HAPPY NEW YEAR

With the New Year upon us, the C-DATA staff is looking optimistically towards 2007. We continue to grow our business through service and 2007 is looking even better than 2006. We have received the majority of our client renewals back and have experienced continued growth in and out of the state. Based on the feed-back we have received from referral inquiries, we would have to attribute this success largely to the fact that C-DATA has developed a reputation as one of only a few TPA/Consortiums that offers a complete administrative program with comprehensive educational materials and outstanding customer service – all at an affordable price. Service means going the extra mile, we are committed to staying on the cutting edge of issues involving both substance abuse treatment and state/federal regulations and enforcement affecting commercial transportation companies.

We are excited about the prospect of implementing additional software services this year for convenient, user friendly web access to not only our forms, but for individual companies to have 24/7 access to their company information. We have also added additional programs that provide direct links to employee background checks and even discussing cooperative developments with an industry human resources software module that integrates with existing transportation dispatch software.

Our dedicated staff again looks forward to the opportunity to be of service to our existing and new clients and the industry in 2007.

When an Employee/Donor is Unable to Provide
A Sufficient Amount of Breath for an Alcohol Test

49 CFR, Part 40.265(c). As the employer, when the Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) or Screening Test Technician (STT) informs you that the employee has not provided a sufficient amount of breath, you must direct the employee to obtain, within five days, an evaluation from a licensed physician who is acceptable to you and who has expertise in the medical issues raised by the employee’s failure to provide a sufficient specimen.

You are required to provide the physician who will conduct the evaluation with the following information and instructions:

• That the employee was required to take a DOT breath alcohol test, but was unable to provide a sufficient amount of breath to complete the test.
  
• The consequences of the appropriate DOT agency regulation for refusing to take the required alcohol test.
  
• That the physician must provide you with a signed statement of his or her conclusions.
  
• That the physician, in his or her reasonable medical judgment, must base those conclusions on one of the following determinations:
  • A medical condition has, or with a high degree of probability could have, precluded the employee from providing a sufficient amount of breath. The physician must not include in the signed statement detailed information on the employee’s medical condition. In this case, the test is cancelled.
    
  • There is not an adequate basis for determining that a medical condition has, or with a high degree of probability could have, precluded the employee from providing a sufficient amount of breath. This constitutes a refusal to test.

Upon receipt of the report from the examining physician, as the DER you must immediately inform the employee and take appropriate action based upon your DOT agency regulations.

This also applies to the owner/operator who is acting as both the employer and employee regarding DOT drug and alcohol compliance.

U.S. DOT Releases 2005 State-by-State Data
on Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities; Statistics
Underscore Drunk Driving is Deadliest of Crimes

Coordinated Enforcement Crackdown & First-Ever
Holiday Advertising Blitz Underway Nationally

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters released new state-by-state data for 2005 showing that alcohol-impaired driving remains one of the nation’s deadliest crimes. Twenty-three states and Puerto Rico showed a decrease in the fatality rate for crashes where the driver had an illegal alcohol level of at least .08, while the rate in 21 states and the District of Columbia increased and in 6 other states it remained flat.

“These statistics confirm what every police officer patrolling America’s streets already knows: that irresponsible use of alcohol and driving are a tragic and toxic combination that robs people of their potential and families of their loved ones,” said Secretary Peters.

Also Secretary Peters announced that the Department launched the first-ever, December holiday season advertising blitz to support impaired driving enforcement committing $7 million for paid advertising as part of its “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest” campaign. She added that the ads were directed at men ages 21-34 and aired nationally on television and radio from December 20th through the 31st. These ads warn drivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico that law enforcement officials are cracking down to catch and arrest drunk drivers.

Peters joined officers in Phoenix, Ariz. and Albuquerque, N.M. to get a first-hand look at stepped-up law enforcement efforts that include sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, both proven to be effective tools in getting or keeping drunk drivers off the road.

“As a wife, a mother, and a grandmother, I never want to receive a call saying that a loved one will not be coming home because of a crash, especially one caused by alcohol,” remarked Peters. “This coordinated air and ground campaign is helping prevent our officers from having to make that dreaded phone call.”

The drunk driving data provide new details that will help law enforcement and the U.S. Department of Transportation tackle this persistent problem, Secretary Peters said. She noted that in the last two years alone, the Department has invested more than $410 million in impaired driving efforts nationally to fund programs ranging from education and enforcement to treatment and improvements to the judicial process.

“Statistics are a vital tool in our battle against drunk driving,” said Peters. “But, we must remember that there is a human face behind every one of those numbers – a mother, an uncle, a brother or best friend that lost their lives because someone made a lethal decision. This holiday season, every one should picture their loved ones if they are planning to party. It will help you make responsible decisions.”

NHTSA’s new statistical report on alcohol-related fatalities is drawn from the agency’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). To view the data, please visit:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810686.pdf.
DOT 122-06 Contact: Brian Turmail Tel.: (202) 366-4570 December 2006

DRUG FACTS
The average Body Alcohol Content (BAC) among fatally injured drinking drivers is .17. Almost half of fatally injured drinking drivers have a BAC of .20 or over (which is twice the legal limit in most jurisdictions).

High BAC drivers tend to be male, aged 25-35 and have a history of DWI convictions and polydrug abuse. Polydrug is a term of art commonly referencing the use of more than one drug, often with the intention of enhancing or countering the effects of another drug. Polydrug use may however simply occur because the user’s preferred drug is unavailable (or too expensive) at the time.

A Tennessee study found that over half of reckless drivers intoxicated by alcohol were intoxicated by other substances and noted, “Studies of injured drivers suggest that driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol is a growing cause of traffic injuries in the United States.”

Jail or prison sentences for alcohol offenses, in spite of their great popularity, appear to be of little value in deterring high BAC drivers.

Incarceration is probably ineffective with high BAC drivers, who tend to be alcohol-dependent individuals with very serious problems who need treatment. But of course, incarceration does keep them off the roads!

Drug Facts Out of the Past

• During the Second World War (1939-45), amphetamines were used by the German military to reduce fatigue. Soldiers on amphetamines were able to walk for longer distances. Soldiers were also able to run longer to the point of exhaustion. Both amphetamines and methamphetamine were widely distributed to U.S. soldiers to help improve performance. In the Korean War, the U.S. dispensed amphetamine to its troops.
  
• In the late 1800’s, opium was fairly popular in the “wild west”. It arrived here via Chinese immigrants who came here to work on the railroads. Cowhands might spend several days and nights at the opium den. By 1850, the new wonder drug, morphine, (also an opium derivative), was in wide use by U.S. doctors to treat pain associated with surgery or traumatic injuries. Treatment of Civil War wounded resulted in tens of thousands of Confederate and northern soldiers becoming morphine addicts. The answer seemed to be the new wonder drug named Heroin, after its German trademark name. It was marketed in the U.S. as a safe, non-addictive substitute for morphine.
  
  Source: Findings, Betty Ford Center, Winter 2006 issue

Respectfully Lonnie Johnson