PUBLIC SUBMISSION | As of: February 11, 2009 Comments Due: March 03, 2003 Late comments are accepted |
Docket: USCG-2001-8773
Marine Casualities and Investigations; Chemical Testing Following Serious Marine Incidents
Comment On: USCG-2001-8773-0001
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Document: USCG-2001-8773-0056
Susan L. Clark-Hufker
Alpha Pro Solutions, Inc.
25 Gourdon Court
Lake St. Louis,
MO,
63367
Thank you for your consideration of my comments below. I have been involved with workplace drug and alcohol testing for over twelve years, have trained over 5000 breath alcohol technicians on various models of evidential breath testing devices (EBTs), hundreds of alcohol technicians on non-evidential alcohol testing devices, and drug test collectors on varying collection protocols. I have developed various forms of drug and alcohol test training courses including computer-based courses on regulatory procedures, and computer-based device-specific training courses.
I. Mouth Alcohol
Regarding the testing of alcohol, from what I can tell, the proposed rule does not take into consideration the possibility of false positive alcohol tests due to residual mouth alcohol. Although USCG does not fall under DOT 49 CFR Part 40 alcohol testing regulations, it may be useful to consider some of the Part 40 procedures as a model, and to incorporate some of the Part 40 guidelines. To eliminate the possibility of a false positive alcohol test result due to mouth alcohol, one of the following solutions may be implemented: 1) A mandatory 15 minute wait prior to all alcohol tests. During the fifteen minutes prior to the alcohol test, the employee to be tested would be observed by an alcohol test technician and be instructed not to introduce anything by mouth (e.g. not to eat, drink, smoke, chew) or to belch. Because these instructions are for the employee's benefit to eliminate the possibility of mouth alcohol, if the individual chooses not to follow the deprivation instructions, the test will commence at the end of the fifteen minute waiting period regardless. The single alcohol test result determined by the alcohol test technician will be recorded on Form CG-2692B. 2) Because an observed fifteen minute waiting time may not be practical prior to every test, a two-test procedure may be implemented to eliminate the possibility of a false positive due to mouth alcohol. Since the proposed rule implies that non-evidential alcohol screening devices will be used, and generally not evidential breath testing devices, the alcohol concentration will not be "confirmed" by the DOT Part 40 definition requiring an EBT. Therefore, a two-test process using the alcohol screening devices for both tests will be applicable. The intial alcohol test may be called a "screening test". The second test may be called a "re-screening test". I would propose the term "re-screening" as opposed to a "confirmation test" so as not to confuse the term typically associated with an evidential breath testing device (EBT) result required for DOT confirmatory alcohol tests. The use of a different term (e.g. "re-screening test") will make it less confusing for alcohol technicians to distinguish between the DOT Part 40 protocol and the USCG protocol.
II. Alcohol Test Training
The proposed rule in 4.06-20 (a) (3) says "Collection of an individual's saliva or breath to comply with 4.06-3(a) must be taken only by personnel trained to operate the alcohol-testing device in use and must be conducted in accordance with this part." May I suggest this is too broad to cover all the important aspects of training for the alcohol test. I am proposing that training include, at a minimum, an assessment test to ensure the alcohol test technician has a thorough knowledge of the testing device to be used, the proper way to read the alcohol test result, and how to properly document the test result. This may be provided similiarly to how Alpha Pro Solutions currently tests DOT alcohol test technicians and drug test collectors, which is by an on-line exam specific to the testing criteria required. Best case scenario will be the use of a computer-based training module similar to those already available from APS. The CBT training module tracks the technician's training, documents it, and maintains exam records. I might add that this type of training technology is ideal for technicians employed on a ship who are unable to attend a classroom-training session, but who have internet access.
III. Drug Test Collection Training
4.06-3 (b) (2) says "Specimen collection and shipping kits used to conduct drug testing must be used in accordance with 49 CFR Part 40." My comment is that I doubt many drug test collectors for marine vessels have been trained and/or updated according to revised Part 40 regulations due to their lack of availability to attend collector training classes. Therefore, I would like to encourage the Coast Guard to consider the computer-based Collector training available from Alpha Pro Solutions in order to make off-shore training possible and a reality.
Respectfully,
Sue Clark-Hufker, MBA, C-SAPA
President
Alpha Pro Solutions, Inc.
www.AlphaProSolutions.com
sue@alphaprosolutions.com