Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ... Implementation Guidelines - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
Because FTA has consistently held that the determination to retain or discharge an employee for having tested positive is a local decision, this opinion is not viewed as establishing a conflict between the ADA and FTA’s drug and alcohol testing rule. 7. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Claim Dwan, et al. v. MBTA Dwan, et al. v. MBTA, filed as a Memorandum of Decision (civil Action No. 95-12430- 6AO) addressed the claim that the MBTA testing program violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The plaintiff asserted that he did not occupy a safety-sensitive position. The court held that maintenance functions performed by the plaintiff (i.e., repairing and installing body panels and welding and repairing vehicle understructure) were consistent with the regulatory definition of a safety-sensitive position and thus, including the plaintiff in the random testing program does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, other requirements imposed by the MBTA that exceed the FTA requirements but do not conflict or interfere with the requirements of the rule, were challenged. The court concluded that the differences between the explicit requirements of the regulations and the MBTA program as adopted appear to be authorized in 49 CFR Part 653.11 and thus, the plaintiff’s claim had no merit. Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-28 August 2002
FTA and FMCSA Regulatory Comparison TOPIC FTA FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Testing 49 CFR Part 655, As Amended 49 CFR Part 382, As Amended Regulation Testing Procedures 49 CFR Part 40, As Amended Same Applicability Recipients of FTA 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5309, 5311, and 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) ♦ Employers who require employees to have CDLs ♦ CDL Holders Drugs Prohibited marijuana, cocaine, Same Same amphetamines, opiates, phencyclidine Alcohol Prohibited ≥0.04 BAC Remove from duty and refer to Same 0.02 to 0.039 BAC SAP for evaluation Remove from duty for 8 hours Remove from duty for 24 hours unless re-test < 0.02 BAC Safety-sensitive Functions ♦ Operating a revenue service vehicle CDL holders when: ♦ driving/driver ♦ CDL holders ♦ Dispatch/controlling movement of vehicles ♦ Maintaining a revenue service vehicle or related equipment ♦ Security personnel carrying firearms Contractors Applies to all safety-sensitive Each employer is responsible for contractors that “stand in the their own CDL holders shoes” of recipient Education and Training Display and Distribute Info and Hotline Numbers Add effects and consequences of Materials drug use to policy Employee Awareness Required Not required Training on Drugs Reasonable Suspicion 60 minutes on signs and Same Training of Supervisor symptoms of drug use; additional 60 minutes on alcohol Policy Content Minimum requirements specified Same Governing Board Approval Required Not Required Add information on Not Required Required Controlled Substances Certificate of Receipt from Recommended Required Employees Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-29 August 2002
- Page 1 and 2: October 2009 Implementation Guideli
- Page 3 and 4: Notice This document is disseminate
- Page 5 and 6: METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS E
- Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Chapter 1. INTROD
- Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents (continued) Secti
- Page 11 and 12: Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION Section 1.
- Page 13 and 14: Transit employers may go beyond the
- Page 15 and 16: Recommendation: Know the Regulation
- Page 17 and 18: Sample Documentation Chapter 1. Int
- Page 19 and 20: DHHS-Certified Laboratories, Center
- Page 21 and 22: FTA Drug and Alcohol Management Inf
- Page 23 and 24: Research And Special Programs Admin
- Page 25 and 26: employment in safety-sensitive posi
- Page 27 and 28: What happens in these cases? The pu
- Page 29 and 30: Section 3. SAFETY-SENSITIVE • Ope
- Page 31 and 32: performing the volunteer service ar
- Page 33 and 34: Safety-sensitive Examples of Nation
- Page 35 and 36: • A description of the consequenc
- Page 37 and 38: projects, the employer should notif
- Page 39 and 40: Sample Documentation Chapter 2. Reg
- Page 41 and 42: Certification of Compliance for FTA
- Page 43 and 44: 4. Atlanta Federal Center Suite 17T
- Page 45 and 46: 1. Liability of Service Agents Yasu
- Page 47: plaintiffs agreed that their positi
- Page 51 and 52: FTA and FMCSA Regulatory Comparison
- Page 53 and 54: process ensures that all critical c
- Page 55 and 56: Chapter 3. Program Formulation 3-4
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 4. POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND C
- Page 59 and 60: concentration of 0.04 or greater th
- Page 61 and 62: has a confirmed alcohol concentrati
- Page 63 and 64: MRO before the employer is notified
- Page 65 and 66: policy with the requirement to form
- Page 67 and 68: Do not assume that your contractors
- Page 69 and 70: PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING NOTIFIC
- Page 71 and 72: Sample Program Notification Letter
- Page 73 and 74: authorized by the employer to make
- Page 75 and 76: The 60 minutes of awareness trainin
- Page 77 and 78: medications which could result in p
- Page 79 and 80: employees who have problems with pr
- Page 81 and 82: particular alcohol testing device t
- Page 83 and 84: emain current with the regulations
- Page 85 and 86: − Changes in Rules, Guidance and
- Page 87 and 88: Exhibit 5-1 Summary of Education an
- Page 89 and 90: Exhibit 5-3 Typical Agenda for Supe
- Page 91 and 92: Exhibit 5-4 REASONABLE SUSPICION TR
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 6. TYPES OF TESTING Six typ
- Page 95 and 96: Previous DOT Employer Record Check
- Page 97 and 98: the “insufficient volume” proce
Because FTA has consistently held that the determination to retain or discharge an<br />
employee for having tested positive is a local decision, this opinion is not viewed as<br />
establishing a conflict between the ADA and FTA’s drug and alcohol testing rule.<br />
7. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Claim<br />
Dwan, et al. v. MBTA<br />
Dwan, et al. v. MBTA, filed as a Memorandum of Decision (civil Action No. 95-12430-<br />
6AO) addressed the claim that the MBTA testing program violated the Fourth Amendment<br />
to the United States Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The<br />
plaintiff asserted that he did not occupy a safety-sensitive position. The court held that<br />
maintenance functions performed by the plaintiff (i.e., repairing and installing body panels<br />
and welding and repairing vehicle understructure) were consistent with the regulatory<br />
definition of a safety-sensitive position and thus, including the plaintiff in the random<br />
testing program does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<br />
Additionally, other requirements imposed by the MBTA that exceed the FTA<br />
requirements but do not conflict or interfere with the requirements of the rule, were<br />
challenged. The court concluded that the differences between the explicit requirements of<br />
the regulations and the MBTA program as adopted appear to be authorized in 49 CFR Part<br />
653.11 and thus, the plaintiff’s claim had no merit.<br />
Chapter 2. Regulatory Overview 2-28 August 2002
Change language