the SAP, who may order tests for up to 60 months after return to duty.  SAPs often require the employee to submit to both a drug and an alcohol test even if only one of the tests was at issue.  Follow-up testing is separate from, and in addition to, random testing.

Part 655 incorporates follow-up testing under return to duty testing (i.e., return to duty/follow-up testing) as one of five required FTA tests.  It was previously listed separately as one of six required FTA tests.

2.4  Types of Drugs

Marijuana is derived from the hemp plant and comes in a variety of colors such as green, brown, and a gray mixture of leaves.  THC or (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is the primary active chemical in marijuana.  It is absorbed quickly into fatty tissues and stored for a long time.  The potency and strength of the chemical causes people to use the drug for the mildly tranquilizing, mood and perception-altering effects it produces.  The test for marijuana also includes its metabolites.

Cocaine is an addictive substance that comes from coca leaves, or is made synthetically. It appears as a white powder that is snorted, ingested, injected, freebased (smoked), or applied directly to the nasal membrane or gums.  Cocaine acts as a stimulant to the central nervous system. It gives the user a feeling of exhilaration.  The chemicals in cocaine trick the brain into feeling it has experienced pleasure, when in fact it has not.

Phencyclidine (PCP), originally developed as an anesthetic, has adverse side effects that limit its medical use to a tranquilizer for large animals.  In people, PCP acts as both a depressant and a hallucinogen, and sometimes as a stimulant.  PCP can cause distorted bodily perceptions and a feeling of disassociation where the mind feels separated from the body.  These effects can be very upsetting to some people, who may panic as a result.

Opiates, also known as narcotic analgesics, include heroin, morphine, and codeine.  They are derived from a sap taken from a seedpod of the plant, “papaver somniferum” (or poppy plant).  General effects include sedation, slowed reflexes, raspy speech, sluggish movements, slowed breathing, cold skin, and vomiting.  The synthetic form of opiates, known as “designer drug,” is even more deadly and addictive.

Amphetamines include racemic, amphetamine, extroamphetamine, and methamphetamine.  They are potent stimulants that may be swallowed, snorted, or injected.  They induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy, self-assertion, focus, and enhanced motivation. The need to sleep or eat is diminished.  Amphetamines can induce a sense of aroused euphoria, which may last several hours.  The body does not readily break down amphetamines. Thus, feelings are intensified and ephemeral.  Subsequently, there is an intense feeling of mental depression and fatigue.

 

3.  Drug and Alcohol Test Data

This chapter presents data from the four circumstances cited in Chapter 2 that must be performed by all employers subject to Part 655[5]: random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and pre-employment.  Data from the fifth test type cited in Chapter 2 (return to duty/follow-up) are presented separately (in Chapter 4) from data for the other four test types because that test type represents a different segment of the test population—specimens produced by persons who have already been removed from duty for drug or alcohol violations and have completed a rehabilitation program—and not all employers offer rehabilitation. 

As mentioned in Section 2.3, the results of random tests provide the best indication of the overall level of drug use and alcohol misuse, and they are used by FTA in determining minimum random testing rates for the following year.  Thus, employers were requested to report the number of refusals to take a random test, as well as the number of positive test results, so the combined percentage of positive tests plus test refusals per person selected to take a random test can be determined.  In this report, the combined percentage is referred to as the violation rate:

    Drug violation rate[6] = (verified positives + refusals) ÷ (specimens collected + refusals)
    Alcohol violation rate = (confirmed positives[7] + refusals) ÷ (screens collected + refusals)

Employers requested to report in 2002 were chosen using a stratified random sampling technique based on the relative populations of the three size categories.[8]  The results from the small and rural employers were given more weight than those from large employers because large employers have many more employees than small and rural employers.  In 2002, 78,891 (95.5 percent) of the 82,584 reported persons selected for a random drug test and 23,672 (95.2 percent) of the 24,859 of those reported selected for a random alcohol test were reported by large employers. 

However, only 66 percent of the employers subject to the testing regulations were large employers; 535 large employers, 36 small employers, and 237 rural employers were asked to report.  The same statistical procedure used to determine representative sample sizes, mentioned in Chapter 1.2, was applied to the random test results.   

Employers were not asked to report refusal data for post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and pre-employment tests.  The results of those tests are presented as verified positives for drugs and confirmed positives for alcohol.  The verified/confirmed positive rates for random tests are included in the comparisons of positive rates by test type. 

The results in the remainder of this chapter are expressed as rates (based on the actual data reported), where possible, or are normalized by each size category to represent the total number of employers.  The actual number of instances reported is also presented to provide basis for the rate or normalization. 

The data in the remainder of this chapter reflect the actual reported (not weighted) test results.  Those data are presented in five sections:

    3.1 Violation rates and supporting data for random drug and alcohol tests, subdivided by:

• Employer type (transit and contractor)
• Employer size (large, small, and rural)
• FTA region

    3.2 Data on non-fatal accidents, fatal accidents, and total fatalities that resulted in positive post-accident drug or alcohol tests, subdivided by:

• Employer type
• Employer size

    3.3 Verified/confirmed positive rates and supporting data for the four types of drug and alcohol tests, subdivided by:

• Employer type
• Employer size
• Employee category (safety-sensitive functions described in Section 2.2)
• FTA region (data only for totals for the four test types combined)

    3.4 Verified positive rates and supporting data by type of drug for the four types of drug tests, including drug type rates and data by:

• Employer type
• Employer size
• Employee category

    3.5 Non-positive alcohol violations:

• Alcohol specimens between 0.02 and 0.039 by test type, subdivided by employer type, employer size, employee category, and FTA region
• Non-test violations, subdivided by employer type and employer size

3.1  Random Test Violation[9] Data

 

The graph at right shows the actual violation rates for the tests reported.  The accompanying table provides the statistical basis for the actual reported violation rates, and it includes the refusal rates.  The actual data reported are subdivided by employer type and size and by FTA region later in this section.  Refusal data were not reported by employee category.

3.1.1  Random Test Violation Data by Employer Type and Size

The following three graphs present the reported random violation rates by employer type, by employer size, and by employer size and type, respectively.  Each graph is accompanied by a table that provides the statistical basis for the violation rates.  The tables also include the refusal rates.

 

3.1.2  Random Violation Data by FTA Region

The following two maps show the random violation rates for drugs and for alcohol, respectively, for each of FTA’s ten regions.  The shading variations provide quick comparison.  The exact rates are also included.  The statistical basis for the violation rates is provided in the accompanying tables. 

Random Drug Violation Rates by FTA Region

Random Alcohol Violation Rates by FTA Region

These data are subdivided by employer type and by employer size on the following pages.  The drug violation rates by employer type, the drug violation rates for large employers, and the alcohol violation rates for large employers are displayed on maps.  The statistical basis for the violation rates is provided in the accompanying tables.  Because of the small sizes of their populations, the other rates appear in tables, along with the statistical basis for those rates.

Random Drug Violation Rates by FTA Region and Employer Type

T = transit                              C = contractor

 

 

 
Random Drug Violation Rates by FTA Region and Employer Size—Large

Random Alcohol Violation Rates by FTA Region and Employer Size—Large

 

3.2  Accident and Fatality Data Associated with Positive Post-Accident Tests

Data are presented for the number of accidents in which a transit agency employee or contractor tested positive in an FTA post-accident test.  Data are presented for both drug tests and alcohol tests, though it should be noted that one person may test positive for both drugs and alcohol and that most employers test the employee for both drugs and alcohol.  Thus, the numbers for drugs and alcohol cannot be added to obtain the total number of persons who tested positive.  Data were not reported on the total number of persons testing positive in a post-accident test or for persons testing positive for both drugs and alcohol. 

Because these accident and fatality numbers cannot be expressed as a rate, the number of instances reported have been normalized for the total number of employers by each size category.  The first table below presents these statistics for the number of non-fatal accidents, fatal accidents, and total fatalities when a positive drug test resulted and when a positive alcohol test resulted.  The next two tables subdivide those data by employer type and employer size, respectively.  The data reported cannot be normalized by FTA region.  The actual number of instances reported by region are presented in Appendix C; those numbers are also subdivided by employer type and by employer size.  These accident and fatality numbers were not reported by employee category.

 

 

 

3.3  Data for Four Test Types

The two charts that follow compare the percentages of total verified drug positives and percentages of total drug specimens reported in 2002 for each of the four test types:  random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and pre-employment.  Those charts are followed by two charts that compare the percentages of total confirmed alcohol positives and percentages of total alcohol screens reported in 2002.

The positive rates for each of the four types and for the four types combined, for both drug tests and alcohol tests, are presented in the following graph.  The accompanying table provides the statistical basis for the positive rates.  These data are subdivided by employer type and size, by employee category, and by FTA region later in this section.   

 

3.1.1 Data for Four Test Types by Employer Type and Size

The data above are subdivided by employer type, by employer size, and by employer size and type, respectively, in this section.  The rates for each data set are shown in a separate pair of graphs.  Each graph pair is followed by a table that provides the statistical basis for the rates.  Because all of the alcohol rates except reasonable suspicion are 0.2 percent or less, the space below “0.2” in each alcohol graph is expanded under the divider line to allow greater clarity.

           

 

 

Note:  The graphs subdivided by employer type do not contain columns for employer size that show a positive rate of “0” in the preceding test type/employer size graphs.

 

 

3.3.2  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category

The next two graphs show the positive rates for each test type, as well as the rates for all four types combined, by employee category for drug tests and for alcohol tests, respectively.  Two of the reasonable suspicion drug rates are presented on a separate scale because their sample sizes are too small to be considered representative of their populations.  Because all of the alcohol rates except reasonable suspicion are 0.2 percent or less, the space below “0.2” in the alcohol graph is expanded under the divider line to allow greater clarity.  The table following the graphs provides the statistical basis for the positive rates.  These data are further subdivided by employer type and by employer size on the pages that follow.

 

 

3.3.2.1  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category and Employer Type

The following series of graphs subdivide the preceding test type/employee category positive rates by employer type.  Two graphs, one for drugs and one for alcohol, are presented for the four test types combined and for each test type.  They show the positive rates by employer type for each employee category.  This series of graphs is followed by a table that provides the statistical basis for the rates.

Note:  The graphs subdivided by employer type do not contain columns for employee categories that show a positive rate of “0” in the preceding test type/employee category graphs.

3.3.2.2  Data for Four Test Types by Employee Category and Employer Size

The following series of graphs subdivide the test type/employee category positive rates by employer size.  Two graphs, one for drugs and one for alcohol, are presented for the four test types combined and for each test type.  The graphs show the positive rates by employer size for each employee category.  However, the alcohol graphs do not contain columns for small employers because no confirmed alcohol positives were reported by small employers.  This series of graphs is followed by a table that provides the statistical basis for the rates.

Note:  The graphs subdivided by employer size do not contain columns for employee categories that show a positive rate of “0” in the test type/ employee category graphs.  

One of the rates in the next alcohol graph is presented on a separate scale because its sample size is too small to be representative of its population.

 

 

3.3.3  Data for Four Test Types by FTA Region

The following two maps show the positive rates for all four test types combined for drugs and for alcohol for each of FTA’s ten regions.  The shading variations provide quick comparison.  The exact rates are also included.  The statistical basis for those rates is provided in the accompanying tables. 

Positive Drug Test Rates for Four Test Types Combined by FTA Region

Positive Alcohol Test Rates for Four Test Types Combined by FTA Region

These data are subdivided by employer type and by employer size on the following pages.  The drug positive rates by employer type, the drug positive rates for large employers, and the alcohol positive rates for large employers are displayed on maps.  The statistical basis for the rates is provided in the accompanying tables.  Because of the low number of positives reported for the other categories (alcohol by employer type and small and rural employers), the rates for those categories appear in tables, along with the statistical basis for those rates.

Positive Drug Test Rates for Four Test Types Combined by FTA Region and Employer Type

           

 
Positive Drug Test Rates for Four Test Types Combined by FTA Region and Employer Size—Large

 Positive Alcohol Test Rates for Four Test Types Combined by FTA Region and Employer Size—Large

    

The data for calculating the verified positive rates by region for random tests alone appear in the tables of regional random test violation data, in Section 3.1.2.  Regional data for the other three test types are insufficient to calculate meaningful rates or to accurately normalize the data reported.

3.4  Test Data by Type of Drug

The verified positive rates[10] for each type of drug tested for are presented for each test type and for the four test types combined in the following graph.  A table follows that provides the statistical basis for the positive rates. The table is followed by charts that show the percentage by drug type of the total drug type detections[11] for each test type and the four types combined. These rates and data are presented by employer type, employer size, and employee category later in this section. 

 

3.4.1  Data by Test Type, Employer Type, and Drug Type

The following three graphs show the positive rates by drug type for each test type and for the four test types combined by employer type.  Two different scales are used in the reasonable suspicion graph to accommodate the disparity in rates.  Two tables follow the graphs.  The first provides the statistical basis for the rates.  The second shows the percentage by drug type of the total drug type detections for each test type and the four test types combined by employer type.

 

 

 

 3.4.2  Data by Test Type, Employer Size, and Drug Type

The following four graphs show the rates by drug type for each test type and for the four test types combined by employer size--the first graph for large employers and the other three for small and rural.  Two tables follow the graphs.  The first provides the statistical basis for the rates.  The second  shows the percentage by drug type of the total drug type detections for each test type by employer size. 

           

 

 

3.4.3  Data by Test Type, Employee Category, and Drug Type

The following five graphs show the rates by drug type for each test type and for the four test types combined by employee category.  A graph is presented for the four test types combined and for each of the test types.  Two tables follow the graphs.  The first provides the statistical basis for the rates.  The second  shows the percentage by drug type of the total drug type detections for each test type and the four test types combined by employee category.

 

3.5  Non-Positive Alcohol Violations

Data are presented for alcohol violations other than positive test results: 

• Confirmed specimens with breath alcohol levels between 0.02 and 0.039