3/12/08 N.Y. St. Reg. COR-48-07-00002-A
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Amendment of sections 1020.1, 1020.4(a)(1), (2), (c), (d)(2)–(4), (e)(1)(iv), (2)(iii), 1020.5(a)(1) and 1020.6 of Title 7 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Correction Law, section 112
Subject:
Urinalysis testing.
Purpose:
To improve clarity and readability and to refine procedures in response to field experience and new testing equipment.
Text or summary was published
in the notice of proposed rule making, I.D. No. COR-48-07-00002-P, Issue of November 28, 2007.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
No changes.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Anthony J. Annucci, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel, Department of Correctional Services, Bldg. 2, State Campus, Albany, NY 12226-2050, (518) 457-4951, e-mail:
AJAnnucci@docs.state.ny.usAssessment of Public Comment
Since publication of a Notice of proposed Rule Making in the State Register on November 27, 2007, the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) received the following comment on the proposed amendment.
A letter was received to the proposed amendment concerning urinalysis testing (COR-48-07-00002-P).
The letter asks for clarification as to what procedures are to be followed if a false positive is the result of medication taken by the subject.
§ 1020.4(d)(2) of Title 7 does provide, as part of the testing procedure, that if an inmate claims to be on medication, “an inquiry shall be made to medical personnel as to what medications the inmate has received in the past month which may lead to a positive result”.
Furthermore, if inmate disciplinary action is pursued as a result of a positive urinalysis test, an inmate can raise the possibility of a medication induced false positive in connection with the inmate disciplinary hearing process. If properly raised, the issue should be addressed as part of the hearing process.
No revision to the proposed regulation is necessary. The comment was to the existing regulation and not the amendment, and the clarification requested is contained therein.
