Opinion ID: 2588282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: administration of breath test program (chapter 448-13 wac)

Text: The State Toxicologist has the delegated authority to designate proper methods for the breath test program. [41] These procedures are found in several WAC provisions relating to the use and proper functioning of BAC Verifier DataMaster equipment. [42] One set of requirements relates to the breath test protocol of procedures covering the proper administration of the breath test (WAC 448-13-040), ensuring the accuracy of the BAC Verifier DataMaster test results by adherence to specific testing procedures (WAC 448-13-050), preventing interference with the test (WAC 448-13-055), and validating and certifying test results (WAC 448-13-060). Another group relates to a quality assurance program (QAP) designed by the State Toxicologist to ensure the DataMasters are maintained in proper working order on a regular basis. [43] Under the breath test procedures protocol, WAC 448-13-060, which the State Toxicologist, Dr. Barry K. Logan, Ph. D., amended by emergency order dated April 20, 2001, [44] establishes the requirements to be satisfied in order that a breath test will be considered valid. WAC 448-13-060 provides, in part, that: A [breath] test shall be a valid test and so certified, if the requirements of WAC 448-13-040, XXX-XX-XXX and XXX-XX-XXX are met, and in addition the following criteria for precision and accuracy, as determined solely from the breath test document, are met: .... If these criteria are met, then these and no other factors are necessary to indicate the proper working order of the instrument, and so certify it, at the time of the breath test. (5) These criteria have changed over time, and the criteria applied to determine the validity of any test and so certify it, should be those provisions of the Washington Administrative Code in effect at the time the test is administered. (Emphasis added.) Both the former and current administrative regulation relating to the validity of a breath test, WAC 448-13-040, discuss the requisite method for performing a breath test. This provision provides several safeguards that must be observed by the operator before a BAC Verifier DataMaster test is performed, including that: (1) The person does not vomit or have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least fifteen minutes prior to administration of the test; and (2) the subject does not have any foreign substances, not to include dental work, fixed or removable, in his or her mouth at the beginning of the fifteen minute observation period.... Former WAC 448-13-040 also provided that: The temperature of the solution in the simulator prior to the start of the test must be thirty-four degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.2 degrees centigrade. During the test the person will be required to provide at least two valid breath samples. A refusal to provide a valid breath sample at any point during the test will constitute a refusal. The results of the test will be provided in the form of a printout on a breath test document. These results will indicate the grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. (Emphasis added.) On April 20, 2001 the Washington State Toxicologist amended WAC 448-13-040 and promulgated a new emergency rule regarding the simulator thermometer certification, WAC 448-13-035. WAC 448-13-040 was amended to read: Prior to the start of the test the operator must verify that the thermometer, certified per WAC 448-13-035, indicates that the temperature of the simulator solution is thirty-four degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.3 degrees centigrade. (Emphasis added.) The newly promulgated rule, WAC 448-13-035, states: The ability of the simulator to provide a reference ethanol vapor concentration is a function of its temperature. The thermometers used in the simulators shall be certified on an annual basis to have an accuracy of within plus or minus 0.1 degree centigrade. Such certification shall be made using a reference thermometer traceable to standards maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST), or its successor. In his Emergency Rule Making Order, the State Toxicologist indicated the reasons for the changes: Judges in Renton District Court and Bellevue Municipal Court have ruled that the thermometers used in the simulators on breath test instruments do not have sufficient accuracy to meet the existing WAC standard of thirty four degrees plus or minus 0.2 degrees centigrade, which impacts the admissibility of the breath test result. Other courts may follow suit. All parties have stipulated that the limitations of the thermometers do not affect the accuracy of the results of the breath test. In light of the ruling from Renton, the acceptable variance specified in the WAC for the temperature of the simulator at the time of the test is being expanded to be plus or minus 0.3 degrees centigrade. This permits the continued use of the current instrument standard of plus or minus 0.2 degrees centigrade at the time of the test, and recognizes the limits of accuracy of the thermometer. An additional provision requires the thermometers to be certified at least annually.[ [45] ] These provisions are intended to address the concerns of the courts on the admissibility of breath alcohol test results, and to permit all future tests to be considered as evidence provided they meet these and existing requirements of the administrative code. (Emphasis added.) Respondent Cannon contends that, because of the changes to WAC 448-13-040 and the promulgation of WAC 448-13-035, the DOL had an obligation to introduce evidence relating to certification of the thermometer in the BAC Verifier DataMaster machine. Petitioner Washington State argues that such a showing is not necessary. The State argues that it need not comply with the regulation in order to establish a valid breath test because the thermometer certification program is not a substantive requirement. In this State `[r]ules of statutory construction apply to administrative rules and regulations, particularly where ... they are adopted pursuant to express legislative authority.' [46] Under rules of statutory construction, this court interprets a WAC provision to ascertain and give effect to its underlying policy and intent. To determine that intent, the court looks first to the language of the provision. If an administrative rule or regulation is clear on its face, its meaning is to be derived from the plain language of the provision alone. [47] Like a statute, an administrative rule or regulation is unclear if it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way; however, it is not ambiguous simply because different interpretations are conceivable. [48] This court is not obliged to discern any ambiguity by imagining a variety of alternative interpretations. [49] Rules and regulations are to be given a rational, sensible interpretation. [50] An unambiguous rule or regulation is not subject to judicial construction. [51] Administrative rules and regulations are interpreted as a whole, giving effect to all the language and harmonizing all provisions. [52] This court will not add to or subtract from the clear language of a statute, rule, or regulation even if it believes the Legislature, or in this case, the State Toxicologist, intended something else but did not adequately express it [53] unless the addition or subtraction of language is imperatively required to make the statute rational. [54] This court will avoid a literal reading of a provision if it would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. [55] If an administrative rule or regulation is ambiguous, this court resorts to principles of statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law to assist in interpreting it. [56] The court must construe an ambiguous rule or regulation to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, or in this case, the State Toxicologist. [57] In construing an ambiguous provision, courts may not read into it matters that are not in it [58] and may not create legislation or promulgate rules under the guise of interpreting a provision. [59] To be considered valid, the entire breath test must be performed by following the requirements of WAC 448-13-060. Under that provision, to admit a breath test the State must prove it complied with WAC 448-13-040, 050,055, as well as with the criteria listed in WAC 448-13-060. Petitioner's argument is inconsistent with the clear language of WAC 448-13-040. On its face, that section is not ambiguous and there is no need for judicial interpretation beyond its plain language. The plain language of that provision, which incorporates the simulator thermometer certification under WAC 448-13-035 by reference, specifies several safeguards that must be observed by the operator before a BAC Verifier DataMaster test is performed. Verifying that the thermometer is certified under WAC 448-13-035 is simply a new safeguard the State Toxicologist found necessary to add to the obligatory language of WAC 448-13-040. The language of WAC 448-13-040 is mandatory. Because WAC 448-13-035 includes language concerning certification of the thermometer, its requirement must be proven by the State in order to sustain a valid breath test. That the simulator thermometer must meet certain requirements is no different from the other requirements listed in WAC 448-13-040 that must be met in order for a breath test to be valid. This court has stated that [t]he ultimate concern of the judiciary is that the methods approved result in an accurate test, competently administered, so that a defendant is assured that the test results do in fact reflect a reliable and accurate measure of his or her breath content. [60]