NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. Neither SAIC nor

the United States Government assumes any liability for its contents or use

thereof.
1996 Annual Report iii

PREFACE

This report represents the culmination of an annual process of data collection and analysis, data

base development, and report writing. This process required the efforts of many dedicated

people. Thanks to Judy Meade, Director of FTA’s Office of Safety & Security, who provided

oversight and technical review of the project, and her staff, including Patricia Grant, who fielded

calls and provided guidance to the reporting employers. Thank you also to Nora Burke and

Dorothy Nicholas at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for their technical

support, guidance, and review. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) prepared

this report with the following principle authors: Jean Ault, Brad Center, Ruth David, Steve

Michener, and Glenn Wilson.
1996 Annual Report v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Who Must Report ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Which Employees Must be Tested......................................................................................1-2

1.3 Types of Tests....................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Drug Testing Program Overview........................................................................................1-4

1.5 Alcohol Testing Program Overview....................................................................................1-4

1.6 Methodology .....................................................................................................................1-5

1.7 Organization of this Report ................................................................................................1-5

2. GENERAL INFORMATION−DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

2.1 Distribution of Transit Systems and Contractors.................................................................2-1

2.2 U.S. Coast Guard-Covered Employees...............................................................................2-5

2.3 Random Testing Percent Requirements ..............................................................................2-6

2.4 FTA-Required Training......................................................................................................2-8

2.5 Federal Funds.....................................................................................................................2-8

3. DRUG TEST RESULTS

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Results of Drug Tests Presented by Test Types..................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Pre-Employment Drug Test Results ........................................................................3-5

3.2.2 Random Drug Test Results .....................................................................................3-5

3.2.3 Post-Accident Drug Test Results ............................................................................3-5

3.2.4 Reasonable Suspicion Drug Test Results.................................................................3-5

3.2.5 Return-to-Duty Drug Test Results ..........................................................................3-6

3.2.6 Follow-Up Drug Test Results .................................................................................3-6

3.3 Results of Drug Tests Presented by Employee Category.....................................................3-6

3.3.1 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Operation Category....................................3-10

3.3.2 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Category .......3-10

3.3.3 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Control/Dispatch Category.........................3-10

3.3.4 Drug Test Results for CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle Category ...................................3-11

3.3.5 Drug Test Results for Armed Security Personnel Category......................................3-11

3.4 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results..........................................................................3-11

3.4.1 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results for One or More Drugs..........................3-11

3.4.2 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results by Type of Drug ....................................3-12

3.5 Drug Test Results by FTA Region......................................................................................3-14

3.6 Drug Test Refusals.............................................................................................................3-15

3.7 Return-to-Duty Positive Rate .............................................................................................3-15

3.8 Pre-Employment Drug Test Results ...................................................................................3-16

3.9 Post-Accident Drug Test Results........................................................................................3-16
1996 Annual Report vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Page

3.10 Comparison of Transit System and Contractor Positive Random Drug Test Results..........3-16

3.11 Comparison of Large Operator and Small Operator Positive Random Drug Test Results..3-17

4. ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Results of Alcohol Testing Presented by Test Type ............................................................4-3

4.2.1 Pre-Employment Alcohol Test Results....................................................................4-6

4.2.2 Random Alcohol Test Results.................................................................................4-6

4.2.3 Post-Accident Alcohol Test Results ........................................................................4-6

4.2.4 Reasonable Suspicion Alcohol Test Results.............................................................4-6

4.2.5 Return-to-Duty Alcohol Test Results......................................................................4-7

4.2.6 Follow-Up Alcohol Test Results .............................................................................4-7

4.3 Results of Alcohol Testing Presented by Employee Category .............................................4-7

4.3.1 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Operation Category ...............................4-10

4.3.2 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Category ...4-10

4.3.3 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Control/Dispatch Category ....................4-10

4.3.4 Alcohol Test Results for CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle Category ...............................4-11

4.3.5 Alcohol Test Results for Armed Security Personnel Category .................................4-11

4.4 Alcohol Test Results by FTA Region .................................................................................4-11

4.5 Employees Who Refused Alcohol Testing ..........................................................................4-12

4.6 Employees Returned to Duty..............................................................................................4-12

4.7 Post-Accident Alcohol Test Results ...................................................................................4-12

4.8 Violation Rate....................................................................................................................4-12

4.9 Comparison of Transit System and Contractor Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04..........4-13

4.10 Comparison of Large Operator and Small Operator Random Alcohol Test

 Results ≥ 0.04..................................................................................................................4-14

5. COMPARISON OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

5.1 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results.............................................................................5-1

5.2 Results of Random Drug and Alcohol Tests by Employee Category ...................................5-1

5.3 Results of Random Drug and Alcohol Tests by Operator Size ............................................5-3

5.4 Accidents That Resulted in a Positive Post-Accident Drug Test or an

Alcohol Test Result ≥ 0.04 ................................................................................................5-4

5.5 Pre-Employment Positions Denied .....................................................................................5-4

5.6 Employees Who Tested Positive for Drugs and had an Alcohol Test

Result ≥ 0.04 .....................................................................................................................5-5
1996 Annual Report vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Page

6. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM 1995 TO 1996

6.1 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results (1995 - 1996).......................................................6-1

6.2 Random Drug Test Results by Employee Category (1995 - 1996) ......................................6-1

6.3 Random Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category (1995 - 1996)..................................6-2

6.4 Accidents that Resulted in a Positive Post-Accident Alcohol Test Result

≥ 0.04 (1995 - 1996)..........................................................................................................6-3

6.5 Changes in the Rate of Positive Random Test Results by FTA Region

(1995 - 1996) ....................................................................................................................6-3

Appendix A...................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B...................................................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C...................................................................................................................................C-1
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1. FTA Federal Funding Sources (1996)....................................................................................1-1

2-1. Number of Transit System and Contractor-Covered Employees for Large and Small

Operators for 1996 ...............................................................................................................2-2

2-2. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category for Large Operators for

1996.....................................................................................................................................2-2

2-3. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category for Small Operators for

1996.....................................................................................................................................2-3

2-4. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category for 1996 ...........................2-8

2-5. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category for 1996 - Transit System

 Direct Employees only ..........................................................................................................2-4

2-6. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category for 1996 - Contractor

Employees Only....................................................................................................................2-5

2-7. Percent of Employees Administered Random Drug Tests by Employers in 1996....................2-7

2-8. Percent of Employees Administered Random Alcohol Tests by Employers in 1996................2-7

3-1. Number of Positive Specimens by Type of Drug for 1996......................................................3-13

3-2. Percent of Positive Specimens by Type of Drug for 1996 ......................................................3-13

3-3. Percent of Positive Overall Drug Specimens by FTA Region for 1996 ...................................3-14

3-4. Percent of Specimens Testing Positive for Each of the Drug Types by FTA Region

for 1996 ...............................................................................................................................3-15

4-1. Consequences of an Alcohol Test for Covered Employees.....................................................4-1

4-2. Percent of Random Alcohol Tests at Both Levels in 1996......................................................4-2

4-3. Percent of Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 by FTA Region for 1996...........................................4-11

4-4. Comparison of Percent of Random Alcohol Test Results at Both Levels in 1996 for Large

and Small Operators.............................................................................................................4-15

5-1. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results by Employer Type ..................5-1

5-2. Applicants Denied Positions After a Positive Pre-Employment Drug Test in 1996 .................5-5

6-1. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results by FTA Region for 1995 and 1996.........6-4

6-2. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 by FTA Region

for 1995 and 1996 ................................................................................................................6-4
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

ES-1. 1996 Random Drug Test Results........................................................................................ES-2

ES-2. 1996 Random Alcohol Test Results....................................................................................ES-4

2-1. Number of Drug and Alcohol Forms Received for 1996/Percent with Positive Test Result

for at Least One Drug...........................................................................................................2-1

2-2. Number of Covered Employees by Employee Category for 1996/Percent of the Labor

 Force that was Contracted....................................................................................................2-3

2-3. Distribution of USCG-Covered Employees Among the Employee Categories for the

Employers Reporting USCG Employees for 1996.................................................................2-5

2-4. Percent of Employers that Met the Required Random Testing Levels for 1996 ......................2-6

2-5. Number and Percent of Transit Systems that Received Federal Funds in 1996 by Source of

 Funding.................................................................................................................................2-8

3-1. 1996 Random Drug Test Results...........................................................................................3-1

3-2. Random Drug Test Results by Employer Size for 1996 .........................................................3-1

3-3. Drug Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996 ........................................3-3

3-4. Drug Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996 ........................................3-8

3-5. Number of Specimens Collected in 1996/Number of Positive Specimens and the

 Proportion of the Totals that Each Represents......................................................................3-12

3-6. Number and Percent of all Positive Specimens for 1996 that Contained Each Type of Drug

by Employer Type ................................................................................................................3-12

3-7. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results for 1996 by Employer Type and

Employee Category ..............................................................................................................3-16

3-8. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results for 1996 by Operator Size......................3-17

4-1. Random Alcohol Test Results at Both Levels for Transit Systems and Contractors

 for 1996................................................................................................................................4-2

4-2. Alcohol Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996 ....................................4-4

4-3. Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996 ....................................4-8

4-4. Number of Employees Who Refused Alcohol Testing in 1996 ...............................................4-12

4-5. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 by Employer Type and Employee

Category for 1996 ................................................................................................................4-13

4-6. Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 for Large and Small Operators by Employee Category

for 1996 ...............................................................................................................................4-14

5-1. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category............5-2

5-2. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results by Employer Type ..................5-3

5-3. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results by Operator Size.....................5-4

6-1. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results for 1995 and 1996 .................................6-2

6-2. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 for 1995 and 1996 ...............................6-2
1996 Annual Report ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of mandatory drug and alcohol testing conducted by transit

systems and their contractors receiving funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act passed by Congress in 1991, the FTA

was required to establish regulations for drug and alcohol testing of transit employees

performing safety-sensitive functions. These regulations require that each recipient 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

annually. This 1996 Annual Report summarizes the reported results of drug and alcohol tests

from all such transit systems. The 1995 Annual Report summarized the reported results of drug

and alcohol tests from only those transit systems that operated primarily in areas of 200,000 or

more in population. These “large operators” were required to begin their drug and alcohol testing

programs on January 1, 1995; all other operators were required to have programs in place as of

January 1, 1996.

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

Federal transit funding to the recipient. Because a recipient may not always directly provide

mass transit services, the FTA uses the term “operator” or “employer” to describe those who

actually provide transit services. The direct recipient of FTA funds, however, is the entity

legally responsible to the FTA for compliance.

DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT SYSTEMS AND CONTRACTORS

The FTA received drug and alcohol reporting forms for calendar year 1996 from 2,287

individual employers representing 1,580 operators (299 large operators and 1,281 small

operators) and 707 contractors. Approximately 69 percent of all employers reported no positive

drug test results, and 96 percent of employers reported no alcohol test results greater than or

equal to 0.04 percent. Contractors submitted a greater percentage of forms with at least one

positive drug test result than did transit systems, and transit systems submitted a greater

percentage of forms with at least one alcohol test result greater than 0.04 percent than did

contractors.

The largest number of employees performing safety-sensitive functions are engaged in revenue

vehicle operation, followed by revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance. Revenue vehicle

control/dispatch, commercial driver’s license (CDL)/non-revenue vehicle, and armed security

personnel together make up less than 13 percent of the overall labor force (transit systems and

contractors). For large operators, contractors comprise a relatively small percent of the total

number of FTA-covered employees at 11.49 percent. For small operators, contractors comprise

a higher percent of the total number of FTA-covered employees at 38.57 percent.
1996 Annual Report ES-2

DRUG TEST RESULTS

All employers must establish an anti-drug program that encompasses testing and training for

employees and supervisors performing safety-sensitive functions. Supervisors are trained to

recognize the signs and symptoms of prohibited drug use. The FTA’s rule specifies that

safety-sensitive employees may not use any of five prohibited substances (or their metabolites):

marijuana, cocaine, opiates (e.g., heroin, morphine, codeine), amphetamines (e.g., racemic,

amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methamphetamine), or phencyclidine (PCP).

If a covered employee has a verified positive result from a drug test, the employee must be

removed from the safety-sensitive position, be informed of available educational and treatment

programs, and be referred to a substance abuse professional to determine whether the employee

has a drug problem. If company policy allows, the regulations state that the employee must

complete a course of treatment prescribed by the substance abuse professional and take a returnto-duty drug test with a verified negative result to return to a safety-sensitive position.

The 1996 drug-testing program performed by large and small transit employers revealed the

following major findings:

A total of 108,347 specimens were collected for random drug testing. Of that figure, 1,620

specimens tested positive for one or more of the five prohibited drugs. Random drug testing

accounted for 43.89 percent of the positive specimens (of 3,691 total positive specimens).

The overall positive random test rate was 1.50 percent industry-wide, as shown in Exhibit ES-1.

The positive random test results were 1.42 percent for transit systems and 1.84 percent for

contractors. The 1995 random rate of positive test results was 1.73 percent.

Table ES-1. 1996 Random Drug Test Results

Employers Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Transit Systems 88,114 1,247 1.42%

Contractors 20,233 373 1.84%

Totals 108,347 1,620 1.50%

There was little disparity in the percent of random drug positives between large and small

operators (1.48% and 1.55%, respectively).

The FTA’s regulation requires that the number of random drug tests conducted must equal at

least 50 percent of the total number of safety-sensitive employees. Transit systems had a higher

rate of compliance with the 50 percent drug-testing requirement then did contractors.

Approximately 56.76 percent of the transit systems randomly tested a number equal to at least 50

percent of their covered employees for drugs. In comparison, approximately 52.20 percent of the

contractors met the testing requirement. Large operators met the requirement more often than

did small operators (61.38% and 53.27%, respectively). A number of employers joined consortia

to increase the efficiency of the testing process. As members of a consortium, their employees

were included in a larger pool of employees. The consortium is required to test the entire pool at
1996 Annual Report ES-3

the 50 percent (drug) and 25 percent (alcohol) levels; thus, each employer may not have

achieved the required levels of testing individually.

Of the six drug test types (pre-employment, random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, returnto-duty, and follow-up), the highest percent of positive specimens was for reasonable suspicion

testing (6.84). Contractors reported positive results using reasonable suspicion testing at a higher

rate than did transit systems (15.87% vs. 5.10%).

Random drug testing returned the lowest overall percent of positive results (1.50%).

There was some variation in the percent of positive random tests across employee categories.

The lowest rate was 0.57 percent for armed security personnel, and the highest was 1.76 percent

for CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators.

Marijuana and cocaine were detected most frequently in the specimens that tested positive for

drugs. Of the 3,691 positive specimens, 53.78 percent tested positive for marijuana and 38.66

percent tested positive for cocaine.

There were 239 reportable accidents that resulted in a positive post-accident drug test (166 from

transit systems; 73 from contractors). There was one fatality reported as resulting from these

accidents.

ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

Transit systems are required to establish and conduct an alcohol misuse prevention program in

which employees performing safety-sensitive functions are tested for the misuse of alcohol and

supervisors are trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of alcohol misuse. Employees are

subject to five types of alcohol tests: random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, return-toduty, and follow-up. In addition, employers may not allow safety-sensitive employees to

consume alcohol under four specific circumstances: (1) 4 hours before performing a

safety-sensitive function; (2) while performing a safety-sensitive function; (3) after a fatal

accident, unless the employee has received a post-accident test or 8 hours have elapsed,

whichever occurs first; or (4) after a nonfatal accident unless the employee's involvement was

completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident, the employee has been tested, or 8

hours have elapsed.

Alcohol screening tests may be conducted with a saliva testing device, an evidential breathtesting (EBT) device, or a non-EBT device. A confirmation test must be conducted using an

EBT device if the result of a screening test is an alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater.

The alcohol concentration level is the alcohol in a volume of breath expressed in terms of grams

of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. An employer may only take disciplinary action based on the

results of a confirmation test.

An employee with an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater but less than 0.04 must be

removed from duty for 8 hours or until a retest shows an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02.
1996 Annual Report ES-4

An employee with an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater must be prohibited from

performing any safety-sensitive duties, removed from his/her safety-sensitive position, and be

evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine whether the employee has an alcohol

problem. To return to a safety-sensitive position, the employee must properly complete a course

of treatment prescribed by the substance abuse professional and pass a return-to-duty alcohol

test.

The 1996 alcohol-testing program performed by large and small transit employers revealed the

following findings:

• A total of 62,618 random alcohol screening tests were conducted. Of that figure, 101

confirmation tests resulted in a 0.04 percent or greater alcohol concentration level (0.16%).

• The FTA alcohol-testing rule includes a definition for the violation rate. The definition

describes the violation rate as the number of random tests resulting in a concentration of 0.04

percent or greater plus the number of employees who refused a random test, divided by the

total number of random tests administered plus the number of employees who refused a

random test. The violation rate for 1996 for all employers (transit systems and contractors) is

0.21 percent.

• The percent of random tests that resulted in a 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration level was

0.16 industry-wide, as shown in Table ES-2. The rate for transit systems was 0.17 percent.

For contractors, the rate was 0.11 percent. In 1995, the random rate was 0.17 percent.

Table ES-2. 1996 Random Alcohol Test Results

Employer Number of

Screens

Number

Positive

Percent

> 0.04

Contractors 11,280 12 0.11%

Transit Systems 51,338 89 0.17%

Totals 62,618 101 0.16%

• The FTA’s regulations require that the number of random alcohol tests conducted must equal

25 percent of the total number of safety-sensitive employees. Transit systems and

contractors had a similar rate of compliance with this requirement at 62.35 and 62.66 percent,

respectively. Large operators met the requirement more often than did small operators

(64.80% and 61.58%, respectively).

• Of the five required alcohol test types, the highest percent of test results at 0.04 or greater

was for reasonable suspicion testing (8.22%). The percent of results at 0.04 or greater for the

other four test types ranged from 0.13 to 0.39 percent. Contractors returned alcohol

concentrations at 0.04 or greater during reasonable suspicion testing more often than transit

systems (21.14% vs. 6.52%).

• The FTA suspended the requirement for pre-employment alcohol testing on May 10, 1995.

Nonetheless, 7,068 screening tests were reported with only 2 positive results (0.03%). These
1996 Annual Report ES-5

numbers are not reflective of industry-wide pre-employment testing because these tests were

not required and were reported voluntarily.

• Overall, the percent of random alcohol tests with results of 0.04 or greater for each employee

category was at or below 0.30 percent. The lowest percent was 0.00 for armed security

personnel, and the highest percent was 0.27 percent for revenue vehicle and equipment

maintenance employees.

• There were 16 accidents reported that resulted in a post-accident alcohol test result of 0.04 or

greater. There were no fatalities resulting from these accidents.

COMPARISON OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESULTS

A comparison of the 1996 drug and alcohol testing programs performed by large transit

employers revealed the following findings:

• Random testing revealed a higher percent of drug tests with positive results than alcohol tests

with results of 0.04 or greater (1.50% vs. 0.16%). Results of random drug testing in transit

systems show a positive rate of 1.42 percent, while the rate for alcohol tests with results of

0.04 or greater was 0.17 percent. The positive drug testing result rate for contractors was

1.84 percent, whereas the rate for random alcohol testing results at 0.04 or greater was 0.11

percent.

• CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators, revenue vehicle operators, and equipment maintenance

employees had the highest percent of random positive drug test results with 1.76 percent,

1.63 percent, and 1.52 percent, respectively. Vehicle and equipment maintenance employees

had the highest random alcohol test results at 0.04 or greater (0.27%), followed by

CDL/Non-revenue vehicle operators and revenue vehicle operators with 0.14 percent each.

• A total of 12 employers reported that they had a total of 24 employees who tested positive for

drugs and alcohol at the same time.

COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL OPERATORS

Almost two-thirds (64.74%) of safety-sensitive employees who worked for large operators were

revenue vehicle operators, whereas more than three-quarters (75.30%) of safety-sensitive

employees who worked for small operators were revenue vehicle operators.

Across all employee categories, large operators tested at 0.04 or greater for random alcohol tests

at 0.19 percent. Small operators tested at 0.04 or greater 0.07 percent of the time. However,

small operators were positive for random drug tests more often than large operators (1.55% vs.

1.48%).

The reported data show that large operators met the random testing requirements for drugs more

often than small operators (57.22% vs. 46.48%). Additionally, the data show that large operators

also met the testing requirement for alcohol more often than small operators (55.79% vs.
1996 Annual Report ES-6

47.29%). Federal regulations allow employers to use a consortium to perform drug and alcohol

testing. Each consortium is required to test a number equal to 50% of the entire pool for drugs

and a number equal to 25% of the entire pool for alcohol. Because the consortium is performing

random testing on its entire pool, individual employers may not achieve the required minimum

testing rates.

COMPARISON OF 1995 AND 1996 RESULTS

The percent of positive random drug test results and the percent of alcohol test results greater

than or equal to 0.04 decreased from 1995 to 1996. In 1995, random alcohol testing detected

results of 0.04 or greater 0.17 percent of the time. In 1996, random alcohol testing detected

results of 0.04 or greater 0.16 percent of the time. In 1995, random drug testing detected positive

results 1.73 percent of the time. In 1996, random drug testing detected positive results 1.50

percent of the time.

Most employee categories saw a reduction in the percent of random positive test results for

drugs and alcohol results of 0.04 percent or greater, but the CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators

saw an increase in both. In 1995, the percent of random drug positives and alcohol levels of 0.04

percent or greater detected for CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators was 1.55 and 0.07 percent,

respectively. In 1996, that percent increased to 1.76 and 0.14 percent for alcohol and drugs,

respectively.

Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 showed decreases in the rate of positive random drug test

results. Regions 3, 5, 7, and 9 showed decreases in the rate of random alcohol test results of 0.04

or greater.
1996 Annual Report 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of mandatory drug and alcohol testing conducted by transit

systems receiving funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Under the Omnibus

Transportation Employee Testing Act passed by Congress in 1991, the FTA was required to

establish regulations for drug and alcohol testing of transit employees performing safety-sensitive

functions. The purpose of requiring transit agencies to implement drug and alcohol programs is

to achieve a drug- and alcohol-free work force in the interest of the health and safety of

employees and the public. This is the second annual report summarizing the results of drug and

alcohol tests administered under the FTA regulations.

The FTA regulations require that recipients of specific FTA funds implement an anti-drug

program to deter and detect the use of prohibited drugs by transit employees and to establish a

program to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol. Covered under

these regulations are employees of transit systems that receive grant funds and employees of

contractors to those transit systems. Large operators1 were required to begin their drug and

alcohol testing programs for calendar year 1995 and report the results of their testing in 1996.

Small operators were required to begin their drug and alcohol testing programs for calendar year

1996 and report the results of their testing in 1997. The test results for both large and small

operators for 1996 are the subject of this report.

1.1 Who Must Report

Transit systems that receive funding from

the FTA sources listed in Figure 1-1 are

required to have drug and alcohol testing

programs.

2

 Under FTA regulations, all

recipients must implement the required drug

and alcohol testing programs and must

report the results of their programs to the

FTA annually. The results must be submitted to the FTA on specific Management Information

System (MIS) forms approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of

these forms is included in Appendix B of this report. Recipients of 5310 (Section 16) funds only,

are not required to comply with FTA drug and alcohol testing requirements, unless they provide

contract services to recipients receiving Section 5307, 5309, and 5311 funds. In those instances,

they must report as contractors.

 

1

 Highlighted words and phrases are defined in Appendix A.

2

 The section numbers for the funding sources listed in Exhibit 1-1 are different than those listed on the FTA

Management Information System forms. Section 5307 corresponds to Section 9, Section 5309 corresponds to

Section 3, and Section 5311 corresponds to Section 18.

Section 5307. Block Grants

Section 5309. Discretionary Grants and Loans

Section 5311. Financial Assistance for Other Than

Urbanized Areas

Figure 1-1. FTA Federal Funding Sources (1996)
1996 Annual Report 1-2

Not all recipients provide mass transit services directly. Instead, some rely on other public or

private entities to provide services in whole or in part. In these cases, the direct recipient of FTA

funds is legally responsible for assuring that any entity operating on its behalf is in compliance

with FTA testing rules.

Transit authorities that receive funding directly from FTA must certify annually that they are in

compliance with the drug and alcohol testing regulations. States must certify regulatory

compliance on behalf of the transit authorities that receive FTA funding through a state agency.

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

Federal transit funding to the recipient. Because a recipient may not always provide transit

services directly, the FTA uses the term “operator” or “employer” to describe those who actually

provide transit services and who, therefore, must implement the FTA requirements.

1.2 Which Employees Must be Tested

Under the FTA’s drug and alcohol testing rules, all employees who perform safety-sensitive

functions must be tested for both drugs and alcohol. Safety-sensitive functions are defined as:

• Operating a revenue service vehicle, including operating the vehicle when it is not in revenue

service;

• Operating a non-revenue service vehicle, when the vehicle is required to be operated by a

driver who holds a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL);

• Controlling dispatch or movement of a revenue service vehicle;

• Maintaining a revenue service vehicle or equipment used in revenue service, unless the

recipient receives Section 5311 funding and contracts out such services; and

• Carrying a firearm for security purposes.

Maintenance contractors (except for 5311 recipients’ contractors) that perform routine, ongoing

repair, or maintenance work for FTA recipients and subrecipients must comply if their employees

perform any of the identified safety-sensitive functions. In addition, supervisors who directly

perform any of the safety-sensitive functions are also included in the testing requirements.

Contractors that perform less routine maintenance activities, such as warranty, overhaul,

component rebuilds, or rehabilitation work, are not included in the definition of safety-sensitive.
1996 Annual Report 1-3

1.3 Types of Tests

Employees who perform safety-sensitive functions are subject to six different types of tests: (1)

pre-employment (drug only), (2) random, (3) post-accident, (4) reasonable suspicion, (5) return

to duty, and (6) follow-up. Prior to employment, each prospective employee, including

individuals who are being transferred into safety-sensitive positions, must undergo preemployment testing for drugs. Employees may not be hired unless they have a verified negative

drug test result. The FTA suspended required pre-employment testing for alcohol on May 10,

1995, as a result of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

Random testing serves both detection and deterrent purposes, and must be unannounced and

unpredictable. The tests must be based on a scientifically valid selection method. The total

number of random tests conducted must equal at least 50 percent (for drugs) and 25 percent (for

alcohol) of the total number of employees performing safety-sensitive functions. Transit systems

have the option of joining a consortium, which is an entity that arranges testing services required

by the regulations and that acts on behalf of the employers. If a transit system joins a consortium

for random-number selection, the testing percent or annual rate may be calculated for the total

number of safety-sensitive employees within the consortium. All safety-sensitive employees must

have an equal chance of being selected for testing each time a selection is made, must be included

in the selection pool, and must remain in the pool after being tested.

Post-accident testing is required for accidents where there is loss of life, and for nonfatal

accidents that meet certain conditions unless the employee’s conduct can be completely

discounted as a contributing factor. When an accident occurs, the surviving safety-sensitive

employee operating the vehicle must be tested, as well as any other safety-sensitive personnel not

on the vehicle whose performance could have contributed to the accident. Tests must be

administered as soon as possible but no later than 8 hours after the accident for alcohol and 32

hours for drugs.

Reasonable suspicion testing is conducted when an employer has reason to believe that an

employee has used a prohibited drug or has misused alcohol as defined in the regulations.

Reasonable suspicion testing requires probable linkage between behavior or events and substance

abuse or misuse before a test can be conducted. This testing must be based on a specific,

contemporaneous, articulate observation by a trained supervisor concerning the appearance,

behavior, speech, or body odor of the safety-sensitive employee.

Employer’s policy statements may permit an employee who violated the regulations (e.g.,

previously tested positive for drugs, had an alcohol result of ≥ 0.04, refused to submit to a test) to

return to duty to perform a safety-sensitive function upon completion of rehabilitation. The

employee must, however, be evaluated by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and pass a

return-to-duty test. The purpose of the return-to-duty test is to verify that the individual is

presently free of alcohol and/or any prohibited drugs and is able to return to work without any

undue safety concerns.

Once an employee is allowed to return to duty, the employee is subject to unannounced follow-up

testing for at least 12 but no more than 60 months. The frequency of the testing is to be directed
1996 Annual Report 1-4

by the SAP as long as a minimum of six tests are performed during the first 12 months following

the employee’s return to duty. Follow-up testing is separate from, and in addition to, random

testing.

1.4 Drug Testing Program Overview

Transit systems must establish an anti-drug program that focuses on testing safety-sensitive

employees and training for supervisors. FTA regulations specify that safety-sensitive employees

may not use any of five prohibited substances (or their metabolites): marijuana, cocaine, opiates

(e.g., heroin, morphine, codeine), amphetamines (e.g., racemic, amphetamine, extroamphetamine,

and methamphetamine), or phencyclidine (PCP). Testing for any other drugs must be performed

separately from the FTA test.

If a covered employee has a verified positive drug test result, the employee must be removed from

his or her safety-sensitive position, be informed of the available educational and treatment

programs, and be referred to a SAP. To return to a safety-sensitive position, the employee must

properly complete the course of treatment prescribed by the SAP and take a drug test with a

verified negative result.

1.5 Alcohol Testing Program Overview

Transit systems are required to establish and conduct an alcohol misuse prevention program in

which employees performing safety-sensitive functions are tested for the misuse of alcohol. In

addition, supervisors must be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of alcohol misuse.

Employers may not allow safety-sensitive employees to consume alcohol while on duty. There

are four specific circumstances under which an employee is prohibited from consuming alcohol:

1. Four hours before performing a safety-sensitive function;

2. While performing a safety-sensitive function;

3. After a fatal accident unless a post-accident test has been administered, or 8 hours have

elapsed (whichever occurs first); and/or

4. After a nonfatal accident unless the employee’s involvement can be completely discounted as a

contributing factor to the accident, the employee has been tested, or 8 hours have elapsed.

Alcohol screening tests may be conducted with a saliva testing device, an evidential breath

testing device (EBT), or a non-EBT device. If the result of a screening test is an alcohol

concentration of 0.02 or greater, a confirmation test must be performed. The confirmation test

must be conducted using an EBT device, which is listed on the Conforming Product List (CPL) of

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The confirmation test must be

conducted at least 15 minutes, but not more than 30 minutes, after the completion of the

screening test. If the initial screening test and confirmation test results are not identical, the
1996 Annual Report 1-5

confirmation test result is deemed the final result. An employer can take action based on the

confirmation test results only.

An employee with an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater but less than 0.04 for a

confirmation test must be removed from duty for at least 8 hours or until a retest conducted by

the employer shows an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02. If an employer elects to remove

the employee from duty for 8 hours, the employer is not required to administer an alcohol test

before the employee resumes performing a safety-sensitive function unless the employee exhibits

signs of alcohol misuse upon returning to work.

An employee with an alcohol concentration of ≥ 0.04 must be prohibited from performing any

safety-sensitive functions, removed from his or her safety-sensitive position, and be referred to a

SAP.

1.6 Methodology

FTA published rules for drug and alcohol testing in the Federal Register of February 15, 1994,

including the associated MIS forms that transit systems must use to submit their drug and alcohol

test results. Appendix B in this document contains the MIS forms. FTA MIS reporting forms are

also listed in the appendix of The Implementation Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Regulations

in Mass Transit and may be acquired from the FTA Office of Safety & Security. Each transit

system is responsible for submitting its forms, as well as forms for all of its subrecipients and

contractors. States are required to gather the forms of all their 5311 recipients and their

contractors and submit them together. Separate forms must be used for each employer. The

forms containing the 1996 calendar year information were due to the FTA by March 15, 1997.

Forms were reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Accuracy reviews focused on the internal

consistency of the information reported. Mathematical checks were performed to ensure that the

totals reported were supported by the information submitted. Completeness reviews focused on

ensuring that all required information was provided. When questions concerning a form were

identified, the employer was contacted to verify or correct the information reported or to provide

missing information.

Once FTA was confident that the form verification process had been completed, the information

on each form was entered into a database. The database underwent extensive quality control

reviews during and after the data entry process. The database was then used to generate the

figures and tables included in this report.

1.7. Organization of this Report

This report contains six sections and three appendices. Section 2 presents general information

from this reporting process, including how many employers reported. Sections 3 and 4 present

drug and alcohol testing results, respectively. Section 5 presents a comparison of drug and alcohol

testing results. Section 6 provides a comparison of 1995 and 1996 testing results for all of the

employers reporting. To clarify the terms used throughout this report, Appendix A presents a
1996 Annual Report 1-6

glossary of common terms. Appendix B provides a copy of the FTA MIS reporting forms.

Appendix C provides a list of FTA regions.
1996 Annual Report 2-1

2. GENERAL INFORMATION−DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

This section provides drug and alcohol information submitted by transit systems and contractors

submitting FTA Drug & Alcohol MIS forms to the FTA for 1996. The discussion presents data

on the number of forms received and the distribution of workers by employee category, as well as

the number of employees covered by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). This section also

includes compliance of transit systems and contractors with the requirements for drug and alcohol

random testing (percent of employees tested), their commitment to training employees and

supervisors, and sources of FTA funds.

2.1 Distribution of Transit Systems and Contractors

For calendar year 1996, the FTA received drug and alcohol forms from 2,287 individual

employers representing 1,580 operators (299 large operators and 1,281 small operators) and 707

contractors. Table 2-1 identifies the number of drug and alcohol forms received and shows the

percentage of drug forms reporting a positive test result for at least one drug and the percentage

of alcohol forms reporting an alcohol concentration of ≥ 0.04.

Table 2-1. Number of Drug and Alcohol Forms Received for 1996/Percent with Positive

Test Result for at Least One Drug

Employer Number of Forms Received Percent A Positive Test Result for at

Least One Drug

Drug Forms Alcohol Forms Drug Forms Alcohol Forms

Transit Systems 1,580 1,580 24.56% 4.30%

Contractors 707 707 37.34% 3.82%

Totals 2,287 2,287 30.95% 4.06%

Approximately 75 percent of transit systems and 63 percent of contractors reported no positive

drug test results in any of the testing categories. Approximately 96 percent of forms received by

both transit systems and their contractors reported no alcohol test results of ≥ 0.04 in any of the

testing categories.

Almost 75 percent of the FTA-covered employees worked in large systems in 1996. Figure 2-1

shows the number of contractor and transit system employees who worked in both large and small

systems. A larger percentage of small operators rather than large operators were serviced by

contractors (38.57% vs. 11.49%).
1996 Annual Report 2-2

 

18,238 21,163

140,546

33,710

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Large Small

Transit Systems

Contractors

Figure 2-1. Number of Transit System and Contractor-Covered Employees for Large and

Small Operators for 1996

The number of FTA-covered employees in each employee category for the large and small

operators is shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Almost two-thirds (64.74%) of safetysensitive employees who worked for large operators were revenue vehicle operators, whereas

over three-quarters (75.30%) of safety-sensitive employees who worked for small operators were

revenue vehicle operators. In both cases, revenue vehicle operators were the largest group of

safety-sensitive employees.

Figure 2-2. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category

for Large Operators for 1996

CDL/Non-Revenue 

Vehicle

2.50%

Armed Security 

Personnel

2.35%

Revenue Vehicle 

Control and 

Dispatch

6.36%

Vehicle and 

Equipment 

Maintenance

24.04%

Revenue Vehicle 

Operations

64.74%
1996 Annual Report 2-3

Revenue Vehicle 

Operations

75.30%

Vehicle and 

Equipment 

Maintenance

9.28%

Revenue Vehicle 

Control/Dispatch

8.74%

CDL/NonRevenue Vehicle

6.13%

Armed Security 

Personnel

0.56%

Figure 2-3. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category

for Small Operators for 1996

Table 2-2 presents the distribution of covered employees by employee category for transit systems

and contractors. The accompanying pie charts (Figures 2-4 through 2-6) illustrate these results.

Contractors comprise a relatively small percentage of the total number of FTA-covered

employees at 18.44 percent. On a category-specific percentage basis, contractors were used more

often as revenue vehicle operators and revenue vehicle control/dispatchers (20.98% and 18.24%,

respectively) and were least often used for revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance (10.93%).

In Figure 2-4, the largest number of employees performing safety-sensitive functions were

revenue vehicle operators (67.44%); followed by revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance

(20.26%). Revenue vehicle control/dispatch, commercial driver’s license/non-revenue vehicle,

and armed security personnel together made up 12.30 percent of the overall reported labor force.

Table 2-2. Number of Covered Employees by Employee Category for 1996/Percent of the

Labor Force that was Contracted

Number of Covered Employees

Employee Category Transit

Systems

Contractors Totals Percent of Labor

Force Contracted

Revenue Vehicle Operation 113,873 30,240 144,113 20.98%

Revenue Vehicle and

Equipment Maintenance

38,538 4,731 43,269 10.93%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch

12,178 2,716 14,894 18.24%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 6,207 1,131 7,338 15.41%

Armed Security Personnel 3,460 583 4,043 14.42%
1996 Annual Report 2-4

Total Number of Employees 174,256 39,401 213,657 18.44%

Figure 2-4. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each

Employee Category for 1996

Revenue Vehicle 

Operations

65.35%

Vehicle and 

Equipment 

Maintenance

22.12%

Revenue Vehicle 

Control/Dispatch

6.99%

CDL/NonRevenue Vehicle

3.56%

Armed Security 

Personnel

1.99%

Figure 2-5. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category

for 1996 - Transit System Direct Employees Only

Revenue Vehicle 

Operations

67.44%

Vehicle and 

Equipment 

Maintenance

20.26%

Revenue Vehicle 

Control/Dispatch

6.98%

CDL/NonRevenue Vehicle

3.43%

Armed Security 

Personnel

1.89%
1996 Annual Report 2-5

Armed Security 

Personnel

1.48%

CDL/NonRevenue Vehicle

2.87%

Revenue

 Vehicle 

Control/Dispatch

6.91%

Vehicle and 

Equipment 

Maintenance

12.06%

Revenue Vehicle 

Operations

76.68%

Figure 2-6. Percent of FTA-Covered Employees in Each Employee Category

for 1996 - Contractor Employees Only

2.2 U.S. Coast Guard-Covered Employees

Many USCG-covered employees performed safety-sensitive functions for transit providers who

received FTA funds; therefore the FTA required the number of USCG-covered employees to be

reported. Reporting of USCG-covered employees was not required on the Alcohol MIS Form.

Twenty-six employers reported employees performing safety-sensitive functions covered by the

USCG. Table 2-3 identifies the number of USCG-covered employees by employee category.

Table 2-3. Distribution of USCG-Covered Employees Among the Employee

Categories for the Employers Reporting USCG Employees for 1996

Number of USCG Employees Percent of Total USCG

Employees

Employee Category Transit

Systems

Contractors Totals Transit

Systems

Contractors

Revenue Vehicle

Operations

1,536 27 1,563 98.27% 1.73%

Revenue Vehicle and

Equipment Maintenance

98 94 192 51.04% 48.96%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch

35 4 39 89.74% 10.26%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle

2 2 4 50.00% 50.00%

Armed Security

Personnel

0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

Total Number of

Employees

1,671 127 1,798 92.94% 7.06%
1996 Annual Report 2-6

Transit systems and their contractors employed 1,798 USCG-covered employees, which was 0.84

percent of the total reported FTA-covered employees. USCG-covered employees were involved

mainly in revenue vehicle operations at a rate of 86.93 percent. There were no reported USCGcovered armed security personnel. Contractors made up a smaller overall percent of the USCGcovered employment (7.06%) compared to the total FTA-covered workforce (18.43%).1

2.3 Random Testing Percent Requirements

One of the most important aspects of the FTA’s drug and alcohol testing program is the

requirement that each employer conduct the required level of random testing. For 1996, the

number of random drug tests conducted was required to equal at least 50 percent of the total

number of safety-sensitive employees. The number of random alcohol tests conducted was

required to be at least 25 percent of the total number of safety-sensitive employees.

A slightly higher percentage of transit systems met the required drug testing level than did

contractors (50.57% to 45.88%, respectively). A higher percentage of large operators (57.22%)

met the drug testing requirements than small operators (46.48%). Alcohol testing compliance for

both the large and small operators (55.79% and 47.29%, respectively) was slightly higher than

drug testing compliance. This information is presented in Table 2-4 and further illustrated in

Figures 2-7 and 2-8.

Table 2-4. Percent of Employers that Met the Required

Random Testing Levels for 1996

Drug Testing Alcohol Testing

Transit

Systems

Contractors Large

Operators

Small

Operators

Transit

Systems

Contractors Large

Operators

Small

Operators

Met

Requirement

50.57% 45.88% 57.22% 46.48% 49.30% 49.58% 55.79% 47.29%

Did Not Meet

Requirement

49.43% 54.12% 42.78% 53.52% 50.70% 50.42% 44.21% 52.71%

 

1 Because the drug testing results for USCG-covered employees were co-mingled with the results for FTAcovered employees, a separate presentation of the drug testing results for USCG-covered employees was not

possible.
1996 Annual Report 2-7

Figure 2-7. Percent of Employees Administered Random Drug Tests

by Employers in 1996

Figure 2-8. Percent of Employees Administered Random Alcohol Tests

by Employers in 1996

*Employers are ranked according to the percents of respective employees tested. The rankings have been

normalized by dividing each rank order position by the total number of employers.
1996 Annual Report 2-8

In Figures 2-7 and 2-8, the portion of the line above the horizontal testing requirement line shows

the percentage of employers that were in compliance, while the portion of the line below the

testing requirement line refers to the percentage of employers that were not in compliance. Please

note that some employers reporting below the required level of testing may be members of a

consortium. If the consortium tests at the required level it does not necessarily test the employees

from each member of its consortium at the required level.

2.4 FTA-Required Training

Based on the information reported, 65,372 FTA-covered employees (30.60% of the total number

of employers reporting) received at least 60 minutes of training on the consequences,

manifestations, and behavioral cues of illegal drug use during 1996. In addition, 9,784

supervisory personnel received 60 minutes of training on the specific contemporaneous physical,

behavioral, and performance indicators of probable drug use, and 11,326 supervisory personnel

received similar training for alcohol during 1996.

2.5 Federal Funds

Transit systems are required to report the types of FTA funds they received. Specifically, transit

systems are required to identify the particular sections of the Federal Transit Act under which they

received Federal funds (i.e., Sections 5307, 5309, 53102, and 5311). Many of the 1,580 transit

systems received funding under multiple sections, as shown in Table 2-5. Section 5307 refers to

block grants for capital projects and to finance the planning, improvement, and operating costs of

equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items for use in mass transportation.

Section 5309 refers to discretionary grants and loans for capital projects, new and existing fixed

guideway systems, an efficient mass transportation system coordinated with other transportation

systems, the introduction of new technologies, the enhancement of urban economic development

or the incorporation of private investment, and mass transportation projects to meet the needs of

the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Section 5310 refers to grants and loans for special

needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Section 5311 refers to financial assistance

for non-urbanized areas.

Table 2-5. Number and Percent of Transit Systems that Received Federal Funds

in 1996 by Source of Funding

Section 5307 Section 5309 Section 5310 Section 5311

Number of

Transit Systems

370 508 311 1,095

Percent of

Transit Systems

23.42% 32.15% 19.68% 69.30%

 

2

 Recipients of Section 5310 funds are not required to comply with the FTA drug and alcohol rules, unless they

provide contract services to recipients of Section 5307, 5309, and 5311 funds. In those instances, they must report

as contractors.
1996 Annual Report 3-1

3. DRUG TEST RESULTS

This section provides background information and a summary of the 1996 drug testing results.

For drug testing a urine specimen is collected for analysis. The prohibited drugs for which each

urine specimen must be tested are marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), opiates, and

amphetamines.

3.1 Introduction

A total of 184,666 samples were collected for all types of drug testing in 1996. The tests used to

collect these samples are as follows: pre-employment, random, post-accident, reasonable

suspicion, return-to-duty, and follow-up. The results of the random drug testing provide an

indication of the overall level of industry-wide drug use among covered transit system and

contractor employees.

As shown in Table 3-1, in 1996 a total of 108,347 specimens were collected under random drug

testing during the year. Overall, 1.50 percent of those specimens tested positive for one or more

of the five prohibited drugs. Among transit systems 1.42 percent of all random specimens tested

positive, and among contractors 1.84 percent tested positive.

Table 3-1. 1996 Random Drug Test Results

Employer Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Transit

Systems 88,114 1,247 1.42%

Contractors 20,233 373 1.84%

Totals 108,347 1,620 1.50%

Among large operators 1.48 percent of all random specimens tested positive, and among small

operators 1.55 percent tested positive, as seen in Table 3-2. The FTA drug rule provides that if

the results from industry-wide drug testing are less than 1.00 percent for 2 consecutive years,

then the FTA may lower the required random drug testing rate from the current 50 percent

requirement to 25 percent. However, in 1995 and 1996, the industry-wide random positive

testing rate exceeded 1.00 percent.

Table 3-2. Random Drug Test Results

by Employer Size for 1996

Operator Size Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive Percent Positive

Large 81,981 1,211 1.48%

Small 26,366 409 1.55%

Totals 108,347 1,620 1.50%
1996 Annual Report 3-2

3.2 Results of Drug Tests Presented by Test Types

Six types of drug testing information were required of transit systems and their contractors: preemployment, random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, return-to-duty, and follow-up. Table

3-3 presents drug test results by test type for transit systems, contractors, and their combined

totals. It shows the number of specimens collected, the number of positive results, and the

percent of positive results. The totals indicate that the positive drug test results show some

variation when viewed by test types. Over all employment categories, 6.84 percent of the

reasonable suspicion tests were positive. Return-to-duty tests were 3.56 percent positive. Preemployment, post-accident, and follow-up tests were between 2.00 and 3.00 percent positive.

Exactly 1.50 percent of the random tests conducted were positive.

The positive results were higher for contractors than for transit systems for pre-employment,

random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and follow-up tests. The positive results were

higher for transit systems than for contractors only in the return-to-duty category. It should be

noted that in four of the six test types, CDL/non-revenue employees had the highest percent of

overall positive results.
1996 Annual Report 3-3

Table 3-3. Drug Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

TOTALS BY TEST TYPE, ALL EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES

Pre-employment 26,471 619 2.34% 22,921 773 3.37% 49,392 1,392 2.82%

Random 88,114 1,247 1.42% 20,233 373 1.84% 108,347 1,620 1.50%

Post-Accident 9,661 179 1.85% 2,593 77 2.97% 12,254 256 2.09%

Reasonable Suspicion 981 50 5.10% 189 30 15.87% 1,170 80 6.84%

Return-to-Duty 1,897 70 3.69% 268 7 2.61% 2,165 77 3.56%

Follow-Up 10,748 241 2.24% 590 25 4.24% 11,338 266 2.35%

TOTALS 137,872 2,406 1.75% 46,794 1,285 2.75% 184,666 3,691 2.00%

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Employee Category

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

Revenue Vehicle Operation 20,922 491 2.35% 19,934 679 3.41% 40,856 1,170 2.86%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 2,991 72 2.41% 1,377 52 3.78% 4,368 124 2.84%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 934 10 1.07% 642 21 3.27% 1,576 31 1.97%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 1,196 44 3.68% 577 15 2.60% 1,773 59 3.33%

Armed Security Personnel 428 2 0.47% 391 6 1.53% 819 8 0.98%

RANDOM

Revenue Vehicle Operation 57,762 814 1.41% 16,078 308 1.92% 73,840 1,122 1.52%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 19,688 316 1.61% 2,096 40 1.91% 21,784 356 1.63%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 5,930 46 0.78% 1,193 18 1.51% 7,123 64 0.90%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 3,296 64 1.94% 558 4 0.72% 3,854 68 1.76%

Armed Security Personnel 1,438 7 0.49% 308 3 0.97% 1,746 10 0.57%
1996 Annual Report 3-

4

Table 3-3. Drug Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996 (continued)

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

POST-ACCIDENT

Revenue Vehicle Operation 8,474 156 1.84% 2,495 75 3.01% 10,969 231 2.11%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 667 11 1.65% 61 1 1.64% 728 12 1.65%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 169 5 2.96% 11 0 0.00% 180 5 2.78%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 267 6 2.25% 24 1 4.17% 291 7 2.41%

Armed Security Personnel 84 1 1.19% 2 0 0.00% 86 1 1.16%

REASONABLE SUSPICION

Revenue Vehicle Operation 804 35 4.35% 172 22 12.79% 976 57 5.84%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 102 8 7.84% 7 5 71.43% 109 13 11.93%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 43 2 4.65% 6 3 50.00% 49 5 10.20%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 28 5 17.86% 3 0 0.00% 31 5 16.13%

Armed Security Personnel 4 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 5 0 0.00%

RETURN-TO-DUTY

Revenue Vehicle Operation 1,296 53 4.09% 215 4 1.86% 1,511 57 3.77%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 413 13 3.15% 38 3 7.89% 451 16 3.55%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 51 2 3.92% 10 0 0.00% 61 2 3.28%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 104 2 1.92% 3 0 0.00% 107 2 1.87%

Armed Security Personnel 33 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 35 0 0.00%

FOLLOW-UP

Revenue Vehicle Operation 6,713 139 2.07% 503 16 3.18% 7,216 155 2.15%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 3,053 68 2.23% 59 7 11.86% 3,112 75 2.41%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 308 3 0.97% 23 2 8.70% 331 5 1.51%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 632 30 4.75% 5 0 0.00% 637 30 4.71%

Armed Security Personnel 42 1 2.38% 0 0 0.00% 42 1 2.38%
1996 Annual Report 3-5

3.2.1 Pre-Employment Drug Test Results

Pre-employment drug test results produced an overall positive result of 2.82 percent. Transit

systems had 2.34 percent positive, while contractors had 3.37 percent positive.

For pre-employment testing, CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel had the highest overall positive

result, at 3.33 percent. For transit systems, this employee category was also the highest at 3.68

percent. For contractors, revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance workers had the highest

positive result at 3.78 percent. For both transit systems and contractors, armed security

personnel had the lowest positive rate, with 0.47 percent and 1.53 percent, respectively.

3.2.2 Random Drug Test Results

Random testing was the most frequently conducted test industry-wide (58.67% of all tests).

Random testing also was the most frequently conducted test type by transit systems (63.91%).

However, random testing was not the most frequently conducted test type by contractors

(43.24%). Contractors conducted more pre-employment tests than any other test type (48.98%).

Random testing accounted for the lowest percent of positive results compared to the other testing

categories, resulting in a positive result of 1.50 percent industry-wide. This positive rate was

consistent for both transit systems (1.42%) and contractors (1.84%). Within the random testing

category, only revenue vehicle control and dispatch employees and armed security personnel had

overall positive rates under 1.00 percent.

3.2.3 Post-Accident Drug Test Results

Post-accident testing was 1.85 percent positive for transit systems and 2.97 percent positive for

contractors. For contractors, there were no positive tests for armed security personnel or revenue

vehicle control/dispatch for this test type. The contractor employee category reporting the

highest positive result was CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel, with 4.17 percent. For transit

systems, the revenue vehicle control and dispatch employee category ranked highest at 2.96

percent positive.

3.2.4 Reasonable Suspicion Drug Test Results

Reasonable suspicion testing produced the highest percent of positive results for transit systems,

contractors, and industry-wide (5.10%, 15.87%, and 6.84% respectively). However, while this

testing type accounted for the highest percent of positive results, it was the least often conducted

test. Overall, it accounted for 1,170 tests or 0.63 percent of all drug tests administered.

Within the reasonable suspicion category, CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel tested positive

most frequently with a rate of 16.13 percent. Revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance

employees had the next highest rate within this test type at 11.93 percent. Among contractors,

positive results were found more often for tests of revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance,

revenue vehicle control/dispatch, and revenue vehicle operator employee categories than for

transit system employees in the same categories (71.43% vs. 7.84%; 50.00% vs. 4.65%; and
1996 Annual Report 3-6

12.79% vs. 4.35%). Among transit system employees, positive results were found more often

for tests of the CDL/non-revenue vehicle operator employee category than for contractors in the

same employee category (17.86% vs. 0.00% [0 of 3 tests]).

3.2.5 Return-to-Duty Drug Test Results

Overall, 3.56 percent of the specimens tested in the return-to-duty category were positive.

Transit systems reported positive test results of 3.69 percent. Contractors indicated positive test

results at 2.61 percent.

Overall, the revenue vehicle operation employee category had the highest percent of positive

results within this test type at 3.77 percent. Revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance

employees ranked second with 3.55 percent. No positive results were found for the 35 tests

conducted for armed security personnel (33 tests given for transit systems and 2 tests given for

contractors).

3.2.6 Follow-Up Drug Test Results

Overall results for follow-up testing were 2.35 percent positive for follow-up drug testing.

Transit systems reported results at 2.24 percent positive. Contractors reported a higher positive

result of 4.24 percent. The majority of tests in this category were conducted by transit systems

(10,748, or 94.80%).

Overall within this test type, the CDL/non-revenue vehicle employee category accounted for the

highest percent of positive results at 4.71 percent, and the revenue vehicle and equipment

maintenance category ranked second with 2.41 percent positive test results.

3.3 Results of Drug Tests Presented by Employee Category

This section presents drug test results by employee category for transit systems and contractors

and their combined totals. Table 3-4 identifies the number of specimens collected, the number of

positive results, and the percent of positive results.

Approximately three-fourths (73.30%) of the specimens were collected from revenue vehicle

operators, approximately one-fifth (16.54%) from revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance

employees, and the remainder (10.15%) from employees in the other three categories: revenue

vehicle control/dispatch, CDL/non-revenue vehicle, and armed security personnel.

The random testing data show some variation when viewed by employee category. Industrywide, none of the employment categories had positive test results above 2.00 percent. The

category with the highest positive results was CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel with 1.76

percent. The category with the lowest positive results was armed security personnel with 0.57

percent. In four of the five employee categories, reasonable suspicion tests had the highest

percent of positive results. In four of the five employee categories, random tests had the lowest

percent of positive results. The exception to this trend was in the armed security personnel
1996 Annual Report 3-7

category, where follow-up tests had the highest percent of positive results. Reasonable suspicion

and return-to-duty test types each had zero positive results.
1996 Annual Report 3-8

Table 3-4. Drug Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

TOTALS BY EMPLOYEE CATEGORY, ALL TEST TYPES

Revenue Vehicle Operation 95,971 1,688 1.76% 39,397 1,104 2.80% 135,368 2,792 2.06%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 26,914 488 1.81% 3,638 108 2.97% 30,552 596 1.95%

Revenue Veh. Control/Disp. 7,435 68 0.91% 1,885 44 2.33% 9,320 112 1.20%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 5,523 151 2.73% 1,170 20 1.71% 6,693 171 2.55%

Armed Security Personnel 2,029 11 0.54% 704 9 1.28% 2,733 20 0.73%

TOTALS 137,872 2,406 1.75% 46,794 1,285 2.75% 184,666 3,691 2.00%

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

REVENUE VEHICLE OPERATOR

Pre-employment 20,922 491 2.35% 19,934 679 3.41% 40,856 1,170 2.86%

Random 57,762 814 1.41% 16,078 308 1.92% 73,840 1,122 1.52%

Post-Accident 8,474 156 1.84% 2,495 75 3.01% 10,969 231 2.11%

Reasonable Suspicion 804 35 4.35% 172 22 12.79% 976 57 5.84%

Return-to-Duty 1,296 53 4.09% 215 4 1.86% 1,511 57 3.77%

Follow-Up 6,713 139 2.07% 503 16 3.18% 7,216 155 2.15%

REVENUE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

Pre-employment 2,991 72 2.41% 1,377 52 3.78% 4,368 124 2.84%

Random 19,688 316 1.61% 2,096 40 1.91% 21,784 356 1.63%

Post-Accident 667 11 1.65% 61 1 1.64% 728 12 1.65%

Reasonable Suspicion 102 8 7.84% 7 5 71.43% 109 13 11.93%

Return-to-Duty 413 13 3.15% 38 3 7.89% 451 16 3.55%

Follow-Up 3,053 68 2.23% 59 7 11.86% 3,112 75 2.41%
1996 Annual Report 3-

9

Table 3-4. Drug Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996 (continued)

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Collected

Number of

Positive

Results

Percent

Positive

REVENUE VEHICLE CONTROL AND

DISPATCH

Pre-employment 934 10 1.07% 642 21 3.27% 1,576 31 1.97%

Random 5,930 46 0.78% 1,193 18 1.51% 7,123 64 0.90%

Post-Accident 169 5 2.96% 11 0 0.00% 180 5 2.78%

Reasonable Suspicion 43 2 4.65% 6 3 50.00% 49 5 10.20%

Return-to-Duty 51 2 3.92% 10 0 0.00% 61 2 3.28%

Follow-Up 308 3 0.97% 23 2 8.70% 331 5 1.51%

CDL/NON-REVENUE VEHICLE

Pre-employment 1,196 44 3.68% 577 15 2.60% 1,773 59 3.33%

Random 3,296 64 1.94% 558 4 0.72% 3,854 68 1.76%

Post-Accident 267 6 2.25% 24 1 4.17% 291 7 2.41%

Reasonable Suspicion 28 5 17.86% 3 0 0.00% 31 5 16.13%

Return-to-Duty 104 2 1.92% 3 0 0.00% 107 2 1.87%

Follow-Up 632 30 4.75% 5 0 0.00% 637 30 4.71%

ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL

Pre-employment 428 2 0.47% 391 6 1.53% 819 8 0.98%

Random 1,438 7 0.49% 308 3 0.97% 1,746 10 0.57%

Post-Accident 84 1 1.19% 2 0 0.00% 86 1 1.16%

Reasonable Suspicion 4 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 5 0 0.00%

Return-to-Duty 33 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 35 0 0.00%

Follow-Up 42 1 2.38% 0 0 0.00% 42 1 2.38%
1996 Annual Report 3-10

3.3.1 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Operation Category

Industry-wide, the most frequently tested employees were revenue vehicle operators (135,368 of

184,666 tests or 73.30% of all tests). In this employee category, contractors were tested at a

lower rate than transit system employees (29.10% of all tests and 70.90% of all tests,

respectively).

Random testing for this employee category resulted in 1.52 percent of the specimens testing

positive overall. Transit systems recorded a positive rate of 1.41 percent, while contractors were

slightly higher at 1.92 percent. In contrast to random testing, reasonable suspicion testing

resulted in 5.84 percent of the tests being positive in this employee category. Positive result rates

for reasonable suspicion testing were also higher than for random testing for both the transit

systems and contractors (4.35% and 12.79%, respectively). For contractors, the reasonable

suspicion positive rate (for this employee category) was more than six times greater than the

random positive rate (12.79% vs. 1.92%).

3.3.2 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Category

Random drug testing of the revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance category produced an

overall positive rate of 1.63 percent. Transit system employees in this category had a random

positive test rate of 1.61 percent; the positive test rate for contractors was slightly higher at 1.91

percent. Within this employee category, reasonable suspicion testing accounted for the highest

percent of positive specimens for transit systems with 7.84 percent positive and for contractors

with 71.43 percent positive (5 out of 7 tests administered). For transit systems, the lowest

percent of positives within this employee category was for random tests (1.61%). For

contractors, the lowest percent of positives within this employee category was for post-accident

tests (1.64 %). Pre-employment, follow-up, and return-to-duty test results in this employee

category also had a higher percent of positives than did random testing for both contractors and

transit systems.

3.3.3 Drug Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Control/Dispatch Category

Random testing in this employee category resulted in 0.90 percent of the specimens testing

positive. Transit systems reported 0.78 percent positive, and contractors reported 1.51 percent

positive.

Within this employee category, reasonable suspicion tests had the highest percent of positive

results overall (10.20%). For contractors, the positive rate for reasonable suspicion tests was

50.00 percent (3 of 6 tests administered). Transit systems reported 4.65 percent positive for

reasonable suspicion testing. There were no positive test results for post-accident and return-toduty tests for contractors. For transit systems, the positive test result rates for post-accident and

return-to-duty tests for this employee category were 2.96 percent and 3.92 percent, respectively.

Follow-up tests for contractor employees in this category had a positive rate of 8.70 percent,

whereas transit system employees had a positive rate of 0.97 percent.
1996 Annual Report 3-11

3.3.4 Drug Test Results for CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle Category

Overall random testing of this employee category resulted in 1.76 percent of the specimens

testing positive. Results for transit systems were similar (1.94%) but were lower for contractors

(0.72%).

Other testing within this employee category revealed that reasonable suspicion had the highest

percent of positive test results (16.13% overall). This was true for transit systems, with a 17.86

percent positive rate. For contractors, however, the positive rate was zero (three tests with zero

positive results). In addition, contractors reported no positive results for return-to-duty testing

and for follow-up testing within this employee category, while transit systems reported 1.92

percent and 4.75 percent positive, respectively.

3.3.5 Drug Test Results for Armed Security Personnel Category

Overall positive random test results for armed security personnel were reported at 0.57 percent

(armed security personnel had the lowest overall random test percent compared to the other

employee categories). Of the 20 total positive results for this employee category, 10 occurred in

random testing. In addition, no positive results were reported by contractors or transit systems

for reasonable suspicion or return-to-duty tests for armed security personnel.

3.4 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results

This section presents the distribution of positive drug test results for employees who tested

positive for one or more of the five prohibited drugs. To be recorded as a positive result, an

employee may, for example, have tested positive for a specific drug or a combination of drugs

(e.g., marijuana and cocaine, cocaine and PCP).

3.4.1 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results for One or More Drugs

As presented in Table 3-5, of the 184,666 specimens collected for drug testing overall test types,

74.66 percent (137,872) were collected by transit systems, and 25.34 percent (46,794) were

collected by contractors. Of the 184,666 total specimens collected, 3,691 tested positive for one

or more drugs (1.99%). Transit systems reported 2,406 total positive results, and contractors

reported 1,285. Contractors performed only 25.34 percent of the testing, but reported 34.81

percent of the total positive test results.
1996 Annual Report 3-12

Table 3-5. Number of Specimens Collected in 1996/Number of Positive

Specimens and the Proportion of the Totals that Each Represents

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total Number

Number of

Specimens

Collected

137,872 74.66% 46,794 25.34% 184,666

Number of

Positive

Specimens

2,406 65.19% 1,285 34.81% 3,691

3.4.2 Distribution of Positive Drug Test Results by Type of Drug

Of the five prohibited drugs, marijuana (THC) was detected most frequently (2,098 of

specimens or 53.78%), followed by cocaine (1,508 or 38.66%), as indicated in Table 3-6. The

occurrence of PCP was less than 0.55 percent of all positive specimens. It should be noted that

the total number of specimens containing each type of drug is higher than the total number of

positive specimens referenced elsewhere in this report. This discrepancy is due to the reporting

requirement for specimens containing multiple drugs in a single sample. For instance, one

positive sample may have contained two or more drugs.

Table 3-6. Number and Percent of all Positive Specimens for 1996 that

Contained Each Type of Drug by Employer Type

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Number

Positive

Percent of

Total

Number

Positive

Percent

of Total

Number

Positive

Percent

of Total

Marijuana 1,333 52.73% 765 55.72% 2,098 53.78%

Cocaine 1,022 40.43% 486 35.40% 1,508 38.66%

PCP 10 0.40% 11 0.80% 21 0.54%

Opiates 70 2.77% 51 3.71% 121 3.10%

Amphetamines 93 3.68% 60 4.37% 153 3.92%

As presented in Table 3-6, the overall number of positive test results for marijuana was 2,098:

1,333 for transit systems and 765 for contractors. For cocaine, the overall number of positive

test results was 1,508: 1,022 for transit systems and 486 for contractors. The number of positive

test results for amphetamines was 93 for transit systems and 60 for contractors, respectively. For

transit systems, the number of positive test results for opiates was 70. For contractors, it was 51.

There were very few positive test results for PCP (a total of 21): 10 positive for transit systems

and 11 positive for contractors. Figure 3-1 shows the number of positive specimens by drug type

for contractors and transit systems. The figures in the columns should not be totaled because this

will result in double counting those employees who tested positive for more than one drug at the

same time. For example, if an employee tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine it would

have been recorded as one positive result. However, if the numbers from Figure 3-1 are added
1996 Annual Report 3-13

together then this one positive result will be counted both as one positive marijuana test and one

positive cocaine test.

121 21

2,098

1,508

153

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

THC Cocaine PCP Opiates Amphet.

Type of Drug

Number Positive

Transit Systems

Contractors

Totals

Figure 3-1. Number of Positive Specimens by Type of Drug for 1996

Overall, 1.14 percent of all 184,666 specimens collected tested positive for marijuana; 0.97

percent for transit systems, and 1.63 percent for contractors, as presented in Figure 3-2. For

cocaine, the overall positive rate was 0.82 percent. For transit systems, the rate was 0.74

percent; it was 1.04 percent for contractors. For contractors, the percent positive for opiates and

amphetamines was 0.11 percent and 0.13 percent, respectively. For transit systems, the percent

positive for each of those drugs was 0.05 percent.

0.07% 0.08%

0.01%

0.82%

1.14%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

THC Cocaine PCP Opiates Amphet.

Type of Drug

Percent Positive

Transit Systems

Contractors 

Totals

Figure 3-2. Percent of Positive Specimens by Type of Drug for 1996
1996 Annual Report 3-14

3.5 Drug Test Results by FTA Region

This section reports drug test results by FTA region. As seen in Figure 3-3, of the 10 FTA

Regions, Regions 8 and 5 had the highest percent of specimens positive for one or more drugs

with 2.98 and 2.33 percent, respectively. Region 9 was third, with 2.25 percent positive.

Regions 4 and 6 (2.12% and 2.09%, respectively) were also above the overall percent positive of

2.00 percent. The overall percent positive includes results for all test types. The remaining

regions were all below the overall positive percent mark.

1.57%

2.25%

2.98%

1.63%

2.09%

2.33%

2.12%

1.92%

1.49%

1.87%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FTA Region

Percent Positive

Figure 3-3. Percent of Positive Overall Drug Specimens by FTA Region for 1996

Figure 3-4 presents the regional distribution of positive drug test results. Marijuana had the

highest percent of positive results in 9 out of the 10 regions. In Region 3, the rate of cocaine

positives was slightly higher than the rate of marijuana positives (0.98% and 0.93%,

respectively).

Region 8 had the highest percent of positive marijuana specimens with 1.83 percent. Regions 5

and 6 were second and third (1.36% and 1.33%, respectively). Region 2 had the lowest percent

of specimens positive for marijuana with 0.77 percent. For cocaine, Region 8 had the highest

percent of positive specimens with 1.04 percent. All of the remaining Regions had rates of less

than or equal to 1.00 percent positive for cocaine, ranging from 0.33 percent (Region 10) to 1.00

percent (Region 5). Across all of the FTA Regions, the percent positive for PCP was at or below

0.03 percent. Likewise, the results for opiate testing did not exceed 0.10 percent. For

amphetamines, 8 of the 10 FTA Regions had positive result rates of less than or equal to 0.10

percent. Then notable exceptions to this trend were Regions 8 and 9, which reported positive

result rates of 0.19 percent and 0.39 percent, respectively.
1996 Annual Report 3-15

Figure 3-4. Percent of Specimens Testing Positive for Each of the Drug Types by FTA

Region for 1996

3.6 Drug Test Refusals

When directed to provide specimens for drug testing, some employees refused to be tested. In

1996, there were 110 reported cases of a covered employee refusing a random drug test and 48

cases of a covered employee refusing a non-random drug test. This is a total of 158 refusals.

These refusals reflect 0.09 percent of the total number of drug tests attempted.

3.7 Return-to-Duty Positive Rate

The number of employees who returned to duty after a positive drug test or who refused a drug

test was 77. Because the consequences for refusing a drug test and for testing positive are the

same, the MIS form used to collect information from employers combine the figures in these two

areas.

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

2.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FTA Region

Percent Positive

Marijuana

Cocaine

PCP

Opiates

Amphetamines
1996 Annual Report 3-16

3.8 Pre-Employment Drug Test Results

There were 1,392 positive specimens among the 49,392 pre-employment drug tests administered

in 1996. The number of persons denied a safety-sensitive position as a result of a positive test

was 1,283, which is 2.60 percent of the total number of pre-employment drug tests and 92.17

percent of the prospective employees who tested positive in the pre-employment drug tests.

3.9 Post-Accident Drug Test Results

The reported number of accidents that resulted in a positive post-accident drug test was 239. Of

these reported accidents, 166 were reported by transit systems and 73 were reported by

contractors. The positive post-accident drug test result rate was 2.97 percent for contractors and

1.85 percent for transit systems. As a result of these accidents, there was one fatality.

3.10 Comparison of Transit System and Contractor Positive Random Drug Test Results

In four out of the five job categories, contractors had a higher percent of positive random drug

test results than did transit systems (see Table 3-7). The lone exception was the CDL/nonrevenue vehicle category, in which the transit systems random positive percent was 1.94 percent

and the contractor random positive percent was 0.72 percent.

Contractors conducted a total of 20,233 random drug tests. This is 18.67 percent of all random

drug tests conducted. From these tests, contractors had a total of 373 positive results or 23.02

percent of the total number of positive random drug tests (1,620 positive tests). Overall, the

employee category with the highest percent of positive random results was CDL/non-revenue

vehicle personnel (1.76%). The employee category with the lowest percent of positive random

test results was armed security personnel with 0.57 percent. The three remaining employee

categories had overall positive rates between 0.90 and 1.63 percent.

Table 3-7. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results for 1996

by Employer Type and Employee Category

Transit System Contractors Totals

Number

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Number

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Number

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Revenue Vehicle

Operation 57,762 814 1.41% 16,078 308 1.92% 73,840 1,122 1.52%

Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance 19,688 316 1.61% 2,096 40 1.91% 21,784 356 1.63%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch 5,930 46 0.78% 1,193 18 1.51% 7,123 64 0.90%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle 3,296 64 1.94% 558 4 0.72% 3,854 68 1.76%

Security and Armed

Guards 1,438 7 0.49% 308 3 0.97% 1,746 10 0.57%

Totals 88,114 1,247 1.42% 20,233 373 1.84% 108,347 1,620 1.50%
1996 Annual Report 3-17

3.11 Comparison of Large Operator and Small Operator Positive Random Drug Test

Results

In four of the five job categories, small operators (those operating in areas with populations of

less than 200,000) had a higher percent of positive random drug test results than did large

operators (those operating in areas with populations of more than 200,000) (see Table 3-8). In

the remaining category (CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle) the small operators’ positive percentage

was 1.6 and the large operators’ positive percentage was 1.87, respectively. The largest disparity

was in the Armed Security category, in which the small operators had a positive rate of 1.18%,

compared to the large operators, which had a positive rate of .54%.

Table 3-8. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results for 1996

by Operator Size

Large Small

Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Revenue Vehicle

Operation 53,420 805 1.51% 20,420 317 1.55%

Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance 19,509 309 1.58% 2,275 47 2.07%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch 5,036 44 0.87% 2,087 20 0.96%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle 2,355 44 1.87% 1,499 24 1.60%

Armed Security Personnel 1,661 9 0.54% 85 1 1.18%

Totals 81,981 1,211 1.48% 26,366 409 1.55%
1996 Annual Report 4-1

4. ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

This chapter provides background information on the alcohol testing procedures and a summary

of the 1996 alcohol test results. Section 4.1 provides an introduction and explanation of the

testing procedures and the consequences of a test result of ≥ 0.02. This section also examines

results of random testing. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 present a detailed examination of the findings

according to test type and employee category. The other sections of the chapter include

information on results by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) region, employees who refused

testing, employees who were returned to duty, the violation rate, a comparison between transit

systems and contractors, and a comparison between large and small operators.

4.1 Introduction

The FTA regulation prohibits covered

employees who perform safetysensitive functions from reporting to

duty or staying on duty while having an

alcohol concentration of ≥ 0.02. In

addition, employees are prohibited from

using alcohol within 4 hours prior to

performing safety-sensitive functions

and from consuming alcohol while oncall. Because employees are prohibited

from using alcohol while performing

safety-sensitive functions, an employer

who has knowledge that an employee is

using alcohol must prohibit that

employee from performing these functions. (An on-call employee must be given the opportunity

to acknowledge use of alcohol at the time he or she is called to duty and must be given an

alcohol test if the employee claims to be able to perform his or her safety-sensitive function).

The FTA provides two different sets of consequences (see Figure 4-1) should an alcohol

confirmation test show that an employee’s alcohol concentration is (1) ≥ 0.02 but < 0.04, or (2) ≥

0.04. A confirmation test result that shows an alcohol concentration of ≥ 0.04 results in the

employee’s removal from his or her safety-sensitive position. The alcohol concentration level is

the alcohol in a volume of breath expressed in terms of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Alcohol tests are conducted in two parts: a screening test followed by a confirmation test for

those employees whose screening test results indicate a ≥ 0.02 alcohol concentration.

The data collected by the FTA from transit systems and contractors include information on both

the number of screening tests conducted, the number of confirmation tests conducted, and the

results from these confirmation tests. In this report, the alcohol test results are derived from the

number of screening tests conducted and found to be ≥ 0.04. The number of screening tests is

used to better reflect accurate testing percentages. Because confirmation tests are only

performed once a screening test has resulted in a result of ≥ 0.02, to report rates of ≥ 0.04 out of

confirmation tests would result in high and misleading percentages.

An employee with a concentration of ≥ 0.02 but <

0.04 must be removed from his or her safetysensitive position for 8 hours or until a retest

shows an alcohol concentration of < 0.02.

An employee with an alcohol concentration of ≥

0.04 must be removed from his or her safetysensitive position, be told about educational and

treatment programs available, and be referred to

a substance abuse professional.

Figure 4-1. Consequences of an Alcohol Test for

Covered Employees
1996 Annual Report 4-2

Table 4-1 shows the results of random alcohol testing for transit systems and contractors.

Random alcohol testing was the type of test conducted most frequently (62,618 out of a total of

90,482 tests conducted). Although Table 4-1 shows the number of random “positives” for

alcohol tests ≥ 0.02 but < 0.04, for reporting purposes, “true positives” are considered ≥ 0.04.

Table 4-1. Random Alcohol Test Results at Both Levels for Transit Systems

and Contractors for 1996

Employer Total

Screens

Number

0.02% - 0.04%

Number

≥ 0.04%

Percent

0.02 - 0.04

Percent

≥ 0.04

Contractors 11,280 4 12 0.04% 0.11%

Transit Systems 51,338 39 89 0.08% 0.17%

Totals 62,618 43 101 0.06% 0.14%

Figure 4-2 provides the random test results for transit systems and contractors and their

combined totals at both the lower level (0.02 to < 0.04) and at the higher level (≥ 0.04) alcohol

concentrations. Industry-wide, the occurrence of random alcohol test results at both the lower

level of ≥ 0.02 but < 0.04 (0.06%) and the higher level, ≥ 0.04 (0.16%), was very low. The

results differed only slightly between transit systems and contractors. Transit systems had a

slightly greater percent of random alcohol test results at both testing levels. At the higher level

of ≥ 0.04, contractors had 0.11 percent positive rate and transit systems had 0.17 percent positive

rate. At the lower level, contractors had 0.04 percent and transit systems were slightly higher at

0.08 percent. Since there were a greater number of tests administered by transit systems, the

number of random alcohol tests at ≥ 0.04 percent are also greater for transit systems (89) than for

contractors (12).

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

0.14%

0.16%

0.18%

Contractor Transit

System

Totals

% >= 0.02 & < 0.04

% >=0.04

Figure 4-2. Percent of Random Alcohol Tests at Both Levels in 1996
1996 Annual Report 4-3

4.2 Results of Alcohol Testing Presented by Test Type

Alcohol test information was required from transit systems and their contractors for five test

types: random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, return-to-duty, and follow-up. The

requirement to conduct pre-employment testing was suspended by the FTA as of May 10, 1995.

However, some employers continued to submit data for pre-employment testing in 1996. In an

effort to be comprehensive, the FTA is reporting these data as submitted.

Table 4-2 presents the alcohol test results, by test type and by employee category, for transit

systems and contractors and identifies the combined totals industry-wide. This table also

presents the number of screening tests administered, the number of test results at ≥ 0.04, and the

percent of test results at ≥ 0.04.

The totals indicate that alcohol test results ranged from 0.03 percent for pre-employment to 8.22

percent for reasonable suspicion. However, discounting reasonable suspicion, all of the other

test types had test results of ≥ 0.04 that were below 0.40 percent. For both the pre-employment

and return-to-duty categories, only two alcohol test results at ≥ 0.04 were reported.
1996 Annual Report 4-

4

Table 4-2. Alcohol Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

TOTALS BY TEST TYPE, ALL EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES

Pre-employment 4,676 2 0.04% 2,392 0 0.00% 7,068 2 0.03%

Random 51,338 89 0.17% 11,280 12 0.11% 62,618 101 0.16%

Post-Accident 9,218 13 0.14% 2,081 3 0.14% 11,299 16 0.14%

Reasonable Suspicion 936 61 6.52% 123 26 21.14% 1,059 87 8.22%

Return-to-duty 1,409 2 0.14% 80 0 0.00% 1,489 2 0.13%

Follow-Up 6,643 24 0.36% 306 3 0.98% 6,949 27 0.39%

TOTALS 74,220 191 0.26% 16,262 44 0.27% 90,482 235 0.26%

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Employee Category

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

Revenue Vehicle Operations 3,385 2 0.06% 1,850 0 0.00% 5,235 2 0.04%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 501 0 0.00% 339 0 0.00% 840 0 0.00%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 166 0 0.00% 95 0 0.00% 261 0 0.00%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 427 0 0.00% 57 0 0.00% 484 0 0.00%

Security and Armed Guards 197 0 0.00% 51 0 0.00% 248 0 0.00%

RANDOM

Revenue Vehicle Operations 33,644 52 0.15% 8,977 8 0.09% 42,621 60 0.14%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 11,639 33 0.28% 1,168 2 0.17% 12,807 35 0.27%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 3,147 2 0.06% 687 1 0.15% 3,834 3 0.08%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 1,922 2 0.10% 257 1 0.39% 2,179 3 0.14%

Security and Armed Guards 986 0 0.00% 191 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%
1996 Annual Report 4-5

Table 4-2. Alcohol Test Results by Test Type and Employee Category for 1996 (continued)

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Employee Category

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

POST-ACCIDENT

Revenue Vehicle Operations 8,171 13 0.16% 2,014 3 0.15% 10,191 16 0.16%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 599 0 0.00% 39 0 0.00% 638 0 0.00%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 168 0 0.00% 12 0 0.00% 180 0 0.00%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 190 0 0.00% 15 0 0.00% 205 0 0.00%

Security and Armed Guards 84 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%

REASONABLE SUSPICION

Revenue Vehicle Operations 757 35 4.62% 110 20 18.18% 867 55 6.34%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 102 11 10.78% 8 2 25.00% 110 13 11.82%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 42 2 4.76% 4 3 75.00% 46 5 10.87%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 32 12 37.50% 1 1 100.00% 33 13 39.39%

Security and Armed Guards 3 1 33.33% 0 0 0.00% 3 1 33.33%

RETURN-TO-DUTY

Revenue Vehicle Operations 947 1 0.11% 66 0 0.00% 1,013 1 0.10%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 326 1 0.31% 8 0 0.00% 334 1 0.30%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 28 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 30 0 0.00%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 75 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00% 78 0 0.00%

Security and Armed Guards 33 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 34 0 0.00%

FOLLOW-UP

Revenue Vehicle Operations 4,069 12 0.29% 243 3 1.23% 4,312 15 0.35%

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 1,979 7 0.35% 54 0 0.00% 2,033 7 0.34%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 238 1 0.42% 9 0 0.00% 247 1 0.40%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 315 4 1.27% 0 0 0.00% 315 4 1.27%

Security and Armed Guards 42 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 42 0 0.00%
1996 Annual Report 4-6

4.2.1 Pre-Employment Alcohol Test Results

The FTA suspended the requirement for pre-employment alcohol testing as of May 10, 1995.

The suspension of this test accounts for the low number of pre-employment tests administered

and reported. Of the 7,068 pre-employment alcohol tests, only 2 (or 0.03%) were ≥ 0.04. Both

of these results occurred for revenue vehicle operators in transit systems. Because these tests

were not required, and results were reported voluntarily, these reported results should not be

considered reflective of industry-wide pre-employment alcohol testing.

4.2.2 Random Alcohol Test Results

Random testing was the most frequently conducted test industry-wide (62,618 of 90,482 tests or

69.20%), as shown in Table 4-2. Of the random alcohol tests conducted, 0.16 percent were ≥

0.04. For both transit systems and contractors, random testing was the most frequently

conducted test, accounting for 69.17 percent and 69.36 percent of the tests administered,

respectively. Almost all of the random test results of ≥ 0.04 occurred in one of two employee

categories (revenue vehicle operation or revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance). In fact,

these two categories account for 94.06 percent of all random test results ≥ 0.04 (95 out of 101).

The armed security personnel category had no results ≥ 0.04 for transit systems or contractors.

4.2.3 Post-Accident Alcohol Test Results

Post-accident tests were performed most frequently after random tests, although they accounted

for 12.49 percent of the overall tests (11,299 out of 90,482 tests). Post-accident test results ≥

0.04 were 0.14 percent for both transit systems and contractors. The results ≥ 0.04 were found

exclusively for the revenue vehicle operation employee category (16 tests).

4.2.4 Reasonable Suspicion Alcohol Test Results

Reasonable suspicion testing produced the highest percent of test results at ≥ 0.04 for transit

systems and contractors, as well as industry-wide (6.52%, 21.14%, and 8.22%, respectively).

However, while this test type accounted for the highest percent of results ≥ 0.04, it was the least

often administered test. In total, this test type accounted for 1,059 tests or 1.17 percent of all

alcohol tests administered.

When examining the differences between transit systems and contractors, one can see that transit

systems had only 6.52 percent test results ≥ 0.04, whereas contractors had 21.14 percent. Within

the employee categories, CDL/non-revenue vehicle had the highest percent of results ≥ 0.04

(39.39%). Revenue vehicle operations had the lowest percent of test results ≥ 0.04 (6.34%);

however, since more tests were conducted on this employee category than any other category,

the actual number of test results ≥ 0.04 were the highest in this category (55 compared to 13 for

CDL/non-revenue vehicle).
1996 Annual Report 4-7

4.2.5 Return-to-Duty Alcohol Test Results

Overall, 0.13 percent of the return-to-duty tests were ≥ 0.04. Next to pre-employment testing,

this test had the lowest percent of test results ≥ 0.04. Of the 1,489 tests conducted industry-wide,

all but 80 were conducted by transit systems. Only two test results ≥ 0.04 were detected overall,

both in transit systems.

4.2.6 Follow-Up Alcohol Test Results

Follow-up testing resulted in 0.39 percent of tests at ≥ 0.04. Of the 27 results ≥ 0.04, 24

(88.89%) were for transit systems. Two employee categories account for most of the results ≥

0.04: revenue vehicle operation and revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance (22 out of 27

tests). No test results ≥ 0.04 were reported in the armed security personnel category for transit

systems or contractors.

4.3 Results of Alcohol Testing Presented by Employee Category

Table 4-3 presents the information for alcohol testing by employee category and test type for

transit systems and contractors and identifies the combined totals industry-wide. This table

shows the number of screening tests administered, the number of test results at ≥ 0.04, and the

percent of test results ≥ 0.04. When examining each employee category, random tests were used

as a measure because random tests were the most frequently conducted test and are therefore the

most indicative of alcohol use in general by employees of transit systems and contractors.

There is some variation in the percent of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 among employee

categories. The revenue vehicle equipment maintenance employee category had the highest

percent of results ≥ 0.04 (0.27%). The revenue vehicle operation and CDL\non-revenue vehicle

categories had the same results of 0.14 percent ≥ 0.04. Revenue vehicle control/dispatch had a

rate of 0.08 percent. Armed security personnel had no random test results ≥ 0.04 out of 1,177

tests performed.
1996 Annual Report 4-8

Table 4-3. Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

TOTALS BY EMPLOYEE CATEGORY, ALL TEST TYPES

Revenue Vehicle Operations 50,979 115 0.23% 13,260 34 0.26% 64,239 149 0.23%

Revenue Veh. and Equip. Maint. 15,146 52 0.34% 1,616 4 0.25% 16,762 56 0.33%

Revenue Veh. Control/Dispatch 3,789 5 0.13% 809 4 0.49% 4,598 9 0.20%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 2,961 18 0.61% 333 2 0.60% 3,294 20 0.61%

Armed Security Personnel 1,345 1 0.07% 244 0 0.00% 1,589 1 0.06%

TOTALS 74,220 191 0.26% 16,262 44 0.27% 90,482 235 0.26%

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

REVENUE VEHICLE OPERATOR

Pre-employment 3,385 2 0.06% 1,850 0 0.00% 5,235 2 0.04%

Random 33,644 52 0.15% 8,977 8 0.09% 42,621 60 0.14%

Post-Accident 8,177 13 0.16% 2,014 3 0.15% 10,191 16 0.16%

Reasonable Suspicion 757 35 4.62% 110 20 18.18% 867 55 6.34%

Return-to-duty 947 1 0.11% 66 0 0.00% 1,013 1 0.10%

Follow-Up 4,069 12 0.29% 243 3 1.23% 4,312 15 0.35%

REVENUE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

Pre-employment 501 0 0.00% 339 0 0.00% 840 0 0.00%

Random 11,639 33 0.28% 1,168 2 0.17% 12,807 35 0.27%

Post-Accident 599 0 0.00% 39 0 0.00% 638 0 0.00%

Reasonable Suspicion 102 11 10.78% 8 2 25.00% 110 13 11.82%

Return-to-duty 326 1 0.31% 8 0 0.00% 334 1 0.30%

Follow-Up 1,979 7 0.35% 54 0 0.00% 2,033 7 0.34%
1996 Annual Report 4-

9

Table 4-3. Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category and Test Type for 1996 (continued)

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Test Type

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04%

Percent ≥

0.04

REVENUE VEHICLE CONTROL/DISPATCH

Pre-employment 166 0 0.00% 95 0 0.00% 261 0 0.00%

Random 3,147 2 0.06% 687 1 0.15% 3,834 3 0.08%

Post-Accident 168 0 0.00% 12 0 0.00% 180 0 0.00%

Reasonable Suspicion 42 2 4.76% 4 3 75.00% 46 5 10.87%

Return-to-duty 28 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 30 0 0.00%

Follow-Up 238 1 0.42% 9 0 0.00% 247 1 0.40%

CDL/NON-REVENUE VEHICLE

Pre-employment 427 0 0.00% 57 0 0.00% 484 0 0.00%

Random 1,922 2 0.10% 257 1 0.39% 2,179 3 0.14%

Post-Accident 190 0 0.00% 15 0 0.00% 205 0 0.00%

Reasonable Suspicion 32 12 37.50% 1 1 100.00% 33 13 39.39%

Return-to-duty 75 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00% 78 0 0.00%

Follow-Up 315 4 1.27% 0 0 0.00% 315 4 1.27%

ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL

Pre-employment 197 0 0.00% 51 0 0.00% 248 0 0.00%

Random 986 0 0.00% 191 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%

Post-Accident 84 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 85 0 0.00%

Reasonable Suspicion 3 1 33.33% 0 0 0.00% 3 1 33.33%

Return-to-duty 33 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00% 34 0 0.00%

Follow-Up 42 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 42 0 0.00%
1996 Annual Report 4-10

4.3.1 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Operation Category

As Table 4-3 demonstrates, more tests were conducted on revenue vehicle operators industrywide (64,239 of 90,482 tests or 71.00%) than any other employee category. Transit systems

administered 68.69 percent of their tests on revenue vehicle operators while the number for

contractors was 81.54 percent.

Within the revenue vehicle operator employee category, reasonable suspicion testing accounted

for the highest percent of test results ≥ 0.04 (6.34%). The percent of test results ≥ 0.04 for

random testing and all other testing types was below 0.40 percent. Pre-employment testing was

the lowest with only 2 test results ≥ 0.04 (0.04%). These results should not be considered

reflective of industry-wide pre-employment testing results. Return-to-duty testing showed the

lowest positive rate of ≥ 0.04 (0.11%). Contractors reported no pre-employment or return-toduty test results ≥ 0.04 in this employee category. As noted above, little variation in the percent

of test results ≥ 0.04 exists when comparing random testing results for the revenue vehicle

operation category with other employee categories.

4.3.2 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Category

The percent of random alcohol test results at ≥ 0.04 for this employee category was 0.27 (35 of

12,807 tests)—the highest random rate recorded for all of the employee categories. Of the 35

random test results ≥ 0.04, 33 (94.29%) were for transit system employees.

Within the revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance employee category, reasonable suspicion

testing accounted for the highest percent of test results ≥ 0.04 (11.82%). Industry-wide, there

were no pre-employment or post accident test results ≥ 0.04. All of the other testing types had

rates slightly higher than the random rate of 0.27 percent. In addition to pre-employment and

post accident tests, contractor results show no return-to-duty or follow-up test results ≥ 0.04 in

this job category.

4.3.3 Alcohol Test Results for Revenue Vehicle Control/Dispatch Category

Overall testing for transit systems and contractors in this job category resulted in 0.13 and 0.49

percent results ≥ 0.04, respectively. This variation between transit systems and contractors is the

greatest of any job category. Overall, the percent of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for this

employee category was 0.08 percent. Almost all of the tests conducted within this job category

were random tests, which accounted for 83.38 percent of all testing. Within this employee

category, reasonable suspicion had the highest percent of test results at ≥ 0.04 (10.87%). Three

test types (pre-employment, post-accident, and return-to-duty) recorded no results ≥ 0.04.

Reasonable suspicion testing for contractors shows that 75.00 percent of those tested had a test

result ≥ 0.04, however, only 4 tests were administered.
1996 Annual Report 4-11

4.3.4 Alcohol Test Results for CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle Category

Industry-wide random testing in this employee category resulted in 0.14 percent of the tests

being ≥ 0.04. There were only 20 test results ≥ 0.04 for all test types within this employee

category. Reasonable suspicion testing had the highest percent of test results ≥ 0.04 at 39.39

percent. However, it is important to note that reasonable suspicion testing only accounted for 33

of 3,294 tests and had 13 results ≥ 0.04. No results ≥ 0.04 were found for pre-employment, postaccident, and return-to-duty testing in this employee category.

4.3.5 Alcohol Test Results for Armed Security Personnel Category

Random testing in this employee category resulted in no test results ≥ 0.04. There was only one

test result ≥ 0.04 out of 1,589 (0.06%). This test was a reasonable suspicion test administered by

a transit system. Armed security personnel was the employee category least tested, comprising

only 1.8 percent of the total number of screening tests administered.

4.4 Alcohol Test Results by FTA Region

This section presents alcohol test results by FTA Region. Figure 4-3 shows test results ≥ 0.04

combined across all alcohol test categories. Region 2 (at 0.40%) was over 0.10 percent higher

than the next closest region. All of the other regions clustered between 0.16 percent (Region 1)

and 0.29 percent (Region 4).

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FTA Region

Percent Positive

Percent 0.04 or

Greater

Figure 4-3. Percent of Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04

by FTA Region for 1996
1996 Annual Report 4-12

4.5 Employees Who Refused Alcohol Testing

The FTA regulations stipulate that no employer shall permit an employee who refuses to submit

to a required alcohol test to perform safety-sensitive functions. Table 4-4 shows that the number

of employees who refused to be tested for alcohol is small (79 employees vs. 90,482 tests

administered). Of the 79 employees who refused testing, 58 percent (46) refused a non-random

test.

Table 4-4. Number of Employees Who Refused Alcohol Testing in

1996

Alcohol Test Type Number of Alcohol

Tests Given

Number of Employees

Who Refused Testing

Random 62,618 33

Non-Random 27,864 46

Total 90,482 79

4.6 Employees Returned to Duty

Transit systems reported that, of employees who engaged in alcohol misuse during 1995 and

1996 (as defined by FTA), 230 were returned to duty. Each individual had to undergo a returnto-duty test and have a result indicating an alcohol concentration < 0.02. However, the reported

figure of 230 employees may not be a reliable number. This figure was the total of all responses

to the question on the MIS form that instructed employers to record the number of employees

who had engaged in alcohol misuse and were returned to duty during the reporting period. In

another section of the form, employers were asked to record the total number of return-to-duty

tests conducted; this figure was 1,489.

4.7 Post-Accident Alcohol Test Results

Employers are required to report the number of accidents that resulted in a post-accident alcohol

test indicating an alcohol concentration of ≥ 0.04. Employers reported that there were 18 such

accidents recorded during the reporting period. Furthermore, employers were required to report

the results of their post-accident alcohol testing. Sixteen tests indicated alcohol levels ≥ 0.04

from the 11,299 tests conducted, as shown in Table 4-2.

4.8 Violation Rate

The FTA alcohol testing rule defines the violation rate as: the number of random alcohol test

results at the ≥ 0.04 concentration level plus the number of employees who refused a random

test, divided by the total number of random tests plus the number of employees who refused a

random test.
1996 Annual Report 4-13

The formula below presents the violation rate for all employers (transit systems and contractors)

as a whole:

Random alcohol test results ‡ 0.04% + number refused random testing (101 +33) 134

_________________________________________________________ = __________ = _______ = 0.21%

Total random tests + number refused random testing (62,618 +33) 62,651

4.9 Comparison of Transit System and Contractor Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04

Table 4-5 presents a comparison of the random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for transit systems and

contractors. In general, there is a close correlation for each employee category between transit

systems and contractors. Of the 12,807 revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance employees

tested, 90.88 percent were transit system personnel. Of the 35 test results ≥ 0.04, all but two (33

out of 35 tests or 94.29%) were transit system personnel. Therefore, the ratio of transit system

personnel in this category (90.88%) corresponds closely with the number of test results ≥ 0.04

(94.29%). The group of employees having the smallest number of tests was armed security

personnel, with 1,177 tests administered. Contractors and transit systems showed no random test

results ≥ 0.04 in the armed security personnel category. Overall, revenue vehicle and equipment

maintenance had the highest percent of test results ≥ 0.04 (0.27%). In addition, transit systems

administered 81.99 percent of all the random tests conducted. Of the 101 random test results ≥

0.04 (for all employee categories), all but twelve were transit system employees (89 out of 101 or

88.12%). For transit systems, revenue vehicle equipment personnel had the highest percent of

test results ≥ 0.04 (0.28%). For contractors, CDL non-revenue vehicle personnel had the highest

percent of test results ≥ 0.04 (0.39%).

Table 4-5. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 by Employer Type and

Employee Category for 1996

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Employee

Category

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Revenue Vehicle

Operation 33,644 52 0.15% 8,977 8 0.09% 42,621 60 0.14%

Revenue Vehicle

and Equipment

Maintenance

11,639 33 0.28% 1,168 2 0.17% 12,807 35 0.27%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch 3,147 2 0.06% 687 1 0.15% 3,834 3 0.08%

CDL/Non-revenue

Vehicle 1,922 2 0.10% 257 1 0.39% 2,179 3 0.14%

Armed Security

Personnel 986 0 0.00% 191 0 0.00% 1,177 0 0.00%

Totals 51,338 89 0.17% 11,280 12 0.11% 62,618 101 0.16%
1996 Annual Report 4-14

4.10 Comparison of Large Operator and Small Operator Random Alcohol Test Results ≥

0.04

A comparison of large operator and small operator random test results shows that large operators

had a higher percentage of alcohol test results at ≥ 0.04 (0.19%) than did small operators

(0.07%). Large operators had a higher percentage of random test results ≥ 0.04 in the revenue

vehicle operation, revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance, and revenue vehicle

control/dispatch categories. Both recorded no test results ≥ 0.04 for armed security personnel,

while small operators had a higher percentage of test results ≥ 0.04 for the CDL/non-revenue

vehicle category. Table 4-6 compares the random test results ≥ 0.04 for large and small

operators by employee category.

Table 4-6. Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04 for Large and Small Operators by

Employee Category for 1996

Large Operators Small Operators

Employee

Category

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent

≥ 0.04

Number of

Screening

Tests

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent

≥ 0.04

Revenue Vehicle

Operation 31,497 54 0.17% 11,124 6 0.05%

Revenue Vehicle

and Equipment

Maintenance

11,497 34 0.30% 1,310 1 0.08%

Revenue Vehicle

Control/Dispatch 2,657 3 0.11% 1,177 0 0.00%

CDL NonRevenue Vehicle 1,360 0 0.00% 819 3 0.37%

Armed Security

Personnel 1,110 0 0.00% 67 0 0.00%

Totals 48,121 91 0.19% 14,497 10 0.07%

Figure 4-4 provides the random test results for large and small operators and their combined total

at both the lower level (0.02 to < 0.04) and at the higher level (≥ 0.04) alcohol concentrations.

Large operators had a higher percentage of random test results ≥ 0.04 for both levels of alcohol

concentrations.
1996 Annual Report 4-15

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

0.14%

0.16%

0.18%

0.20%

Small Operators Large Operators Totals

>= 0.02% & <=0.04%

>= 0.04%

Figure 4-4. Comparison of Percent of Random Alcohol Test Results at Both Levels in 1996

for Large and Small Operators
1996 Annual Report 5-1

5. COMPARISON OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

This section compares the results of drug and alcohol testing conducted by transit systems and

contractors. The comparisons provide information on the overall misuse of these substances by

employee category, operator size, testing category (random and pre-employment only), and

information about how many individuals tested positive for drugs and had an alcohol test result ≥

0.04 at the same time.

5.1 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results

Figure 5-1 presents random testing results for drugs and alcohol. The results are given separately

for transit systems and contractors and as a combined total. The rate of positive random drug tests

in transit systems was 1.42 percent, while the random alcohol tests ≥ 0.04 was 0.17 percent. The

percentages of random drug positives were slightly higher for contractors (1.84%) than for transit

systems, while the random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 were slightly lower (0.11%).

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

2.00%

Transit Systems Contractors Totals

Alcohol 

Drugs

Figure 5-1. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol

Test Results by Employer Type

5.2 Results of Random Drug and Alcohol Tests by Employee Category

The percent of random positive drug test results for each employee category was higher than the

percent of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04, as shown in Table 5-1. Exactly 1.50 percent of all

random drug specimens collected were positive and 0.16 percent of random alcohol test results

were ≥ 0.04. CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators had the highest percentage of drug positives

(1.76%) and vehicle and equipment maintenance had the highest percentage of alcohol test results

≥ 0.04 (0.27%). In addition, armed security personnel had the lowest positive percentages for

both drug tests and for alcohol tests ≥ 0.04. It should be noted that even the lowest positive
1996 Annual Report 5-2

random test rate for drugs (0.57%) is higher than the highest random test result rate ≥ 0.04 for

alcohol (0.27%).

Table 5-1. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results

by Employee Category

Alcohol Drugs

Employee Category Number of

Screens

Number of

Results ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Revenue Vehicle

Operations

42,621 60 0.14% 73,840 1,122 1.52%

Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance

12,807 35 0.27% 21,784 356 1.63%

Revenue Vehicle

Control and Dispatch

3,834 3 0.08% 7,123 64 0.90%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle

2,179 3 0.14% 3,854 68 1.76%

Security and Armed

Guards

1,177 0 0.00% 1,746 10 0.57%

Totals 62,618 101 0.16% 108,322 1,620 1.50%

As shown in Table 5-2, contractors had a slightly higher percentage of random drug test positives

in four of the five employee categories. The one exception was for the CDL/non-revenue vehicle

category, where the percent positive for transit system specimens was 1.94 percent and for

contractors was 0.72 percent. This employee category was the highest percentage for transit

systems, but the highest percentage of positive specimens for contractors was revenue vehicle

operators at 1.92 percent. The percentage of alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 was lower for contractors

and transit systems. Both had less than 0.20 percent ≥ 0.04 out of the total number of tests. The

highest percentage of alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for transit systems was vehicle and equipment

maintenance personnel at 0.28 percent. The highest percentage of alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for

contractors was 0.39 percent for CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators, although this was only one

test result out of 257 tests.
1996 Annual Report 5-3

Table 5-2. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results

by Employer Type

Alcohol

Contractors Transit Systems

Employee Category Number of

Screens

Number ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screens

Number ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Revenue Vehicle

Operations

8,977 8 0.09% 33,644 52 0.15%

Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance

1,168 2 0.17% 11,639 33 0.28%

Revenue Vehicle

Control and Dispatch

687 1 0.15% 3,147 2 0.06%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle

257 1 0.39% 1,922 2 0.10%

Security and Armed

Guards

191 0 0.00% 986 0 0.00%

Totals 11,280 12 0.11% 51,338 89 0.17%

Drugs

Contractors Transit Systems

Employee Category Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Revenue Vehicle

Operations

16,078 308 1.92% 57,762 814 1.41%

Vehicle and Equipment

Maintenance

2,096 40 1.91% 19,688 316 1.61%

Revenue Vehicle

Control and Dispatch

1,193 18 1.51% 5,930 46 0.78%

CDL/Non-Revenue

Vehicle

558 4 0.72% 3,296 64 1.94%

Security and Armed

Guards

308 3 0.97% 1,438 7 0.49%

Totals 20,233 373 1.84% 88,114 1,247 1.42%

5.3 Results of Random Drug and Alcohol Tests by Operator Size

Both large and small operators averaged about 1.50 percent positive for all of the random

specimens collected for drugs, as presented in Table 5-3. Vehicle and equipment maintenance

personnel accounted for the highest percentage of random drug positives for small operators

(2.07%), while CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel had the highest percentage of random

positive drug tests for large operators (1.87%). The percentage of the total alcohol test results ≥

0.04 for large operators was only slightly higher (0.19%) than small operators (0.07%). Only

three of the five employee categories recorded alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for both types of

operators. Only CDL/non-revenue vehicle operators (0.37%), vehicle and equipment

maintenance (0.08%) and revenue vehicle operators (0.05%) reported alcohol test results ≥ 0.04

for small operators. Large operators reported alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 for vehicle and
1996 Annual Report 5-4

equipment maintenance (0.30%), revenue vehicle operators (0.17%) and revenue vehicle control

and dispatchers (0.11%).

Table 5-3. Comparison of 1996 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results

by Operator Size

Alcohol

Large Operator Small Operator

Employee Category Number of

Screens

Number ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Number of

Screens

Number ≥

0.04

Percent ≥

0.04

Revenue Vehicle Operations 31,497 54 0.17% 11,124 6 0.05%

Revenue Vehicle and

Equipment Maintenance

11,497 34 0.30% 1,310 1 0.08%

Revenue Vehicle Control and

Dispatch

2,657 3 0.11% 1,177 0 0.00%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 1,360 0 0.00% 819 3 0.37%

Armed Security Personnel 1,110 0 0.00% 67 0 0.00%

Totals 48,121 91 0.19% 14,497 10 0.07%

Drugs

Large Operator Small Operator

Employee Category Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Number of

Specimens

Number

Positive

Percent

Positive

Revenue Vehicle Operations 53,420 805 1.51% 20,420 317 1.55%

Revenue Vehicle and

Equipment Maintenance

19,509 309 1.58% 2,275 47 2.07%

Revenue Vehicle Control and

Dispatch

5,036 44 0.87% 2,087 20 0.96%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 2,355 44 1.87% 1,499 24 1.60%

Armed Security Personnel 1,661 9 0.54% 85 1 1.18%

Totals 81,981 1,211 1.48% 26,366 409 1.55%

5.4 Accidents That Resulted in a Positive Post-Accident Drug Test or an Alcohol Test

Result ≥ 0.04

Transit systems and contractors were required by the FTA to report the number of accidents that

resulted in a positive post-accident drug test and/or an alcohol test result ≥ 0.04 and data on postaccident testing of employees involved in both fatal and non-fatal accidents. There were 239

accidents reported that resulted in positive post-accident drug tests. One of these accidents was

fatal. The fatal accident with a positive post-accident drug test caused a single fatality. All of the

18 accidents resulting in post-accident alcohol tests with results ≥ 0.04 were non-fatal.

5.5 Pre-Employment Positions Denied

All employees performing safety-sensitive functions are required to pass a pre-employment drug

test before beginning employment. According to FTA regulations, employers were no longer

required to administer pre-employment alcohol tests as of May 10, 1995. However, some

employers continued to conduct the tests in 1996 despite the repeal of the testing regulation.
1996 Annual Report 5-5

Because pre-employment alcohol testing was not a requirement in 1996, the data that were

submitted voluntarily cannot be considered a dependable representation of the industry as a

whole, and those results are not reported here.

The reported pre-employment drug testing results indicate that employers consistently denied

prospective employees safety-sensitive positions when they tested positive for drugs as presented

in Figure 5-2. Prospective employees testing positive for drugs were denied a position 93.89

percent of the time. It is assumed that the 109 employees who tested positive for drugs on preemployment tests but who were not denied employment were subsequently administered another

pre-employment drug test with a negative test result.

1392

1283

0

400

800

1200

1600

Number Positive Number Denied

Figure 5-2. Applicants Denied Positions After a Positive Pre-Employment

Drug Test in 1996

5.6 Employees Who Tested Positive for Drugs and had an Alcohol Test Result ≥ 0.04

Employers were required to provide the FTA with the number of employees who tested positive

for drugs and had an alcohol test result ≥ 0.04 at the same time. A total of 12 employers

(including transit systems and contractors) reported that they had a total of 24 employees who

tested positive for drugs and had an alcohol test result of ≥ 0.04 at the same time.
1996 Annual Report 6-1

6. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM 1995 TO 1996

This chapter compares the results of drug and alcohol testing conducted by all of those operators

who reported in 1995 and 1996. Note that in 1995 only large operators (those operating in areas

with populations of over 200,000) were required to report; a total of 548 individual employers

did so. In 1996, both large operators and small operators (those operating in areas with

populations of under 200,000) were required to report; a total of 2,287 individual employers

submitted forms.

6.1 Random Drug and Alcohol Test Results (1995 - 1996)

In 1995, the overall percent of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 was 0.17 percent. In 1996, the

overall percent of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 was 0.16 percent. This change reflects a

decrease of nearly 6 percent in the overall rate of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04. In 1995, the

violation rate was 0.24 percent. The violation rate is the number of random alcohol test results ≥

0.04 plus the number of participants who refused a random test divided by the total number of

random tests plus the number of participants who refused a random test. In 1996, that figure

dropped to 0.21 percent, nearly a 13 percent decrease.

For drug testing, the overall percent of positive random test results was 1.73 percent in 1995, as

compared to 1.50 percent in 1996. This change reflects a decrease of 13 percent in the overall

rate of positive random drug test results. For transit systems, the random rate in 1995 was 1.69

percent for positive drug test results and 0.18 percent for alcohol test results at ≥ 0.04. In 1996,

the random rate for transit systems was 1.42 percent for positive drug test results and 0.17

percent for alcohol test results ≥ 0.04. This change reflects a decrease of nearly 16 percent in the

rate of positive random drug test results and a decrease of nearly 6 percent in the rate of random

alcohol test results ≥ 0.04. In 1995, the random positive rate for contractors was 2.02 percent for

drug testing and 0.06 percent for alcohol testing. In 1996, the random positive rate for

contractors was 1.84 percent for drug testing and 0.11 percent for alcohol testing. This change

reflects a decrease of 0.18 percent in the rate of positive random drug test results, and an increase

of 0.05 percent in the rate of positive random alcohol test results. In analyzing these results, it

must be noted that the individual contractors who report their results may change from year to

year.

6.2 Random Drug Test Results by Employee Category (1995 - 1996)

In 1996, the positive random drug test result rate was within 0.40 percentage points of the 1995

rate for all five employee categories. The positive random drug test result rate decreased in four

of the five employee categories. The CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel category showed an

increase over the 1995 positive random drug test result rate of 0.22 percentage points. Of the

remaining employee categories, the percentage point difference (1995 vs. 1996) is greatest in the

revenue vehicle and equipment maintenance category (-0.40%) and smallest in the armed security

personnel category (-0.04%), as illustrated in Table 6-1.
1996 Annual Report 6-2

Table 6-1. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results

 for 1995 and 1996

Percent Positive Percent Change Employee Category 1995 1996 1995-1996

Revenue Vehicle Operation 1.71% 1.52% -11.11%

Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 2.04% 1.63% -20.10%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 1.19% 0.90% -24.37%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 1.55% 1.76% 13.55%

Armed Security Personnel 0.61% 0.57% -6.56%

6.3 Random Alcohol Test Results by Employee Category (1995 - 1996)

For random alcohol testing, the change between the 1995 and 1996 rate of random alcohol test

results ≥ 0.04 was less than 0.10 percentage points for all five employee categories. In three of

the five employee categories, the rate of random alcohol test results ≥ 0.04 decreased, and in one

category (revenue vehicle operation) the rate of random alcohol tests ≥ 0.04 was unchanged.

The two categories which reflected increases over the 1995 random alcohol test result rate were

the revenue vehicle control/dispatch and CDL/non-revenue vehicle personnel categories. These

categories reflected increases of 0.04 percent and 0.07 percent, respectively. Note that the

CDL/non-revenue vehicle category showed an increase for both random alcohol and random

drug testing in 1996. Of the remaining employee categories, the percentage point difference

(1995 vs. 1996) is highest in the armed security personnel category (-0.08), as illustrated in Table

6-2.

Table 6-2. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04

for 1995 and 1996

Percent Positive Percent Change

Employee Category 1995 1996 1995-1996

Revenue Vehicle Operation 0.14% 0.14% 0.00%

Revenue Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 0.31% 0.27% -11.04%

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch 0.04% 0.08% 114.16%

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle 0.07% 0.14% 103.07%

Armed Security Personnel 0.08% 0.00% -100.00%
1996 Annual Report 6-3

6.4 Accidents that Resulted in a Positive Post-Accident Alcohol Test Result ≥ 0.04 (1995 -

1996)

In 1995, a total of 13 accidents were reported which resulted in a post-accident alcohol test result

≥ 0.04. These positive test results were found exclusively within transit systems, and accounted

for 0.20 percent of all post-accident tests administered. In 1996, a total of 18 accidents were

reported that resulted in a post-accident alcohol test result ≥ 0.04. Of these, 15 were reported by

transit systems and 3 were reported by contractors. The total percent of post-accident alcohol

tests with a result ≥ 0.04 in 1996 was 0.14 percent. This result indicates an overall decrease of

0.06 percentage points as compared to the 1995 data. For post-accident drug testing, 147

accidents were reported in 1995 which resulted in a positive post-accident drug test. Of those

accidents, 125 were reported by transit systems, and 22 were reported by contractors. The total

percent positive for post-accident drug testing in 1995 was 2.17 percent. In 1996, 239 accidents

were reported that resulted in a positive post-accident drug test. Of those, 166 were reported by

transit systems and 73 were reported by contractors. The total percent positive for post-accident

drug testing in 1996 was 2.09 percent. This result reflects an overall decrease of 0.08 percentage

points over the 1995 results for post-accident drug tests.

6.5 Changes in the Rate of Positive Random Test Results by FTA Region

(1995 -1996)

The rate of positive random drug tests decreased from 1995 to 1996 in eight of the ten FTA

regions. In regions 1 and 4, the positive random drug test result rate increased by 0.20 and 0.10

percentage points, respectively. Of the eight regions to show a decrease, the greatest percentage

point difference was in region 7, which decreased by 0.70 percentage points in 1996. The

smallest percentage point difference was in region 10, which decreased by 0.08 percentage

points in 1996. All of the remaining regions showed decreases of between 0.15 and 0.56

percentage points, as shown in Figure 6-1.

For random alcohol testing, 6 of the 10 FTA regions showed an increase in the rate of test results

≥ 0.04, although none showed an increase of greater than 0.16 percentage points. Of the four

remaining FTA regions, three (regions 3, 5, and 7) showed a decrease in the rate of random

alcohol test results ≥ 0.04, and one (region 9) showed no change. Of the three regions showing a

decrease, the greatest percentage point difference was reported in region 7, which decreased by

0.40 percentage points. The smallest percentage point difference was reported in region 5, which

decreased by 0.03 percentage points, as shown in Figure 6-2.
1996 Annual Report 6-4

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FTA Region

Percent Positive

1995

1996

Figure 6-1. Comparison of Positive Random Drug Test Results

by FTA Region for 1995 and 1996

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

0.45%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FTA Region

Percent Positive

1995

1996

Figure 6-2. Comparison of Random Alcohol Test Results ≥ 0.04

by FTA Region for 1995 and 1996
1996 Annual Report A-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS
1996 Annual Report A-2

GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS

CDL/Non-Revenue Vehicle: Job category including any transit employee who holds a

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and performs a function requiring a CDL and who is not

included in any other job category.

Confirmation Test: Performed if the results of an alcohol screening test are equal to or greater

than 0.02.

Contractor: A person or organization that provides a service for a recipient, subrecipient,

employer, or operator consistent with a specific understanding or arrangement. The

understanding can be a written contract or an informal arrangement that reflects an ongoing

relationship between the parties.

Covered employee: A person, including an applicant, transferee, and certain volunteers,who

perform a safety-sensitive function for a recipient, subrecipient, employer, or operator.

Employer: A recipient or other entity that provides mass transportation services or which

performs a safety-sensitive function for such recipient or other entity. This term includes

subrecipients, operators, and contractors.

Follow-up Test: Required of employees who returned to duty in a safety-sensitive position

following a positive drug test result or an alcohol test result of ≥ 0.04. A minimum of six tests

must be performed during the first 12 months after the employee returned to duty.

Large Operator: A recipient or subrecipient primarily operating in an area of 200,000 or more

in population.

Post-Accident Testing: Required for prohibited drugs and alcohol following certain mass

transit accidents. These include when an individual dies, medical treatment away from the scene

is required, or those in which one or more of the vehicles involved incurs disabling damage.

Pre-Employment Testing: Identifies applicants who have consumed a prohibited drug in the

recent past. Employers are prohibited from hiring an applicant for a safety-sensitive function

unless they have a verified negative drug test.

Random Testing: Identifies employees who are using drugs or misusing alcohol by using an

unpredictable and unannounced testing pattern. Drug tests equal to 50 percent of the total

number of safety-sensitive employees and alcohol tests equal to 25 percent of the total number of

safety-sensitive employees must be conducted each year by this method.

Reasonable Suspicion Testing: Required when an employer has reasonable suspicion that an

employee has used a prohibited drug or has misused alcohol as defined in the regulations.

Reasonable suspicion testing must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable
1996 Annual Report A-3

observations made by a trained supervisor concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body

odor of a safety-sensitive employee.

Recipient: An entity receiving Federal financial assistance under Section 5307, 5309, or 5311

of the Federal Transit Act or under sections 103(e)(4) of title 23 of the U.S. Code.

Return-to-Duty Testing: Required before any employee is allowed to return to duty to perform

a safety-sensitive function following a verified positive drug test, an alcohol result of 0.04 or

greater, a refusal to submit to a test, or any other activity that violates the regulation.

Revenue Vehicle Control and Dispatch: Job function including any person who controls the

movement of revenue service vehicles. 

Revenue Vehicle Operations: Function including any person who operates or works as a

crewman on revenue service vehicles at any time.

Safety-Sensitive Function: Any of the following duties:

• Operating a revenue service vehicle, including when not in revenue service

• Operating a non-revenue service vehicle, when required to be operated by a holder of

Commercial Driver’s License

• Controlling dispatch or movement of a revenue service vehicle

• Maintaining a revenue service vehicle or equipment used in revenue service, unless the

recipient receives section 5311 funding and contracts out such services

• Carrying a firearm for security purposes.

Screening Test: Initial test that determines the level of alcohol in an employee's system.

Security and Armed Guards: Function including any person who provides security to protect

persons or property and who carries a firearm.

Small Operator: A recipient or subrecipient primarily operating in an area of less than 200,000

in population.

Transit System: The public entity that receives the Federal grant (direct grant recipient),

whether or not that recipient provides mass transit services directly.

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance: Function including any person repairing or maintaining

revenue service vehicles or other equipment used in revenue service.

Verified Negative (drug test result): A drug test result reviewed by a medical review officer

and determined to have no evidence of prohibited drug use.

Verified Positive (drug test result): A drug test result reviewed by a medical review officer

and determined to have evidence of prohibited drug use.
1996 Annual Report C-1

APPENDIX C

FTA REGIONS
1996 Annual Report C-2

FTA Regions

The Federal Transit Administration comprises the 10 regions identified below. The data

provided by these regions has facilitated the comparison of drug and alcohol test results and the

identification of regional trends and patterns.

U.S. States and Territories Reporting to the 10 FTA Regions

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

New Jersey

New York

Puerto Rico

Virgin

Islands

Delaware

District of

 Columbia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Ohio

Wisconsin

Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10

Arkansas

Louisiana

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

Kansas

Missouri

Nebraska

Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming

American Samoa

Arizona

California

Guam

Hawaii

Nevada

Northern Mariana

Islands

Alaska

Idaho

Oregon

Washington
1996 Annual Report B-1

APPENDIX B

MIS DATA COLLECTION FORMS