Source: http://alanarmstronglaw.com/survival-guide-faa-drug-testing/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:23:13+00:00

Document:
Drug testing is the bane of pilots and mechanics. According to 14 C.F.R. §120.107, “Each employer shall test each employee who performs a safety-sensitive function for evidence of Marijuana, Cocaine, Opiates, Phencyclidine (PCP), and Amphetamines during each test required by §120.109.” Drug testing of airmen is intrusive as the airman confronts a Sample Collector who directs the airman to urinate in a bottle. While a nuisance to all, an improperly administered drug test can be a career terminating event. For that reason, it is worthwhile considering the rules that apply to drug testing.
The training requirements for a Department of Transportation Sample Collector are fairly rudimentary. The Sample Collector receives some basic training and then undergoes five consecutive error-free mock collections.Among the five mock collection scenarios, a Collection Sample Trainee must experience and successfully pass, two involve uneventful collections1, one involves an insufficient quantity of urine, one involves an out-of-range temperature scenario, and one involves a refusal of the employee to sign the Custody Collection Form (CCF).2 In any case, the ability of a high school graduate to properly comply with the procedures and protocols for drug testing may determine your fate and your career as an airman.
He used the bottles and presented the specimens to Jordan.
How the contaminant got into the particular samples given by the respondent is not something I need to resolve here. The question is whether or not this test was performed in a way which would preclude a reasonable probability that the adulterant could have been introduced in a manner other than by the respondent. The burden of proof on that, I believe, rests with the government. Again, it’s not up to the respondent to explain how it got there. He says that he did not know.
And that, I think, is significant.
In paragraph 4 of the complaint it alleges that the respondent knew that the sample had been adulterated. The contravening evidence from the respondent and Mr. Simmons and Mr. Drews was that the collection process was done in a manner which left the collection process susceptible to the introduction of a contaminant by means other than the respondent. The burden is on the complainant to show that the respondent knew it had been adulterated.
The circumstances here and the evidence lead me to feel that the more credible evidence rests on the side of the respondent and that I would find on that basis that the testing procedure, collection procedure, was done by Mr. Jordan on September 22nd at the end of a busy day at about 5:00 may have been speeded up and done in the manner as testified to by the respondent and the two witnesses called by the respondent and, therefore, the respondent has raised sufficient doubt as to preclude a finding on a preponderance of the evidence that he knew that an adulterant had been placed in the sample or that he in fact placed the adulterant there.
There is sufficient doubt raised by the evidence in front of me that the manner in which the samples were collected on that particular day left the collection process open to the reasonable inference that a soap adulterant could be introduced into the bottles in a manner other than a knowing placing there by respondent.
The Complainant (FAA) simply has not sustained his burden of proof by a preponderance of the reliable evidence that the respondent knew the urine sample was adulterated by the placing of a surfactant into that sample.
In light of the Board’s pronouncement in Peterson, the airman will be well-advised to make himself conversant with the procedures to be followed in a drug testing setting and note any departures from drug testing protocols in the administration of the test by the Sample Collector.
The definition of refusal incorporates 49 C.F.R. §40.191 which says that an airman has refused to submit to a drug test when he “fail(s) to provide a sufficient amount of urine when directed, and it has been determined, through a required medical evaluation, that there was no adequate medical explanation for the failure. (See §40.193(d)(2)).”57 The regulations require the airman provide 45mL of urine.58 If the airman fails to provide 45mL of urine, he has thereby “engaged in conduct” that constitutes a “refusal” unless there is an adequate medical explanation for the failure. To be clear, an airman who cannot provide a 45mL sample of urine within three hours has refused the drug test unless there is an adequate medical explanation for the failure. A refusal to submit to the drug test can result in revocation of the airman’s certificate.
The Sample Collector is instructed by the regulation to discard any sample that is less than 45mL unless the specimen is out of the temperature range or evidences signs of tampering.59 In other words, a sample that could prove the airman is not under the influence of drugs must be destroyed in order that the FAA can bring charges claiming that he refused to submit to a drug test because he could not urinate on command. However, if the sample is inadequate in volume, it is still preserved if it may evidence deceptive conduct on the part of the airman. This policy and procedure is calculated to disarm the airman in the event of a challenge to drug testing based upon the shy bladder rule and deprive him of necessary exculpatory evidence which suggests a significant due process challenge to the regulations under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why would the FAA direct a Sample Collector to discard a sample that may prove the airman had no drugs in his system? The intent of the regulation is clear, to deprive airmen of the ability to defend themselves in shy bladder cases if they cannot provide a 45mL specimen of urine within three hours.
In order to appreciate the intrusive nature of drug testing, the airman must appreciate that in the event the urine specimen he provides is outside of the acceptable range, then the Sample Collector is required to engage in direct observation, that is, actually observe the airman urinate.60 Then, the original specimen that was out of temperature range and the new specimen are sent to the laboratory for analysis.61 In those situations where the initial specimen is out of temperature range, even though the specimen is of insufficient volume (less than 45mL), the FAA requires that the original specimen be maintained so that the original out of temperature range and the subsequent specimen can be dispatched to the laboratory together.62 The fact that a sample that was out of temperature and is inadequate in volume is dispatched to the laboratory while a benign sample with inadequate volume is discarded is further proof of the FAA’s intent to deprive the airmen of exculpatory evidence to prove they did not have drugs in their system, simply because they could not provide a 45mL sample of urine.
The protocols to be followed in the event of a shy bladder are set forth in 49 C.F.R.
§40.193. Not surprisingly, §40.193(a) like §40.65(a), requires the airman to provide a sample of 45mL of urine. Similarly, §40.193(b) requires that the Sample Collector discard a specimen of less than 45mL “except where the insufficient specimen was out of temperature range or showed evidence of adulteration or tampering…”64 The language in §40.193(b)(1) requiring the Sample Collector to discard a specimen of insufficient quantity unless it is incriminating is essentially the same language that appears in §40.65(a)(2). So, the FAA has made it clear time and time again that if the sample might exonerate the pilot it will be destroyed. Conversely, if the sample will or may incriminate the pilot, the evidence is to be preserved. This is not an innocent or unforeseen mistake on the part of the FAA in promulgating its drug testing rules.
If the employee refuses to make the attempt to provide a new urine specimen or leaves the collection site before the collection process is complete, you (the Sample Collector) must discontinue the collection, note the fact on the “Remarks Line of the CCF (Step 2), and immediately notify the DER (Designated Employee Representative). This is a refusal to test.
If the employee has not provided a sufficient specimen within three hours of the first unsuccessful attempt to provide the specimen, you must discontinue the collection, note the “Remarks” line of the CCF (Step 2), and immediately notify the DER.
First of all, “medical conditions” are not defined anywhere in these regulations. Secondly, it is common knowledge that dehydration can result in an inability to urinate. It is also common knowledge that some people may feel social pressure or uncomfortable in situations where they have to urinate quickly in response to the command of a Sample Collector. For example, paruresis is a recognized medical condition in which certain people cannot urinate in social settings or under social pressures. Even though paruresis is a “medical condition,” according to the regulation “unsupported assertions of ‘situation anxiety’ or dehydration” are insufficient to lead the MRO or referral physician to conclude that the airman did not refuse the drug test.
These dictates by the FAA in promulgating the regulation virtually command the MRO and the referral physician to find that an airman refused a DOT drug test if he could not produce 45mL of urine within three hours.
Anyone reading these regulations can reach the conclusion that this is not a truth-seeking evaluation process. The MRO is not required to refer the airman to an urologist. There is nothing requiring the airman to undergo a cystoscopy. This is, with all due respect, merely eyewash that allows the FAA to terminate the career of an airman who cannot provide a 45mL sample of urine within three hours unless the airman has a medical condition, an ascertainable physiological condition, or a pre-existing psychological disorder.76 Thankfully, as we shall see shortly, the courts have provided an element of rationality in enforcing these overbearing and fundamentally unfair regulations and provided some level of reason in cases involving allegations made by the FAA that the airman “refused” a drug test.
This case is not controlled by a strict liability standard, so his knowledge of the statute is something that I may consider. I found the testimony of the Respondent to be credible. I do not believe he was told not to leave the test site by Ms. Ebersol and the training he received at Net Jets certainly did not inform him of that prohibition.
As to the case law cited by the parties in this case, none of the cases cited stand for the proposition that the Administrator is asking me to follow, that I need only look to the regulation as to whether or not the respondent is aware of the regulation and whether he complied with it. The Administrator’s argument is that the regulation trumps all testing procedure, training, policy, and what should be controlling, of course, is the regulation. Again, it appears to me that that is asking me to apply a strict standard of liability in this case. The case law does not support that.
The majority of cases cited deal with testing procedure. Specifically, the case most on point is a decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the case of Pasternak v. NTSB, which dealt with the issue of whether a collector had specifically informed, in case this case Dr. Pasternak, that his departure from the testing facility would be deemed a refusal. The discussion of what information was provided by the collector to Dr. Pasternak is discussed at length. It is an important issue certainly for the appeal. It was an important issue for the ALJ in the case. It is an important for the National Transportation Safety Board when they reviewed the ALJ decision.
The case has been remanded to the NTSB for further proceedings relative to credibility findings by the Administrative Law Judge. While the court noted in its decision that 49 C.F.R. §40.191(a)(2) may be a strict liability provision, it does not make that finding. I do not know of any other case in which the Board finds 40.191(a)(2) to be a strict liability standard.
The airman appealed the initial decision of Judge Pope asserting two challenges. First, the airman asserted that Judge Pope failed to afford any weight to the hair analysis evidence. Secondly, the airman maintained that the urine tests were in error. In response to the first argument, the Board noted that Judge Pope did not ignore all the evidence on hair testing.
The law judge simply concluded (correctly, in our judgment) that the negative hair analysis results did not disprove the positive results of the urine test.
The factual circumstances respondent cites do not disprove the positive urine test results nor does his suggestion that hydraulic fluid could be to blame for the positive results. It was not, as respondent claims, “incumbent on the FAA to produce scientific evidence showing that hydraulic fluid cannot adulterate urine to make it appear to obtain cocaine.” To the contrary, a respondent has the burden of proving an affirmative defense. He presented no scientific or medical evidence to support his theory, nor did he even properly notify the Administrator of this defense by including it (or any other theory pertaining to adulterants) in his answer to the Administrator’s complaint or in his pre-trial discovery responses.
Today, with the Pilots Bill of Rights, Dr. Keller would not be allowed to testify about what some unknown scientist at One Source Laboratory told him about whether PABA or hydraulic fluid could have caused a positive test result, because such testimony is hearsay. With the adoption of the Pilots Bill of Rights making the Federal Rules of Evidence applicable to aviation safety proceedings, upon a proper objection, the testimony about what Dr. Keller learned from an unspecified scientist at One Source Laboratory would have been excluded as an out of court statement, not under oath, offered in the court for the truth of the matter asserted therein. See Rule 801(c), Federal Rules of Evidence. In any event, it is clear from the Board’s pronouncement that an airman asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving medical or scientific evidence that would support that defense. In light of the foregoing, the NTSB affirmed the decision of Judge Pope revoking the airman’s airline transport pilot’s certificate and his medical certificate.
Taylor indicates that an airman relying upon a hair test result may employ it as part of his affirmative defense. However, because the scientific testimony in Taylor indicated that a hair sample test may not detect a single instance of drug use, the judge may be inclined to grant more weight to the urine test than the hair sample test as was the case involving Judge Pope in Taylor.
The cases and authorities discussed in this article demonstrate the troubling and perplexing nature of drug testing in drug testing and litigation. In order to overcome the FAA’s order of revocation, Dr. Pasternak had to expend considerable resources including two appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. During his first appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned the NTSB decision because the Board affirmed a finding he had refused a drug test when there was no evidence the Sample Collector told Dr. Pasternak leaving the facility would be deemed a refusal to test. On the second appeal by Pasternak to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Court again reversed the NTSB because the FAA conceded that leaving a drug testing facility with permission does not constitute a refusal to test.
Tullos, like Pasternak involved the question of whether the Sample Collector had told the airman that if he left the facility, it would be considered a refusal to test. Although the Sample Collector told Ms. Snyder the Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager at Net Jets that she did tell Tullos if he left the facility it would be a refusal to test, she contradicted herself and admitted she did not recall telling Tullos he could not leave the lobby or the building.
Both Pasternak and Tullos involve situations where the airman left the drug testing facility. One may wish to ponder how the NTSB would decide a case if the airman remained at the facility for three hours and could not provide a 45mL sample of urine.
Taylor indicates that airmen may employ a hair test result as an affirmative defense in a charge brought by the FAA that illegal drugs were in the airman’s system. However, the science may militate against the weight of hair testing as opposed to urine testing to the extent that a single instance of using illegal drugs may not appear on a hair sample test.
You have the right to request the Sample Collector provide his or her identification. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(d).
The Sample Collector is required to explain the collection procedures including showing you the instructions on the back of the Custody Control Form (CCF). 49 C.F.R. §40.61(e).
Once you enter the collection site, the testing process should commence without undue delay. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(b).
The Sample Collector must instruct you to wash and dry your hands before the testing commences. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(b).
Collector must tell you that you cannot wash your hands again until after delivering the specimen. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(b).
Collector is required to tell you that you (1) must provide a 45mL sample of urine, (2) not to flush the toilet, and (3) to return the specimen to the Collector as soon as the voiding process has been completed. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d).
Generally, the Collector is not allowed to go into the restroom with you. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d)(1).
Collector may set a reasonable time for the voiding. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d)(2).
Remain at the drug testing facility until the drug testing process is complete. Until then, do not leave the drug testing facility. 49 C.F.R. §40.191(a)(2).
While hair testing samples may be admissible in evidence, because hair testing may not reveal a single instance of illicit drug use, the judge may give more weight to the urine test than the hair sample test. Administrator v. Taylor, supra.
If the airman can demonstrate that the Sample Collector failed to follow proper protocols and procedures, the Court may consider the drug test results unreliable allowing the airman to prevail. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.
In the event you observe irregularities in the testing process, make a note of them and keep them for future reference. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.Hopefully, the contents of this article will allow airmen and their counsel to achieve just and informed outcomes in litigation brought by the FAA asserting the airman refused to submit to or failed a drug test.
Administrator v. Todd S. Petersen, 1995WL623847 (N.T.S.B.), NTSB Docket No. SE-14007 (hereinafter “Petersen I”).
Todd Petersen v. Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 1995WL702463 (N.T.S.B.), NTSB Docket No.222-EAJA-SE-14007 (July 18, 1995) (hereinafter “Petersen II”).
Todd S. Petersen v. David R. Hinson, Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, NTSB EA-4490 (N.T.S.B.), 1996WL61633 (hereinafter “Petersen III”).
Pasternak v. National Transportation Safety Board, 596 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“hereinafter “Pasternak”).
Pasternak v. Huerta, 513 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (hereinafter “Pasternak II”).
Administrator v. Tullos, 2011WL6849855 (N.T.S.B.), NTSB Docket No. SE-19196 (November 30, 2011) (hereinafter “Tullos”).
Administrator v. Taylor, NTSB Order No. EA-5132 (January 19, 2005) (hereinafter “Taylor”).
146 Id. at 8,9 .

References: §120
 §120
 §40
 §40

§40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 v. 
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 §40
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.