Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 110 Part 6.djvu/588

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.


110 STAT. 4410 CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS—APR. 16, 1996 employment are not required to register. Truck drivers and warehouse employees of the persons or entities registered with DEA and authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances, are within the scope of the exemption where they have direct access or access to the controlled substances, as discussed below. (c) In order for a polygraph examination to be performed, section 7(f) of the Act requires that a prospective employee have "direct access" to the controlled substance(s) manufactured, dispensed, or distributed by the employing office. Where a current employee is to be tested as a part of an ongoing investigation, section 7(f) requires that the employee have "access" to the person or property that is the subject of the investigation. (1) A prospective employee would have "direct access" if the position being applied for has responsibilities which include contact with or which affect the disposition of a controlled substance, including participation in the process of obtaining, dispensing, or otherwise distributing a controlled substance. This includes contact or direct involvement in the manufacture, storage, testing, distribution, sale or dispensing of a controlled substance and may include, for example, packaging, repackaging, ordering, licensing, shipping, receiving, taking inventory, providing security, prescribing, and handling of a controlled substance. A prospective employee would have "direct access" if the described job duties would give such person access to the products in question, whether such employee would be in physical proximity to controlled substances or engaged in activity which would permit the employee to divert such substances to his or her possession. (2) A current employee would have "access" within the meaning of section 7(f) if the employee had access to the specific person or property which is the subject of the on-going investigation, as discussed in section 1.12(e) of this part. Thus, to test a current employee, the employee need not have had "direct" access to the controlled substance, but may have had only infrequent, random, or opportunistic access. Such access would be sufficient to test the employee if the employee could have caused, or could have aided or abetted in causing, the loss of the specific property which is the subject of the investigation. For example, a maintenance worker in a drug warehouse, whose job duties include the cleaning of areas where the controlled substances which are the subject of the investigation were present, but whose job duties do not include the handling of controlled substances, would be deemed to have "access", but normally not "direct access", to the controlled substances. On the other hand, a drug warehouse truck loader, whose job duties include the handling of outgoing shipment orders which contain controlled substances, would have "direct access" to such controlled substances. A pharmacy department in a supermarket is another common situation which is useful in illustrating the distinction between "direct access" and "access". Store personnel receiving pharmaceutical orders, i.e., the pharmacist, pharmacy intern, and other such employees working in the pharmacy department, would ordinarily have "direct access" to controlled substances. Other store personnel whose job duties and responsibilities do not include the hsindling of controlled substances but who had occasion to enter the