The U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) recently published its much anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise its drug and alcohol testing regulations (49 CFR Part 40). The revision was necessitated to make the organization and language of the regulation clearer, incorporate guidance and interpretations of the rule made over the past several years into the rule text, and to update the rule to reflect changes in technology, the testing industry, and in DOT's program.

The proposal appears to contain elements for the industry to like and dislike. DATIA has been analyzing the NPRM since its release to determine its potential impact on the industry, and to prepare a response on behalf of the industry. The DOT has indicated that, in its review process, it will give most consideration to individual responses from industry professionals providing specific examples and other supporting anecdotal evidence.

After reviewing the NPRM, DATIA has found several areas of concern the industry will need to address. These are posed in question format below. The member answers to these questions will form the basis for DATIA's response on behalf of the testing industry to the proposed changes in Part 40.

1. Public Interest Exclusions (PIEs):

The NPRM is proposing a new section creating a public interest exclusion to sanction a "service agent" for non-compliance with Part 40 requirements, rather than sanctioning the employer using a service agent whom is in non-compliance. A PIE would be a directive from DOT to its regulated employers to not use a service agent that fails or refuses to provide its services as required under Part 40. DOT contemplates using this process only in cases having considerable significance; not for minor mistakes. Also, DOT offices would utilize this process only after having unsuccessfully tried other means to resolve the problem. This PIE hearing process would be done in private by DOT and all decisions made by DOT officials.

["Service agent" is a new term intended to encompass participants in the testing process other than the employers, such as MROs, SAPs, collectors, laboratories and third party administrators.]

The general intent of this proposal is positive in that the customer's and the public's interests should be served by sanctioning service agents who provide substandard products and services. It also serves the professional interests of those in the testing industry to maintain the highest level of standards.

In analyzing the DOT's PIE proposal, there are a number of questions which urge careful consideration.

First, there are considerable gray areas (left by a myriad of possible interpretations) of what constitutes significant non-compliance versus minor mistakes; how would this "serious violation" determination be made in an objective manner? Would not the normal open legal procedures (where the service agent could be fined or charged with an offense such as fraud) have more safeguards and procedural objectivity than a DOT private procedure?

Second, who will make these determinations? Does it make sense to permit a non-testing industry professional with only field operations experience to determine what is, and what isn't, a significant or insignificant violation of the regulations?

Third, since DOT does not directly certify Medical Review Officers (MROs), employee assistance professionals (EAPs) or substance abuse professionals (SAPs), what is the reason behind the focus of PIEs on other service agents? As an alternative, has DOT considered successful examples of self-regulation and allow the industry to set the standards, such as exists for MROs, EAPs, SAPs, etc., that would permit only those service agents meeting certification standards to be allowed to provide DOT mandated testing services? Should DOT follow the certification models provided by the medical review officers (MROs) as an exceptional example that would be appropriate in meeting the spirit of this proposal?

Fourth, was another alternative considered where DOT could assemble a panel of industry experts to review possible Part 40 violations by service agents and determine if they are, in fact, significant or minor? Based on the panel's recommendation, DOT could provide an appropriate response to the service agent. Would this not be more open and objective than a private proceeding at DOT?

Finally, would the PIE provision be bogged down with disputes among industry competitors who report each other for "serious violations" when in fact economic factors (lost business, retaliation, etc.) was at issue? Should DOT allow a complaint from an industry competitor to be sufficient grounds for DOT to initiate a PIE?

2. Service Agent Assurance:

The DOT recommends a new provision that calls for both regulated employers and their service agents to sign a contract provision committing them to compliance with Part 40 provisions.

Few, if any questions, arise about this provision. A service agent assurance contract appears to be a positive step to ensure accountability and quality of service between industry professionals and their customers. All service agents should be held accountable by contract to provide the highest level of service possible to their customers and, ultimately, the public. Public safety is the paramount issue which Part 40's regulations seek to address. Substandard services by non-compliant service agents only undermines the confidence of the customer and the safety of the general public, and reflects poorly upon the testing industry as a whole. A contract is a private, enforceable (through the legal process) means of ensuring such accountability, and provides remedies if the service agent does not perform.

3. Role of Consortia and Third Party Administrators:

The NPRM proposes that MROs be required to report all drug test results directly, and only, to actual employers, and not to an intermediary, such as a consortium or third party administrator (C/TPA). DOT believes that the use of intermediaries has the potential to delay the transmission of results and increase the likelihood of administrative error. This approach is based on the DOT's 1995 guidance relative to the role of consortia and third party administrators, and suggests that reporting through an intermediary might be appropriate in certain specific circumstances (e.g. when use of a third party is the only practical way to direct an owner-operator to cease performing safety-sensitive functions, or to report a violation to a DOT agency for the purpose of taking license or certification action following a violation). DOT is reluctant to extend these provisions any wider.

There is one exception to this proposal. DOT agencies would be permitted to have a regulation authorizing the provision of results through an intermediary. Currently, only the U.S. Coast Guard has such a regulation.

The value-added benefits that consortia and third party administrators (C/TPAs) provide to the small business community should not be underestimated. Without these value added services small businesses would find it very difficult and costly to comply with DOT regulations.

Some of the questions that arise with this proposal include: Would it also place an undue administrative burden upon the MRO that is currently being performed by the C/TPA? Specifically, would MROs be able to provide all the C/TPAs value-added services that go along with a test result, such as information on removing an employee following a positive result, follow-up programs, and reporting to the agency?

Might an MRO not be knowledgeable enough to answer the modal specific procedural questions posed by an employer in response to receiving drug test results; questions that are accurately answered by the C/TPA?

Do small businesses have the resources available to provide a dedicated Designated Employer Representative position? In the case of small companies and owner-operators, could such a requirement be prohibitively expensive?

Is an MRO, usually a busy doctor, available frequently enough to properly report all drug tests, positive and negative, to the employer in a timely fashion? Would the MRO not end up just using their staff; and what is the difference between his staff and an independent C/TPA? Does this proposal not run contrary to other quality assurance measures that DOT is proposing be implemented? Specifically, the role of the C/TPA ensures that drug test results are reported accurately to the employer, and that the employer understands the steps to be followed depending upon the test results. Without this intermediary, is DOT welcoming error and misinterpretation into the reporting and enforcement process?

As an alternative, to relieve small business entities of the financial and administrative burden that this proposal would impose, should DOT exempt those employers with 50 or fewer employees from this proposed requirement? Would this maintain the safety and quality assurance that DOT is seeking?

4. Drug Testing Forms and Materials:

DOT is proposing that no one can use a DOT drug testing form for a non-DOT test, or vice versa. In addition, collectors must use a testing kit conforming to DOT requirements. Finally, DOT questions whether additional security measures would be appropriate for testing materials and supplies.

Questions which arise from this proposal include: Would a universal chain of custody form, with a check box indicating whether a "Federal" or "Non-Federal" drug test is being performed, address this concern and not compromise the integrity of DOT mandated tests?

Does requiring multiple drug testing forms burden businesses with additional printing and storage costs? Would a universal form lessen the chance of a staff person completing the inappropriate form for the test being performed?

Would the requirement to use a testing kit conforming to DOT requirements maintain the integrity and quality of DOT mandated tests? Would this requirement create an unusual cost, storage or usage problem?

Are the current measures used to secure testing materials and supplies adequate? Does evidence exist to support the notion that there is widespread tampering with, or theft of, testing materials and supplies? Will such a requirement burden service agents with additional costs and procedures?

5. Collector and MRO Training:

The DOT is proposing that collectors be required to read and understand DOT rules and guidance concerning collections, demonstrate proficiency by completing three consecutive error-free trial collections, and receive retraining as needed. DOT also proposes requiring those individuals training or evaluating participants in the testing process be "sufficiently knowledgeable" about testing requirements and procedures.

The proposal also recommends that MROs be required to take a training course every two years or certify that they have reviewed and understand Part 40 and applicable DOT agency regulations and guidance.

Questions that arise from this proposal include: Would training requirements for collectors and MROs increase the integrity and quality of drug tests by reducing even further the chances of error? Would such training allow collectors and MROs to remain current of changing technologies and regulations? To ensure the quality of the training being received by collectors and MROs, should some sort of standard training and certification process for the trainer be required? Could adequate training be considered something as simple as reviewing a current video or written training material on appropriate procedures, followed by a test? Will such trainer instruction ensure a consistent, up-to-date and quality experience for the individual being instructed?

6. Conflict of Interest Provisions:

DOT is concerned about any potential for conflicts of interest with all service agents. DOT is also concerned with what limitations, if any, should be placed upon laboratories and MROs serving as third party administrators. DOT has a long-standing prohibition against the laboratory and the MRO having an affiliation or financial arrangement with one another that may be construed as a conflict of interest. DOT questions whether this prohibition should be strengthened. DOT also asks how can it ensure there exists no conflict of interest in a laboratory-based third-party administrator's selection of an MRO or an MRO-based third party administrator's selection of a laboratory.

Questions that arise with this proposal include: Are the current prohibitions against conflict of interest adequate and not in need of strengthening? Is the testing industry sufficiently self-regulating in this respect through competition, and would any additional regulation prove to be an unnecessary administrative and financial burden? To provide a clear interpretation of what is appropriate and what is not, should the text of the final rule contain a specific list of the prohibited practices?

7. Adulterants:

The NPRM proposes to mandate testing for adulterated and substituted specimens (nitrites, pH, creatinine and, in some cases, specific gravity), which will likely increase the number of situations in which labs determine that a specimen has been adulterated or substituted. Specimens that are found to have been tampered with will be reported to the employer as a refusal to test.

Adulterants and other attempts to tamper with specimens question the integrity and quality of the services provided by the testing industry among its customers. In addition, the potential to return a possible positive testing individual to a safety sensitive position is too great a threat to public safety to overlook. Integrating a mandatory adulterants testing panel into the process is a positive first step toward stricter sanctions on those who try to defeat drug and alcohol tests. However, are the additional costs associated with an adulterants panel worth it to the employer and the safety of the public in general? Should DOT expand its scope on adulterants through interagency and industry cooperation to include sanctioning those who provide such products?

8. Electronic Records and Signatures:

The NPRM does not include any new proposals addressing electronic records and signatures. However, DOT is willing to consider ideas that would, to a greater degree than is now the case, permit the use of electronic records and signatures in the program.

While the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) has authority over approving the acceptance of electronic forms (e.g. Federal Chain of Custody Forms), DOT should strive to work in conjunction with HHS to permit the optional use of e-forms and e-signatures within three (3) years. Will the use of e-forms and e-signatures streamline the collection process and increase the accuracy of the information provided on these forms? Will electronic media reduce administrative and storage costs, and provide faster information transmission than is currently the case?

Are there other federal agencies that DOT and HHS could look to as a model e-form user? Are there security or privacy considerations that need to be addressed? Is the testing industry advanced enough to warrant considering the use of e-forms and e-signatures?

DATIA encourages its members to take an active role in responding to this proposed rulemaking. While DATIA will respond on behalf of the industry to several of the overarching proposals being made, and take an active role in advocating a favorable rewrite, the success to a rewrite favorable to the testing industry remains with the industry. Concrete examples and other supporting evidence will go a long way toward convincing DOT that this proposal will have a major economic impact on a majority of small businesses; that the role of C/TPAs is substantial; that the industry can be self-regulating, etc.

Comments on the NPRM should be received by DOT by April 7, 2000. To download a PDF version of the NPRM, visit the DATIA website at www.datia.org. If you do not have access to the Internet, contact DATIA for a paper copy.

[In October 1999 we reviewed post accident drug testing of the safety-sensitive public employee. This "It's The Law" article will focus on post accident testing the non-safety-sensitive public employee. A review of the 4th Amendment issues covered in the last article may be helpful.] Government employers (Collectors, Labs and TPAs) must be careful not to violate an employee's freedom from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That issue was raised recently by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United Teachers v. Orleans Parish School Board, 142 F.3d 853 (5th Cir 1998). Relying upon various Supreme Court decisions, the court held that the school board could not require all teachers who were injured in the course of their employment to submit a post-accident urine specimen, but required finding a special need for testing. The court questioned the board's right to test all employees injured on the job without regard to circumstances. The teachers were not classified as "safety-sensitive" employees. But see: Knox County Educ. Assn v. Knox County Bd. of Educ., 158 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1998), cert denied, (finding that public school teachers and administrators can be classified as "safety-sensitive," 120 S.Ct. 46 (1999). In the final analysis, the court found "an insufficient nexus between suffering an injury at work and drug impairment" and that to justify testing, the school board needed to show "individualized suspicion" of wrongdoing.

The Fourth Amendment "extends to all government searches, including those conducted by the government while acting as an employer." This restraint requires that the government have either "individualized suspicion" or a "special government need" which outweighs the employee's interest in privacy. Urinalysis, blood tests, and breath tests &emdash; both the collection and the testing of the sample &emdash; are "searches" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-18 (1989). The Fourth Amendment does not generally apply to drug testing conducted in the private sector where there is no "state action."

SPECIAL RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL NON-SAFETY-SENSITIVE EMPLOYEE

Accordingly, the recommended course with regard to governmental entity employees (federal, state, county, city, housing authority, water board, etc.) who

cannot be clearly classified as "safety sensitive" is to perform an analysis of the circumstances of the accident to establish "an individualized suspicion" to justify a drug test. In the governmental entity written drug testing policy, non-safety-sensitive employees should be notified that they will be subject to such a determination if they are involved in an accident and may be required to submit to a drug test. A copy of the policy should be given to all employees subject to testing when their written consent is obtained.

Second, a reasonable individualized suspicion determination can be developed where supervisory employees (trained to make such determinations) have a reasonable belief that the employee's acts or omissions causing the accident or injury may have been related to drug or alcohol impairment. Such an analysis is similar to a proximate cause analysis, but the employee's impairment need not appear by a preponderance of the evidence to be the cause of the accident but only one of the reasonable possible causes. These factors should be embodied in a post-accident reasonable cause/individualized suspicion checklist (different from a reasonable suspicion checklist). This checklist gives the supervisor written criteria to follow and should be filled out contemporaneously with the determination or immediately after the determination. The best protection against a Fourth Amendment violation, and resulting litigation, is a well drafted Fourth Amendment compliant Drug Free Workplace policy with essential forms, notices, checklist and consents. Our firm recently completed such a statewide project covering over 600 governmental entities using a computerized policy development wizard.

DISCLAIMER: The above should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion as to any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have. Tom Eden is a management labor attorney with the law firm of Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt, L.L.C. who advises collection sites, TPAs, employers, work comp administrators, and MROs on a variety of drug and alcohol testing issues and risk reduction programs. Tom may be reached at (205) 870-0555 or the@wallacejordan.com. Please visit our Web Site at www.wallacejordan.com (which contains federal drug testing regulations and other drug free workplace resources) You may feel free to forward, distribute and copy this DATIA Legal Update if you distribute and copy it without any changes and you include all headers and other identifying information

2000 Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Rates

The Dept. of Transportation's modal agencies have announced their random drug and alcohol testing rates for 2000: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - 25% drug; 10% alcohol; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) - 50% drug; 10% alcohol (2000 rates for FMCSA have not been published as of press time. The random rates for FMCSA are to be continued at the last published rates for 1998 by the Federal Highway Administration.); Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - 50% drug; 10% alcohol; Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) - 25% drug; N/A alcohol; Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) - 25% drug; 10% alcohol; and, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) - 50% drug; N/A alcohol.

FAA Withdraws Proposed Drug Testing
Rule for Employees of Foreign Air Carriers

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published in the January 13, 2000 Federal Register (Docket No. 27066; Notice No. 92-18) a Withdrawal of Proposed Rule which would have required foreign air carriers to establish drug and alcohol testing programs for their employees performing safety sensitive aviation functions within United States territory. The withdrawal notice was made after FAA determined that, through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), multilateral action has been taken to support an aviation environment free of substance abuse.

The FAA, however, has indicated that if the threat to aviation safety posed by substance abuse has increased, or requires additional efforts, and the international community has not responded appropriately, FAA will take appropriate action. Such action could include reinitiating this rulemaking. For a complete copy of the notice, visit www.access.gpo.gov/nara, or call DATIA on (800) 355-1257.

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on OTC Sample
Collection System Labeling

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled "Guidance on Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sample Collection Systems for Drugs of Abuse Testing." The guidance, which is not final or in effect at this time, proposes to reclassify OTC sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing into Class I. FDA is proposing that these specimen collection systems be allowed to be marketed without prior agency approval as long as they meet the following criteria:

1. The underlying laboratory test(s) are accurate and reliable;

2. The laboratory performing the test(s) has adequate experience and competency;

3. The product has adequate labeling and methods of communicating test results to consumers.

Accurate labeling will enable the lay person to understand what drugs the test can identify, the time frame within which the drugs can be detected, how to properly collect the test specimen and mail it to the laboratory, how to interpret the test results and how to obtain professional counseling if needed.

If the proposed rule becomes final, adequate labeling and methods of communicating test results to consumers will be a restriction required under section 520(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even though manufacturers of these collection systems will be exempt from premarket review. The guidance presents FDA's direction on ways to fulfill this proposed requirement, as well as helping manufacturers currently marketing these products under CDRH's interim policy regarding "Parent's Access to Tests for Drugs of Abuse."

To obtain a copy of the draft guidance, visit www.fda.gov/cdrh/ggpmain.html#docs. If you do not have access to the Internet, contact DATIA on (800) 355-1257 for a copy.

OMCS Proposes to Deny Exemption
Application for Random Testing of Drivers

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) is proposing to deny the application of PacifiCorp Electric Operations for an exemption from the OMCS's controlled substances and alcohol random testing requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. PacifiCorp requested the exemption because the company believes it has a low percentage of positive random test results among its 1,600 drivers since testing was initiated. The company requested regulatory relief but did not offer alternatives that would have comparable deterrent effects.

OMCS intends to deny the exemption request because PacifiCorp did not explain how it would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the random controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements. OMCS contends that, although PacifiCorp reported its positive testing rates for controlled substance and alcohol are 1% and 0.8% respectively, the figures indicate that the workplace is not presently drug-free and that random testing still serves a very necessary purpose. The company also failed to indicate the disposition of those drivers who tested positive.

PacifiCorp argued that the $150,000 spent each year on random drug and alcohol testing, in addition to the costs associated with lost productivity, takes funds away from innovative traffic safety programs that the company could have developed. It gave no specific examples of safety programs that would have been conducted.

For a complete copy of the Federal Register notice (OMCS Docket No. OMCS-99-6354), visit www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Mayors Call for Increased Use of Drug Testing

In a recent statement, Jeff Griffin, Mayor of Reno, NV, and Chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayor's (USCM) Criminal and Social Justice Committee, outlined a three point agenda related to drugs and prisons and jails.

Specifically, the USCM is calling for increased efforts to keep drugs out of prisons and jails, with constant mandatory testing and monitoring of prisoners while in the system, including those on probation or parole.

The mayors also want to see the increased provision of quality treatment in prisons and jails, and to persons on probation or parole.

Finally, the agenda calls for requiring every prisoner to pass a drug test prior to being released.

To support the agenda, Griffin noted "We are not so naïve as to believe that a policy of mandatory drug testing prior to release will solve the problem of drug abuse and recidivism. We know that a continuum of treatment and monitoring is required, from the day a person enters the criminal justice system to the day they complete the terms of their probation or parole.

McCaffrey Calls for Common Sense
Demand Reduction Strategy for Olympic
Athletes

Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), called for the development of an international sports doping strategy, and an anti-doping agency that is truly independent of the International Olympic Committee. McCaffrey stated "Drug use in sports has reached a level that jeopardizes the integrity and legitimacy of athletics throughout the world."

McCaffrey, meeting in November at the 26-nation International Drugs in Sports Summit in Sydney, Australia, called for achieving six common sense principals:

1. a truly independent and accountable international doping agency;

2. testing on a 365 day-a-year, no notice basis;

3. no statute of limitations for violations;

4. deterrence through the preservation of samples;

5. advanced research to close the testing loopholes;

6. promotion of the ethic of clean sport with education of young athletes about the dangers of doping.

To learn more about the Director's anti-doping strategy, visit ONDCP's website.

USDOT Conducting Public Meetings on
Part 40

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) is conducting three public meetings/listening sessions to discuss the current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) relative to revisions to the DOT's alcohol and drug testing procedures (49 CFR Part 40). The meetings will be held on the following dates:

• March 20-21, 2000: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC
• March 28, 2000: Hilton Los Angeles Airport, 5711 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles, CA
• March 30, 2000: Crowne Plaza, Dallas Market Center, 7050 Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX

The meetings will provide all segments of the transportation industry and the general public with an opportunity to make statements, which have not already been made, to the docket. The meetings will also give the public and DOT a forum for Q&A related to the proposed changes.

Pre-registration is required to attend. Registration forms are available from the Transportation Safety Institute (Contact: Marti Bludworth, 1-800-862-4832, ext. 323); from the DOT Fax-On-Demand system (800-225-3784, document #140); or, from the DOT web site at www.dot.gov/ost/dapc.

NMCSA Bill Receives Fast Track Approval;
Puts Teeth into Verified Positive Test Results
for CDL Holders

Legislation (H.R. 3419) sponsored by Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA) establishing the National Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the Dept. of Transportation, improving the safety of commercial motor vehicle operations and carriers, and strengthening commercial driver's licenses, received fast track passage in the waning hours of the first session of the 106th Congress. As we reported in the last issue of this newsletter, the original bill (H.R. 2679), having passed the House, was pending in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Identical legislation, H.R. 3419, was discharged from Committee, passed by the House and Senate under unanimous consent rules and sent on to the President for signature.

Section 226 of P.L. 106-159 is of particular interest to medical review officers (MROs) and C/TPAs. The section requires the Secretary of Transportation to complete a study on the necessity of requiring medical review officers to report all verified positive controlled substances test results on any driver required to be tested under 49 CFR 382 to the state which issued the driver's commercial drivers license. Reporting requirements include the identity of each person tested and each controlled substance found. Section 226 also requires that all prospective employers, prior to hiring any driver, contact the state that issued the driver's CDL to determine if the driver has any verified positive controlled substance test results on record.

In conducting the study, DOT will consider methods for safeguarding the confidentiality of verified positive controlled substance test results, along with the costs, benefits and safety impacts of requiring states to maintain the records of positive test results. In addition, the study will examine whether there should be a process to allow drivers to correct errors in their records, and eliminate the positive test result information from their records within a certain period of time.

Drug Use Rates Among Youths Mixed

The 1999 Monitoring the Future Study, a report on drug use among youth sponsored by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) indicates that use of most illicit drugs among 8th, 10th and 12th graders remained unchanged from 1998. This is the third year in a row that drug use rates have leveled or declined since their rapid rise in the early '90's. The report did show, however, that increases in use were found for the prime "club drug" MDMA (Ecstasy) among 10th and 12th graders and for steroids among 8th and 10th graders. The study also indicated a continued improvement in some anti-drug attitudes among youth with significant increases in the perception of the harmfulness of marijuana among 8th graders.

Some other key findings:

• past year use of crack cocaine among 8th graders declined 14% and the rate of past month use of cigarettes dropped 8%;
• among 10th graders, the rate of past month use of crack cocaine declined 27%;
• among 12th graders, the rate of past year use of ice (crystal meth) declined 37% and the rate of daily use of alcohol dropped 13%;
• annual use of MDMA among 10th graders increased 33% and past 30-day steroid use for this group increased 50% and past year use increased 42%;
• among 12th graders, the perceived harmfulness of trying crack cocaine once or twice dropped 8%; 12th graders were the only students who did not report a decline in past 30-dayuse of crack.

For a complete copy of the study results, visit www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press/
1999kids_drugs.html.

The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association's 2000 Annual Conference, scheduled to kick off in just a month, is already proving to be the most anticipated industry forum of 2000. Registrations are pouring into DATIA's headquarters in record numbers and the exhibit hall is jam packed with the industry's premier product and service providers. More industry professionals than ever are heading to the nation's capitol to take part in the numerous sessions that tackle the toughest issues facing drug and alcohol testing professionals today.

Foremost on attendees' minds is the opportunity to voice their views and concerns with key representatives face to face. DATIA has already received notice from members around the country on their scheduled appointments on Capitol Hill. To prepare its members for these key meetings, DATIA will be presenting a seminar that will provide its members with the tools and tactics necessary to make these meetings effective. Attendees will leave for Capitol Hill with talking points on multiple issues affecting the industry as well as materials to leave with their representatives. The DATIA Afternoon on Capitol Hill is the first such industry activity and appears to be just what industry professionals have been waiting for.

In addition to meetings on Capitol Hill, the DATIA 2000 Annual Conference will feature top level speakers from Federal Agencies, Congress and the industry who will address the conference and interact with attendees to discuss the impact of proposed changes in drug and alcohol testing policy. Robert Ashby, Department of Transportation; Bob Moran, Office of Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA 5); and Walter Vogel, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, will address the crowd on new and upcoming developments within their agencies and how these changes will affect your business operations.

An interactive and entertaining presentation on the

current practices in specimen adulteration will be presented by Tom Eden, III, Wallace, Jordan, Ratcliff & Brandt, LLC; and Dr. Chip Thuss, Absolute Drug Detection Services, Inc. For those attendees looking to increase their client list, Elaina Carr of the Department of Labor's Working Partners Program and William Current of WFC & Associates will provide attendees with their expertise on educating employers on the benefits of drug free workplaces. As on-site testing is increasing in its use and popularity, David Evans of the National On-Site Testing Association will involve the crowd in the development of the much anticipated on-site testing Standard Operating Procedures. Another buzz word of the past year has been alternative specimen testing. Product representatives including R. Sam Niedbala, PhD of STC Technologies, Dr. Thomas Cairns of Psychemedics, and Linda Masterson of Lifepoint, will explore the newest technologies available for drug and alcohol testing and explain their potential uses. The highlight of the conference will be a panel discussion on the merits of drug testing in general. Mark de Bernardo, Institute for a Drug Free Workplace, and Lewis Maltby, American Civil Liberties Union, will discuss the much publicized white paper issued by the ACLU which proclaims drug testing to be "a bad investment".

As a drug and alcohol-testing provider, this is the one conference that can't be missed. Don't let this opportunity to meet with key legislative and regulatory officials, industry experts, and leaders in the advancement of drug and alcohol testing pass you by. We're positive that every attendee of DATIA's 4th Annual Conference will have a monumental experience while at the conference and take with them concrete information that can immediately be applied to their specific operation. We look forward to seeing you in Washington, DC! For a Conference Brochure and Registration form, visit www.datia.org or call 800-355-1257.

DATIA has responded to SAMHSA's Notice of Proposed Revision (NPR) to the Federal Drug Testing Chain of Custody and Control Form. As we reported in the last issue of Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry News, the SAMHSA-issued NPR in the November 15, 1999 Federal Register contained DATIA's major recommendations for improving the form.

In its letter of response to Robert Stephenson, II, Acting Director of Workplace Programs at CSAP, DATIA stated that is was extremely pleased with the changes that SAMHSA had proposed, and feels that they will go a long way toward improving the quality of the collection process. DATIA did make two additional recommendations to encourage further user-friendliness of the form:

1. Make the new CCF a truly universal form with the addition of two check boxes at the top of each copy of the CCF to designate whether the test is a "Federal" or "Non-Federal" test. A universal form will further

reduce printing costs associated with two forms, reduce storage space, and eliminate the possibility of a "Federal" form being used on a "Non-Federal" drug test, or vice versa. 2. Eliminate the dashes between the character blocks on Line D ("Donor SSN or Employee I.D. No."). Since not all companies use Social Security Numbers for identification purposes, eliminating the dashes, and replacing them with two additional character blocks, would provide additional options (e.g. an identification number longer or shorter than an SSN) and reduce the chance of error (e.g. forcing an eleven digit number into nine character blocks).

The revisions to the CCF as outlined in the NPR are of extreme importance to DATIA and the industry which it represents, and were a top priority agenda item last year. As the approval process continues, DATIA will keep you updated on any additional changes as SAMHSA moves toward its form replacement date of July 31, 2000. For a copy of the letter sent to SAMHSA, call DATIA on (800) 355-1257.