[Federal Register: July 25, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43946-43964]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jy03-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 40
[Docket OST-2003-15676]
RIN 2105-AD14
Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs: Drug and Alcohol Management Information System Reporting
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation's Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance (ODAPC) is revising the Management Information
System (MIS) forms currently used within five U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) agencies and the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
for submission of annual drug and alcohol program data. The DOT
agencies are: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA);
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal Transit Administration
(FTA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA). The Department is streamlining the
annual reporting of drug and alcohol program data to DOT agencies
through use of a one-page MIS data collection form. The Department is
standardizing across the DOT agencies the information collected and
reducing the amount of data reported by transportation employers. If a
DOT agency requires supplemental data, the DOT agency will address
those issues separately.
DATES: Effective July 25, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim L. Swart, Drug and Alcohol Policy
Advisor at 202-366-3784 (voice) 202-366-3897 (fax) or at:
jim.swart@ost.dot.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
Five DOT agencies and the USCG collect drug and alcohol program
data from their regulated employers on an
[[Page 43947]]
annual basis. Employers compile this data on MIS forms and each form is
DOT-agency specific. In fact, twenty-one MIS data collection forms will
be replaced within the DOT agencies by the new single-format form. The
Department believes that data collection and entry will be greatly
simplified for transportation employers and the Department if a single
form is utilized throughout the transportation industries and the DOT
agencies.
All drug and alcohol testing conducted under DOT authority uses a
standard form for drug testing--Federal Drug Testing Custody and
Control Form--and a standard form for alcohol testing--DOT Alcohol
Testing Form. In essence, use of standard testing forms serves to limit
MIS reporting to a finite number of data elements. Therefore, a core
set of data elements will make up the new MIS form which all
transportation employers will complete, as appropriate, for their
companies and the DOT agencies regulating them.
This MIS form will simplify and streamline data recording for
transportation employers and will require employers to enter less data.
In addition, because the form contains fewer data elements and is on a
one-page format, it can be more easily entered and processed via
electronically-based systems. As an added benefit, there is a single
set of MIS instructions for all transportation employers, regardless of
DOT agency.
However, not every DOT agency expects information for all potential
data elements (e.g., RSPA does not conduct random alcohol testing), and
some data elements may be collected through some means other than MIS
(e.g., USCG receives alcohol data immediately following each post-
accident testing event). The form's instructions highlight some of
those peculiar testing differences, and companies not required to
conduct or report certain types of tests will simply leave those
sections blank or may enter zeros. For instance, because USCG wants no
alcohol testing data on the MIS form, USCG-regulated employers will
leave blank (or enter zeros in) Section IV of the form. In addition,
when no testing was done or no results were received for particular
data elements, employers may leave those items blank or insert zeros.
The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61306), asking for comments and suggestions
for changes to the MIS form and process. In response to the NPRM, we
received a modest amount of comments from a dozen or so individuals,
groups, and associations. The final rule responds to all those
comments. The final rule also makes significant modifications to the
previous DOT agency MIS forms.
Additional Background Issue
In the NPRM we said, ``On June 6, 2002, President Bush announced
his proposal to create a Cabinet-level homeland security department.
Inside this new department, the President proposes to put several
agencies, including the USCG. The President urged Congress to pass
legislation to create the new Department of Homeland Security. This
process may take some time. As a result, if you have USCG ties and MIS
interests, please submit your comments to this NPRM. We will consider
congressional and presidential action regarding the USCG and homeland
security in the final rule.''
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been established and
the USCG's being part of that cabinet agency is reality. However, the
USCG intends to keep 49 CFR part 40 as an incorporated part of its
regulated industry testing rules--46 CFR part 16. Consequently, the
USCG intends to follow part 40 regulations applicable (e.g., part 40
alcohol rules do not apply) to the marine industry until such time as
resources permit them to create their own rules, should that become
necessary in the future. The USCG intends to rely upon 49 CFR part 40
for testing procedures, guidance, and interpretations. They also intend
to remain a part of the MIS form, its process, and its related
regulation section in part 40. Therefore, USCG-regulated employers will
continue to report on this MIS form until further notice.
ODAPC desires to support the USCG efforts to facilitate a seamless
transition from DOT to DHS. In this light, we will support the USCG's
use of 49 CFR part 40 in their regulated industry testing program. [We
view USCG's use of part 40 as being similar to DOT's required
incorporation of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
laboratory regulations and guidance into part 40.] In this light, the
MIS regulation, form, and instructions will continue to reference the
USCG as a DOT agency even though it became part of DHS on March 1,
2003.
Effective Dates
The Department has decided that use of the new MIS form will be
required for employer MIS submissions in CY 2004 documenting CY 2003
data. Therefore, employers must immediately adopt provisions in the
rule which will permit them to start, as appropriate, collection of the
required data and which establish how companies are to determine the
number of employees upon which 2003 random testing is based.
Discussion of Significant Comments to the Docket
Comment: The vast majority of commenters supported the Department's
decision to streamline and simplify the various MIS forms currently in
use into one form that will be used across all DOT agencies. Most
expressed the belief that doing so will enhance accuracy of data being
reported and the efficiency of those employers and service agents who
will be tasked with providing the reports. A few commenters suggested
that the new form will also be more easily processed through electronic
means (when those are up and running) than would the variety of past
MIS iterations.
Two commenters believed the new form did not effectively address
the needs of data collection. One of these commenters expressed the
belief that much more information needed to be collected and needed to
be collected on a more frequent than once per year basis. The other
commenter indicated that use of one specific DOT agency's MIS forms
should not be changed because those forms best fit, the commenter
asserts, the needs of a particular industry which the commenter
represents (and because companies do not wish to change established
reporting programs which are geared to provide the information required
on current forms).
DOT Response: We agree with the preponderance of commenters who
supported use of a single form across all modes of transportation. We
agree with the majority of commenters who supported use of a trimmed-
down version of the form. We agree with commenters who believed the new
form readily lends itself to electronic transfer of items and data. In
this light, it is important to note that the new form represents an all
important first step in the Department's desire to have this form on-
line and to permit electronic transmission of data. The fact that one
form will be used throughout the transportation industry makes the
difficult task of designing the system much simpler (to say nothing of
our being able to obtain accurate data in consistent fields across all
DOT agencies).
The Department, after reaching a self-imposed deadline date for the
publication of the NPRM, did not intend for the new form to be used to
collect 2002 MIS information. To do so would have meant a change in the
way
[[Page 43948]]
companies that had already collected 2002 data would have had to
download that information. In addition, many companies had not been
collecting vital data regarding refusals to test. Therefore, use of the
new form will be required in CY 2004 for collecting data representing
CY 2003 testing.
During 2003, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has agreed to
field-test an electronic data collection system using data elements of
the new form. The FTA will select transit systems for reporting MIS
data as part of this field-test. FTA's Volpe Center resources will
coordinate the data collection. Through field-testing we can expose the
Volpe-developed system software to a wide range of equipment and real-
world usage. This field test will be accomplished with an eye toward
full implementation across all DOT agencies as soon as possible. We
believe the revised MIS form and its data format represent the best way
to accomplish the Department's ultimate goal of having full automation
for MIS submissions. Early demonstrations of FTA's system have shown
the design to be very user-friendly and uncomplicated for the input
required data.
Comment: Several commenters expressed the concern that employers
could believe the data requirements no longer reflected on MIS forms
are being de-emphasized by the DOT agencies. Most of these commenters
wished us to reiterate the importance of training information that will
no longer be asked for on the MIS form.
DOT Response: As we stated in the NPRM, the items for which we are
no longer asking are items that DOT agencies can obtain in a variety of
other ways and in other venues and formats. It is worth reiterating
that the vast majority of items removed from the MIS form remain
important. Employers would be remiss, to say nothing about being in
violation of part 40 and DOT agency regulations, if they chose not to
obtain, maintain, and furnish information required by regulations.
Employers and service agents will be in clear violation of regulations
and subject to sanctions if the DOT agency requirements (e.g., for
supervisory training, for recordkeeping) are now ignored simply because
the data generated by those requirements are no longer being recorded
on the MIS form.
Comment: The bulk of commenters supported how the Department
proposed to count the number of covered employees (i.e., employees
subject to testing because they perform DOT safety-sensitive duties)
using the averaging formula. Some commenters, while supporting the
averaging formula method, expressed concern for companies that make
random selections on a daily or weekly basis (as opposed to those
selecting monthly or quarterly). Only one commenter expressed the
desire to use a number determined at the start of the year believing it
simpler than factoring-in employee census fluctuations. This commenter
believed that doing so would be better than having an employer
determine the average number of employees at year's end--which was not
an idea proposed by the Department in the NPRM. In addition, this
commenter indicated that employers represented by the commenter did not
know how many safety-sensitive employees they actually employ
throughout the year.
DOT Response: The Department believes the calculation of the
employee average will be the best way for employers to determine the
number of covered employees eligible for DOT testing throughout the
year. This process will more readily enable employers to take into
account employment of seasonal workers; periods of downsizing; and
business start-ups and other increases in employee numbers. To fix the
number of covered employees at the start of a year does not take those
important factors into consideration. For some employers, establishing
the number at the start of the year may lead to their conducting much
more random testing than required, and for others, far too little
random testing.
Companies that do not know how many employees they employ and
release from employment; do not know how many eligible employees are in
each random selection pool; and do not know if eligible employees are
placed into and taken out of random selection pools have problems
irrespective of how the MIS form is completed.
In any case, the Department believes the best way for the random
testing pools to be kept current and for the random testing rate to
reflect the number of employees actually performing safety sensitive
duties is the proposed averaging formula, and we have adopted it in
this regulation. It is imperative that companies not wait until the end
of the year to make this calculation. Companies must place all covered
employees into the pool, know how many are in the pool, and select and
test the appropriate percentages.
While we believe that companies conducting their random testing
draws on a daily or weekly basis have computer systems sophisticated
enough to factor the average on a daily or weekly basis, the Department
will not require those companies to do so. However, those companies
conducting random draws more frequently than monthly (e.g., daily,
weekly, bi-weekly) will not be required to do the averaging more than
once each month. And, for example, companies selecting monthly, must
calculate monthly; and companies selecting quarterly, must calculate
quarterly.
Comment: One commenter believed the requirement to capture
``refusal to test'' data would be too complex for employers. This
commenter also stated that counting the number of cancelled tests would
also add a burden to employers, although the commenter wished to have
cancelled tests counted toward satisfaction of the random testing rate.
In short, this commenter did not favor changes to the old single-
industry-specific forms.
DOT Response: The Department believes that the testing panorama has
changed considerably since the inception of the DOT testing program.
Other program forms, such as the Breath Alcohol Testing Form and the
Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form, have changed to reflect
program changes. We believe it is important that the MIS form transform
accordingly. At one time the Department did not envision that specific
reasons for refusals would become important enough to track. However, a
troubling industry has risen whose primary goal is to ``beat the drug
test.'' Adulterated and substituted test results have increased
considerably: when we speak of refusals, no longer are we simply
talking about employees failing to appear for tests. Times change and
this refusal delineation is now important for the Department, the DOT
agencies, and employers to have.
As proposed in the NPRM, we have determined that refusals to test
should count as a test result--one that goes toward satisfaction of a
company's random testing rate. However, we do not believe that
cancelled tests should count toward satisfaction of the rate. We
continue to support part 40's contention that a cancelled test does not
count toward compliance with DOT's testing requirements.
Again, we believe a single MIS format is the most appropriate
approach. We believe that the many items we no longer desire to capture
on the form more than offset the few new collection requirements for
refusals and cancellations.
Comment: Two commenters believed the collection of data on separate
sheets for each employee category would present too much work for those
charged with completing the form. One commenter supported the one-page
[[Page 43949]]
concept while recognizing that some companies may have to enter data on
additional sheets.
DOT Response: The Department gave a lot of thought to this issue,
but did not see a valid way around separate pages for different
employee categories, at least in the short term. Again, it is important
to note that the Department views the use of this standard format, one-
page MIS form to be a logical first step in providing an automated
system for future MIS data entry. A ``must'' for the automated system
will be the ability of the employer to view entry options only for
eligible categories of employees. For instance, an employer entering
MIS data online for the FTA will see only employee categories
corresponding to the FTA rules. For an employer entering MIS data for
the FAA, only those FAA employee categories will appear.
Interestingly, even if an employer has multiple employee
categories, the amount of information collected equates to far less
than if the employer used the old forms. There is no more actual work
involved in entering the employee testing data even if using separate
sheets. In fact, our test runs of the form (e.g., to obtain industry
estimates on the amount of time to fully complete the form) with
companies having multiple employee categories were met with positive
feedback. From those estimates, we concluded that completion of the
form--even with multiple sheets--will take between 45 minutes and 1.5
hours. For the old MIS forms, estimates showed that the ``EZ'' forms
took between 30 minutes and 1 hour to complete; and the long forms took
2.5 hours each (alcohol and drug) to complete. Again, we hold that the
time savings is substantial using the new form rather than the
multitude of old forms.
Comment: Two commenters asked us to clarify MIS requirements for
companies reporting MIS data to more than one DOT agency--companies
that, for instance, may have full-time drivers and full-time pipeline
workers. In addition, they asked us to resolve confusion over how to
record testing data for employees who perform duties that are regulated
by more than one DOT agency--for example, a company's employees drive
trucks sometimes and perform safety-sensitive railroad duties at other
times.
DOT response: In its first paragraph, the NPRM's MIS instruction
form provided guidance for companies regulated by more than one DOT
agency. It said, ``If you are preparing reports for more than one DOT
Operating Administration (OA), then you must submit OA-specific
forms.'' We have maintained that text requirement intact. Therefore, if
a company has drivers and pipeline workers covered under FMCSA and RSPA
regulations respectively, and the company is asked by FMCSA and by RSPA
to submit MIS data, the company should send an MIS report on its
drivers to the FMCSA and an MIS report on its pipeline workers to RSPA.
The second scenario the commenters brought up, how to record MIS
data for employees who perform cross-modal safety sensitive duties
where an employee performs duties regulated by two or more DOT agencies
(e.g., the employee is a truck driver and a pipeline maintenance
worker), is more complex. For a number of years, DOT agency rules have
stipulated that a covered employee, subject to testing under more than
one DOT agency rule for the same employer, would be subject to random
testing at the percentage rate established for the calendar year by the
DOT agency regulating more than 50 percent of the employee's safety-
sensitive duties.
Further complicating the issue becomes the fact that some DOT
agencies (i.e., RSPA and USCG) do not authorize random alcohol testing
for employees. So while an employee who drives a truck and performs
pipeline maintenance for a company may carry out more than 50% of his
or her duties under RSPA rules and be in a RSPA random pool for drug
testing, that employee must still be in an FMCSA pool for random
alcohol testing. Or, the company can choose to place all these
employees in the same random drug testing pool if they test at or above
the highest random rates established by the DOT agency under whose
jurisdiction they fall.
The Department is settling the issue by stating that for purposes
of the MIS form, employees covered under more than one DOT agency rule
need only be reported on the MIS form for the DOT agency under which
they are randomly tested.
For example, an employee conducting 51% of her safety-sensitive
work under FMCSA rules will be randomly tested under those rules rather
than under the rules of another DOT agency under which she performs the
other 49% of her DOT safety sensitive duties. For MIS purposes,
therefore, she will be counted and her tests reported only under the
MIS submission to the FMCSA. If 49% of her duties are under FTA, for
instance, she will not appear on the FTA MIS submission even though she
would continue to be eligible for testing under the FTA rule for post
accident and reasonable suspicion, and perhaps for return-to-duty and
follow-up testing. Employers may have to explain her testing data to
FMCSA and FTA agency representatives during an inspection or audit.
Additional Discussion of Rule
The ODAPC and the DOT agencies have revised the MIS reporting
requirements to standardize the collection of data for the agencies.
The proposed rulemaking will impose a few new requirements for data
collection; specifically, data related to information associated with
the revised (65 FR 122, June 23, 2000) Federal Drug Testing Custody and
Control Form. However, the overall amount of required data is less than
that required currently. The Department has also placed the MIS form
and instructions for completing it into part 40. The forms and
instructions will be removed from all DOT agency regulations.
As stated earlier, many data elements are no longer part of the MIS
form. DOT agencies have decided that some information items required on
previous MIS forms are available in other formats or are items
obtainable during inspections, reviews and audits. The following
represents a listing for each DOT agency of most of the data elements
we are eliminating from reporting on the MIS form:
FMCSA
1. Number of persons denied a position following a positive drug
test.
2. Number of employees returned to duty following a refusal or
positive drug test.
3. Supervisor initial drug training data.
4. Number of employees denied a position following an alcohol
test of 0.04 or greater.
5. Number of employees returned to duty after engaging in
alcohol misuse.
6. Number of employees having both a positive drug test and an
alcohol test of 0.04 or greater when both tests were administered at
the same time.
7. Actions taken for alcohol violations other than alcohol
testing.
8. Supervisor initial alcohol training data.
FAA
1. Number of employees returned to duty after having failed or
refused a drug test.
2. Actions taken for drug test refusals.
3. Number of persons denied employment for a positive drug test.
4. Actions taken for positive drug results.
5. Employee initial drug training data.
6. Supervisor initial drug training data.
7. Supervisor recurrent drug training data.
8. Number of persons denied a position for an alcohol test 0.04 or
greater.
9. Number of employees returned to duty after engaging in alcohol
misuse.
[[Page 43950]]
10. Actions taken for alcohol regulation violations.
11. Number of employees having both a positive drug test and an
alcohol test of 0.04 or greater when both tests were administered at
the same time.
12. Number of other violations of the alcohol regulation.
13. Actions taken for refusals to take an alcohol test.
14. Supervisor alcohol training data.
FTA
1. Number of persons denied a position for alcohol results 0.04 or
greater.
2. Number of accidents (noted as fatal and non-fatal) with alcohol
results 0.04 or greater.
3. Number of fatalities from accidents resulting in alcohol results
0.04 or greater.
4. Number of employees returned to duty following an alcohol
violation.
5. Number of employees having both a positive drug test and an
alcohol test of 0.04 or greater when both tests were administered at
the same time.
6. Actions taken for other alcohol rule violations.
7. Supervisor alcohol training data.
8. Number of persons denied a position for positive drug test
results.
9. Number of accidents (noted as fatal and non-fatal) with positive
drug test results.
10. Number of fatalities from accidents resulting in positive drug
tests results.
11. Number of persons returned to duty following a positive drug
test or refusal result.
12. Employee drug education data.
13. Supervisor drug training data.
14. Funding source information.
FRA
1. Number of applicants/transfers denied employment/transfer for a
positive drug test.
2. Number of employees returned to duty after having failed or
refused a drug test.
3. Detailed breakouts of for-cause drug and alcohol testing.
4. Non-qualifying accident drug testing data.
5. Supervisor drug training data.
6. Number of applicants/transfers denied employment/transfer for
alcohol results 0.04 or greater.
7. Number of employees returned to duty after engaging in alcohol
misuse.
8. Supervisor alcohol training data.
USCG
1. Number of persons denied a position for a positive drug test.
2. Number of employees returned to duty following a drug violation.
3. Employee drug and alcohol training data.
4. Supervisor drug and alcohol training data.
5. Post-accident alcohol testing data.
6. Reasonable cause alcohol testing data.
RSPA
1. Number of employees returned to duty after engaging in alcohol
misuse.
2. Actions taken for alcohol test results equal to or greater than
0.04.
3. Number of other alcohol rule violations and actions taken for
them.
4. Actions taken for alcohol test refusals.
5. Supervisor initial alcohol training data.
6. Number of persons denied a position following a positive drug
test.
7. Number of employees returned to duty following a positive or
refusal drug test.
8. Actions taken for positive drug tests.
9. Actions taken for drug test refusals.
10. Supervisor initial drug training data.
The Department will also count collections differently than under
the old MIS regimen. Under the old MIS counting method a drug
collection was considered to be a testing event that resulted in a
negative, positive, or cancellation. Refusals to test--no matter the
reason for the refusal--were not considered appropriate for inclusion.
Despite the instruction to include no refusals, we know that many
companies included those that were the result of adulterated or
substituted results that were verified by the MRO as refusals. Still
other companies counted these types of refusals as well as refusal
events for which no urine was sent to laboratories for testing (e.g.,
employee failed to show-up at the collection site; employee left the
collection site before urine had been collected).
Similarly, in determining if companies were conducting random
testing at the appropriate established annual rates, some DOT agencies
did not count refusals; some counted all refusals; and still others
counted only refusals reported by the MRO (as a result of adulteration
or substitution) toward satisfaction of the random testing rate
requirement. Furthermore, in calculating the annual random rates for
testing, all DOT agency rules said the following will be factored for
the positive rate: number of random positives plus number of random
refusals divided by the number of random tests plus the number of
random refusals. This means that some cancelled random tests and random
refusals were already in the random test numbers before the number of
random refusals had been added to the total.
To clear up these discrepancies, the Department will count the
number of specimens collected as the number of testing events resulting
in negative, positive, and refusal to test results no matter the reason
for the refusal. We have added all refusals to the number of tests
because DOT agencies factor refusals into determining whether or not
employers have met annual random testing rate requirements. We will not
add cancelled test results to the mix because part 40.207(b) says, ``.
. . a cancelled test does not count toward compliance with DOT
requirements (e.g., being applied toward the number of tests needed to
meet the employer's minimum random testing rate).''
Invalid test results are always cancelled and will not be included.
However, those invalid results requiring a subsequent directly observed
collection will simply be considered another collection that will have
a final result. In addition, blind testing will not be counted as a
testing event. Counting in this manner will enable many of the columns
and rows of the MIS form to total up.
In addition, annual random testing rates will be determined using
more accurate counts because no cancelled test will be mistakenly
included and no refusals will be factored twice in the total. DOT
agency inspectors, reviewers, and auditors will count all refusals
(e.g., be they from an adulterated specimen result or from ``shy
bladder'' evaluation with no medical condition) as satisfying a
company's meeting its random testing rate.
For cancellations requiring the employee to take a second test, the
test that is cancelled will not count. However, the result of the
subsequent recollection will count, provided that it too is not
cancelled. These situations include: invalid test cancellations
requiring the employee to go in for an observed collection; split
specimen cancellations requiring the employee to go in for an observed
collection; and cancellations requiring the employee to go in for
another collection because a negative result is needed (for pre-
employment; return to duty; and follow-up testing).
In addition, if more than one set of specimens is sent to the lab
during one testing event, they will count together as one collection:
These include: negative-dilute specimens when the employee goes in for
a second collection per employee policy [the result of the second test
is the result of record]; and observed collections requiring both the
[[Page 43951]]
original collection and the observed collection be sent to the
laboratory (e.g., specimen out of temperature range) [the result
requiring the most stringent consequence will ultimately be the result
of record].
The Department is also clarifying and making uniform among DOT
agencies how employers determine the total number of employees against
which the annual random rate applies. Some DOT agencies have told
employers to count the number of covered employees working at the start
of the calendar year; some DOT agencies have directed employers to
count the total number of covered employees that worked for the company
within the year; and still others have advised employers to count the
average number of employees on a monthly or quarterly basis.
This rule directs employers to add the total number of covered
employees eligible for random testing in each random testing selection
period for the year and divide that total by the number of random
testing periods. For instance, a company conducting random testing
quarterly will add the total of safety-sensitive employees they had in
the random pool when each selection was made; then divide this number
by 4 to obtain the yearly average number of covered employees. [As an
example, if Company A had 1500 employees in the first quarter random
pool, 2250 in the second quarter, 2750 in the third quarter; and 1500
in the fourth quarter; 1500 + 2250 + 2750 + 1500 = 8000; 8000 / 4 =
2000; the total number of employees subject to testing for the year
would be reported as ``2000''. (Note: This number, ``2000'', would also
be the number on which an employer would base the random testing
rate.)]
As stated earlier, no company will be required to factor the
average number of employees more often than once per month: No more
than 12 times per year.
Companies (and their contractors, as applicable) will continue to
submit the MIS reports in accordance with requirements (e.g., dates for
submission; selection of companies required to submit, etc.) that will
continue to be in each DOT agency regulation. Likewise, DOT agency
regulations will continue to address the manner (e.g., mail; CD;
electronic transmission) and locations for submitting the forms.
Responding to a commenter, we have added a reference to this in rule
text.
It is important to note that MIS alcohol testing data reflects all
these proposals made for MIS drug testing data. Refusals will count as
testing events; cancelled tests will not; and random pool averages will
determine the number of employees against which the annual testing rate
applies.
The Department is currently working toward an electronic MIS form
capable of Internet submission. Each form would be DOT agency specific
and would not have extraneous items showing (for example, the USCG-
specific form would not include an alcohol testing section; the RSPA-
specific form would not show an alcohol random testing category).
Additionally, the system would bring to the attention of the person
completing the form any items that did not accurately compute
mathematically. Finally, employee categories listed would only be those
for the specific DOT agency.
The Department recognizes that Consortia/Third Party Administrators
(C/TPAs) are responsible for administering a large number of
transportation industry drug and alcohol testing programs. For this
reason, the MIS form will contain a space for the employer to note the
name of the C/TPA the company uses, if any. Finally, we have made some
of the minor, but useful changes recommended by several commenters and
DOT agency representatives. These include typographical, counting, and
example errors; and the option to use zeros instead of leaving testing
data items blank.
Finally, the Department wants reasonable suspicion and reasonable
cause testing to be counted together on the MIS form with no
differentiation between the two. The issue of how to count these two
types of tests has been complicated by the fact that neither the CCF
nor the BATF distinguish between the two even though the DOT agencies
do. For instance, FMCSA and FTA authorize reasonable suspicion drug
testing; FAA, RSPA, and USCG authorize reasonable cause drug testing;
and FRA authorizes both. FMCSA, FAA, FTA, and RSPA authorize reasonable
suspicion alcohol testing; and FRA authorizes both reasonable suspicion
and reasonable cause alcohol testing. Sufficient documentation should
exist with employers for DOT agency representatives to tell the
difference between the two during inspections and audits.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This rule is not a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order
12866 or the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. Nor is the rule
an economically significant regulation. It is a reworking of existing
requirements; it imposes no new mandates; and it will not create any
new costs. In fact, the rule will serve to reduce requirements and
costs. The Department realizes that some companies maintain their
current MIS data items on basic computer spreadsheets. However, we are
requiring only a minimal number of additions to the format while
removing a larger number of items.
This final rule does not have sufficient Federalism impact to
warrant a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. With
respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the certifies that, if
adopted, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, so a Regulatory Flexibility
analysis has not been prepared. Even though this rule might affect a
large number of small entities, we do not expect the new MIS
requirements to have a significant economic impact on anyone.
The rule also contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (the PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the Department is submitting these requirements to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review, as required under the PRA. For informational
purposes, the Department will place its entire PRA package for the MIS
form on the Internet when that submission is approved.
As noted elsewhere in this preamble, the proposal would amend part
40 to include a new format and a new set of instructions for the MIS
form. This single form would be used across DOT agencies rather than
the multiple forms with multiple instructions currently in use. The
form's data elements would be reduced significantly as well.
Completing an MIS report requires a company to collect and compile
drug and alcohol testing data generated throughout the year by that
company's drug and alcohol testing program and placing some of that
data onto the form. Certainly, the more complex a company's testing
program set-up, the more complex assembling needed data becomes.
Companies having decentralized program locations may have to draw
information from a variety of localized programs. Companies with a
number of subsidiaries may have large amounts of data to compile and
authenticate. In addition, companies failing to regularly update and
bring together their testing data may find themselves in positions of
having to do so in a hurried manner at the end of the year. Also,
companies lacking computerization of data capabilities may have to rely
on manual methods.
[[Page 43952]]
Because MIS reporting has been part of the DOT testing equation for
several years, many companies have become experienced in and have
applied sound business sense to putting the report together. Many
companies update their drug and alcohol program data on a regular,
throughout-the-year basis rather than doing so at the last minute. Most
companies require their localized programs, subsidiaries, and
contractors to regularly provide program updates rather than
authenticate data at the end of the year. Many companies utilize
computer databases rather than ``pen-and-ink'' data entries. Still
other companies prefer to have data entry provided as part of their C/
TPA's contracted services.
Whatever the case, the Department does not require any particular
management approach to compiling program data: We simply require that
the data be accurate; that it be in a system that has controlled
access; that it be readily auditable; and that specific data be
included in MIS reports when they are required or requested by DOT
agencies. The Department would prefer that companies update their drug
and alcohol program data throughout the year; require their divisions,
subsidiaries, and contractors to report their data regularly to them;
and computerize their data-entry methodologies. However, we do not
mandate these actions even though we think they are all preferable to
end-of-the-year company scrambles to complete MIS forms.
The Department believes that requiring less data entry on MIS forms
and having only one form throughout the transportation industries will
make data gathering and compilation simpler. For instance, no longer
will employers need to provide employee and supervisor training data,
violation consequence data, and non-Part 40 violation data (among other
entries). Furthermore, the single-format MIS form replaces the ``EZ''
drug form, the ``EZ'' alcohol form, the long drug form, and the long
alcohol form, the formats of which were different for each DOT agency.
Therefore, employers subject to more than one DOT agency rule will not
have to navigate their ways through multiple MIS formats.
These represent important steps in reducing the amount of time
needed to compile data for MIS purposes--no matter how a company
chooses to manage their drug and alcohol testing data. The Department
believes the simplicity of the form will result in another significant
time saving action for employers.
DOT agency MIS PRA submissions for the old MIS forms reveal that
nearly 6,800 companies submit 13,541 MIS forms annually to DOT; and the
time it takes to fill out the forms is 18,406 hours. Estimates for the
new MIS form indicate that these companies will send 7,186 MIS reports
to DOT and the time to complete them will be 10,779 hours. Therefore,
we foresee over 7,500 hours saved per year in filling out the new MIS
form as opposed to completing the old multiple MIS forms. [Based upon
industry and DOT agency estimates, we have concluded that the new MIS
report will take between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours to complete. We have
chosen, for this paragraph and for our OMB PRA submission, to use the
highest industry and DOT agency estimate --1.5 hours. We estimate that
slightly over 300 companies report to more than one DOT agency.]
According to OMB's regulations implementing the PRA (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this
information will be published in the Federal Register after OMB
approves it.
A number of other Executive Orders can affect rulemakings. These
include Executive Orders 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments), 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership), 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights), 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), 13045 (Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), and 12889
(Implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement). We have
considered these Executive Orders in the context of this rule, and we
believe that the rule does not directly affect matters that the
Executive Orders cover.
We have prepared this rulemaking in accordance with the
Presidential Directive on Plain Language.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol
testing, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Issued this 9th day of July, 2003, at Washington, DC.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
PART 40--PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAMS
0
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation
amends Part 40 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 40 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and
45101 et seq.
0
2. Add a new Sec. 40.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 40.26 What form must an employer use to report Management
Information System (MIS) data to a DOT agency?
As an employer, when you are required to report MIS data to a DOT
agency, you must use the form and instructions at appendix H to part
40. You must submit the MIS report in accordance with rule requirements
(e.g., dates for submission; selection of companies required to submit,
and method of reporting) established by the DOT agency regulating your
operation.
0
3. Add a new Appendix H to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 40--DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing Management
Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form
The following form and instructions must be used when an
employer is required to report MIS data to a DOT agency.
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
[[Page 43953]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.004
[[Page 43954]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.005
[[Page 43955]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.006
[[Page 43956]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.007
[[Page 43957]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.008
[[Page 43958]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.009
[[Page 43959]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.010
[[Page 43960]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.011
[[Page 43961]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.012
[[Page 43962]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.013
[[Page 43963]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.014
[[Page 43964]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY03.015
[FR Doc. 03-18378 Filed 7-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-C