Alcohol and Controlled Substance Testing for Maintenance-of-Way Employees
2015-06-11 2014-08-04 2014-11-24 2014-11-25 2014-11-25 2014-08-04 2014-10-02 2014-08-25 2014-11-24 2016-07-11
FRA-2009-0039-0024 FRA-2009-0039-0004 FRA-2009-0039-0015 FRA-2009-0039-0017 FRA-2009-0039-0018 FRA-2009-0039-0003 FRA-2009-0039-0010 FRA-2009-0039-0005 FRA-2009-0039-0016 FRA-2009-0039-0027
04:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 04:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0024 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0004 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0015 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0017 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0018 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0003 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0010 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0005 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0016 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FRA-2009-0039-0027
Marion James Jacqueline Freddie Freddie Carol Anonymous Christopher Robert Charles
Hecht Armstrong Prater Simpson Simpson Hopkins Anonymous Mattice Knight Bice
I am a licensed prof. counselor in my state. Would I be eligible to work with employees who have violated the rules of their positions? I have a masters degree in counseling and psychology and have performed non-DOT evaluations. I have extensive experience in substance abuse issues as well. Having worked 30 years in the alcohol and drug field EAP programs are great, but the counselors do no have that 24/7 contact with alcohol and drug clients.  Also many of them have little alcohol and drug background/experience (i.e there many qualified SAPs too that do not have the alcohol and drug background:social workers, doctors and other professionals) they are great professionals but lack the knowledge on dealing with this population.  Also many of them (EAP) are just too close to the companies.  Many of these Employers need to stop doing in-house alcohol and drug training themselves, and bring in experienced SAPs with a lot of alcohol and drug background. What happen in 2007,Massachusetts is the result of rare/little testing and poor supervisor alcohol and drug training/ EAP programs that have weak SAPs with little alcohol and drug background. It is the opinion of the Semo Port Railroad that the small railroad exception in 49 CFR 219 needs to stay the way it is. If there was to be a change it could cause adverse impact on the small railroads in cost and time for the employees to take out of their day to go to the drug testing facility. We have 4 people in the Semo Port office and only 2 could be considered a maintenance of way worker, but their jobs do not revolve around the railroad solely. Three of the four people who work for Semo Port are drug and alcohol symptom certified to where they can determine whether someone was under the influence or not and we all see each other every day so we would know if something was wrong. We have 5 guys on our train crews that we use on a normal basis. Three of them have been here for going on 21 years and the other two have about 2-3 years of experience and there has never been an issue of someone being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Semo Port Railroad also has an impeccable safety record. For the last 10 years we have received the ASLRRAs Jake Award for Railroad Safety which is no accidents/incidents in a calendar year. We strive to run a safe and effective railroad. I did some research and a local drug testing firm gave me a quote on what drug tests cost. A DOT drug test through them would be $47/test. If we would have to drug test 50% of our staff it would equate to an extra $376 in expenses and a 25% alcohol test would equate to $188 for a total of $564 in extra expenses per year that we could use elsewhere in the railroad.As far as the contractors go, if a contractor does work previously for a railroad that does not have the exception then they will have the drug and alcohol policy already in place. It should be up to the contractor to determine if one of their people is under the influence seeing how they should know their workers better than we do.  Again, the 49 CFR 219 small railroad exception should stay the way it is.  Joint comments of the Rail Labor Organizations (ATDA, BLET, BMWED, BRS, IBEW, SMART-TD) Attachment #1 - Joint Comments of the Rail Labor Organizations (ADTA, BLET, BMWED, BRS, IBEW, SMART-TD) If drug and alcohol testing is to be considered for the employees of our Department of Transportation, it should mandated for every employee that works for the department, not just a solicited few covered employees.  This should also include volunteers as well as contractors and subcontractors.  It is imperative that the safety of our transportation system be given the utmost positive response by individuals and groups indicating the necessity of mandatory testing for illegal and legal substances of all kinds.    The costs of these proposed regulations will outweigh the consequences of not utilizing mandatory testing for all situations to include pre-employment, random, and post accidental testing of any employee with access to all Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Railroad Administrative (FRA) safety-sensitive functions.  The benefits of the amendment rule will be accrued primarily from the expected injury, fatality and property damage avoidance that would result from the expansion of the proposed rule covering Maintenance of Way (MOW) employees subcontracting for the railway and the Post Accident Toxicology (PAT) testing threshold increase.  It is vital employees of our transportation system, whatever the position, be under regulation for the testing of illegal substances. .I absolutely agree with Carol.  Every person who works for the Federal Government, no matter what their position, should be under this type of program.  Pre-employment, random, and post-incident testing is the only way to assure that your employees are not impaired. Per FR Vol. 79, No. 144 (Page 43859, Section 219.207-Fatality), the FRA is proposing the removal of NRC phone number 1-800-424-8801 (as its no longer correct) and leaving NRC phone number 1-800-424-8802 as the sole number for making FRA notifications through the NRC. I recommend removing both of the listed NRC phone numbers (1-800-424-8801 and 1-800-424-8802) from the 49 CFR 219 regulations and replace them with the phone number 1-800-424-0201. REASON: Though currently managed by the NRC, the toll-free phone number 1-800-424-0201 is owned by the FRA as a railroad accident reporting hotline and is referenced in FRA regulations 49 CFR 225.9, 229.17, 230.22 and 234.7, and NTSB regulation 49 CFR 840.3.  Because 1-800-424-0201 is owned by the FRA, the FRA can independently transfer this number to any call center, should the FRA ever choose to no longer use the NRC as its call center solution. This is something that cannot be done with the NRC owned 1-800-424-8802 number. Solely using 1-800-424-0201 in the FRA and NTSB railroad regulations provides more flexibility to the FRA, should they ever wish to change call centers, since their phone number would never have to change in the regulations. It also makes any transition of call centers nearly seamless for industry, as none of their notification procedures, policies or plans would have to change.  The FRA would lose the use of 1-800-424-8802 if they stopped using the NRC as their call center. This recommended change would impact 49 CFR 219.203, 219.207 and 219.209; though I recommend the change be made to all FRA railroad regulations that reference reporting requirements to the NRC. Docket No. FRA-2009-0039Regulatory Identification Number 2130-AC10The proposed amendments to expand the FRAs control of the use of alcohol and drugs by maintenance-of-way (MOW) activities are greatly needed and will go a long way in closing up an oversight that has contributed to avoidable deaths associated with railroad activities. (Boardman)  What must also be considered are the thousands of business operations across the country that control and operate rail yards and tracks adjacent to active rail lines, and that perform maintenance on those adjacent tracks with equipment that has the propensity to foul active tracks. (Federal Railroad Administration)  The businesses that use rail and the railroad for transportation of goods must inspect, repair, and perform maintenance on track that is used by railroad personnel to deliver, pick up, or switch railcars.  These operations are not required to employ an alcohol and drug testing policy but can easily interdict an error provocative environment (Chapanis) into the railroad operations with little to any regulatory control.  The general workforce has shown positive results from those tested that was more than twice that of the federally mandated safety sensitive workforce of which includes railroad workers. (Drugs Testing Book)  The fact that covered personnel are subject to drug testing at any time and place in accordance with the NTSB post-accident review and the positive test results are almost 20% for those tested who were involved with fatal accidents is a sad commentary on the effectiveness of the current efforts for controlling the use of drugs and alcohol within the railroad personnel. (Federal Railroad Administration 10)  Drug screenings, education, and responsible management practices must be implemented if we are to stem the tide of fatal accidents within the federal railroad operations.  The cost in human life far out-weighs the cost of an effective meaningful drug interdiction program.  Railroad employees whether federal employees, or employees that directly impact railroad operations and are employed by other business enterprises must be monitored for any alcohol or drug induced impairment.  The Federal Railroad Administration who is charged with ensuring the safe continuous operations of our nations railroad must be able to identify those individuals who would hinder that mandate.  BibliographyBoardman, Honorable Joseph H. National Transportation Safety Board. 10 April 2008. www.ntsb.gov. 23 November 2014 http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2008/R08_05_07.pdf.Chapanis, A. THE ERROR-PROVOCATIVE SITUATION: A CENTRAL MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING. 1980. Transportation Research Board. 23 November 2014 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=185046.Drugs Testing Book. Drugs Testing Book 2014. 2014. 23 November 2014 http://drugstestingbook.com/laboratory-accreditation-regulation/historical-overview-of-workplace-drug-testing-programs/.Federal Railroad Administration. AMENDMENTS EXPANDING AND UPDATING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATIONS CONTROL OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE REGULATIONS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis. 2014.. Freight Rail Today. 1999. 23 November 2014 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0362.USC. 49 USC Chapter 211 Hours of Service. 2008. http://www.brs.org. 23 November 2014 http://www.brs.org/Regulatory/The%202008%20Law%2049USCChapter211.pdf. I worked until I retired..Now Im in fl