Images de page
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

10410 Trademark Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (800) 75-FINAL (909) 466-TEST FAX (909) 466-0082

Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me to address the sub

committee hearing.

My name is Dr. Roger Tatum and I am the Director of Chemistry of U.S. Alcohol Testing of America, Inc., a manufacturer of alcohol breath testing equipment. I am a Ph.D. Analytical Chemist and Professor of Chemistry for La Sierra University campus associated with Loma Linda

University.

We have been involved with the Department of

Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) for several years in the area of
alcohol testing and have testified concerning both the
"Proposed" and "Final Rule" in person and in writing.
Consequently, we share your concern for safety for our
nation's transportation modes.

Congress passed the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, which was part of the fiscal year 1992 appropriations bill requiring D.O.T. to establish alcohol testing

regulations within the transportation industry.

We are very concerned about certain issues in the "final rule" adopted by D.O.T. which may create problems of accuracy and fairness for employees being tested, for the unions representing them, and for their employers who are required to supervise breath alcohol testing. Most

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

importantly, the rule will have a deleterious effect on transportation safety in this country. Since the majority of those employees affected by this regulation are involved in surface transportation, we believe it is important for this committee to be made aware of these issues.

Although the enabling legislation and the D.O.T. proposed rule have defined alcohol as "Ethyl" or beverage alcohol, the Final Rule arbitrarily changed the historical definition to include "low molecular weight alcohols, including methanol and isopropanol". According to D.O.T., this new definition was adopted in order to "better reflect State Laws and the capabilities of current alcohol breath testing devices and to help promote public safety". Unfortunately, none of these stated reasons is based upon fact.

This seemingly innocuous change in the legal definition of "alcohol" is based upon bad science, will prove to be bad public policy and will bring legal confusion into the courtroom for years as the nation implements this well intentioned and important legislation.

It is a scientific principle that a single measurement cannot accurately quantify more than a single component of a mixture. In order to accurately measure mixtures, such as the "low molecular weight alcohols" newly defined by D.O.T., multiple measurements and calculation must be performed.

We

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

have data (submitted with this document) that proves that each different technology currently approved by D.O.T. for breath alcohol testing yields different quantitative results in the presence of mixtures of "low molecular weight alcohols" such as those defined by D.O.T.

The Department (D.O.T.) has admitted that no scientific studies have ever been performed which support the accuracy of testing mixtures of alcohols other than ethanol. In fact, the Cambridge, MA laboratory tests breath alcohol devices for accuracy and inclusion on its Conforming Products List (CPL) using only ethyl alcohol standards.

Also, no scientific nor any legal body has ever defined the term "low molecular weight alcohols" that D.O.T. has created. In fact, not a single state or the District of

Columbia defines "alcohol" as defined by D.O.T. in its final

.rule.

The lower level detection requirements set forth in the final rule (.02% .04% breath alcohol) also significantly increases the risk of interfering substances from foods, over-the-counter and prescription medications, industrial and environmental exposure being misinterpreted by breath alcohol test devices as if the were all ethyl alcohol. These other volatile organic compounds, some of which are measured and displayed as if they were ethyl alcohol, can

« PrécédentContinuer »