[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 425-427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-111]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Parts 653 and 654

[Docket No. FTA-98-3474]
RIN 2132-AA61


``Maintenance'' Under Definition of Safety-Sensitive Functions in 
Drug and Alcohol Rules

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is amending its 
regulations to require drug and alcohol testing of all maintenance 
workers, including those engaged in engine, revenue service vehicle, 
and parts rebuilding and overhaul. This change will eliminate the 
distinction between maintenance workers involved in on-going, daily 
maintenance and repair work and those who, on a routine basis, perform 
rebuilding and overhauling work.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues: Judy Meade, 
Director of the Office of Safety and Security (202) 366-2896 
(telephone) or (202) 366-7951 (fax). For legal issues: Michael 
Connelly, Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-4011 (telephone) or 
(202) 366-3809 (fax). Electronic access to this and other rules may be 
obtained through FTA's Transit Safety Bulletin Board at 1-800-231-2061, 
or through the FTA World Wide Web home page at http://www.fta.dot.gov; 
both services are available seven days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 1998, FTA published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend its drug and alcohol 
rules to require testing all maintenance workers, including those 
engaged in engine, revenue service, and parts rebuilding and overhaul. 
The NPRM came in response to concern that FTA was permitting a segment 
of workers who routinely performed safety-sensitive functions to evade 
otherwise applicable drug and alcohol testing. FTA received 11 comments 
over a three-month period.

I. ``Maintenance''

Comments

    Of the 11 comments received, seven favored adoption of the proposed 
amendment; four commenters opposed. Those in favor of the amendment 
noted that employees performing routine repair and those performing 
overhaul and rebuilding should be treated similarly. The workers 
performing those tasks are drawn, generally, from the same pool of 
applicants, and perform equally important tasks. Those opposed to the 
amendment generally focused on a perceived increased cost in securing 
contractors able to perform overhaul and rebuilding functions. Comments 
on the NPRM, as well as suggestions from those generally in favor of 
the amendment, include:
    --Three commenters (Bloomington-Normal (Illinois) Public Transit 
System (B-NPTS)), the Bay Area (California) Transit Drug Testing Task 
Force, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 
(LACMTA) expressed concern that ``extending'' testing to contract 
maintenance workers would increase the cost to both the grantee and the 
contractor. The Task Force and LACMTA both suggest that some of their 
overhaul and rebuilding

[[Page 426]]

work occurs on an irregular, ``as needed'' basis. The B-NPTS suggests 
that its contractor should certify those workers who perform 
maintenance and overhaul work, and subject only those workers to the 
testing rules.
    --New Flyer of America, Inc., an original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM), believes the FTA should extend its present exemption for OEM 
work performed under warranty, to any work performed by an OEM, whether 
under warranty or not. New Flyer suggests that differentiating between 
OEM warranty and non-warranty work is an ``artificial distinction'' 
posing ``substantial cost'' on OEMs that perform overhaul and 
rebuilding maintenance work.
    --The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) favors 
adoption of the rule. It further suggests that FTA add the phrase 
``employees and contractors'' to the definition of safety-sensitive 
employees and delete the word ``on-going'' before the word ``repairs.''

Discussion

    When these rules were first considered in the early 1990s, and 
published in February 1994, FTA's underlying assumption was that all 
maintenance workers who performed a safety-sensitive function would be 
subject to the rules. As noted in the March 1998 NPRM and below, the 
1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis assumed all maintenance workers would 
be covered by the regulation; at that time, no distinction was made 
between routine and ``less routine'' maintenance. In November 1994, the 
FTA, through a letter of interpretation, created an exemption to the 
rules' general applicability. Under the exemption, workers performing 
daily, ``routine'' maintenance would still be subject to the rule, 
while those performing what the FTA described as ``less routine'' work, 
such as rebuilding and overhauling, were exempt. With this final rule, 
FTA reverses its position, because to do so is pro-safety (all 
maintenance workers that perform safety-sensitive work should be 
subject to the rules) and because similarly situated maintenance 
workers will be treated equally.
    FTA disagrees with the concerns expressed by the Task Force and 
LACMTA. It is not acceptable that contractors, when performing safety-
sensitive work in furtherance of pubic safety, should be exempt from 
the rules simply because they are contractors. As noted above, a goal 
of this rule is to treat similarly situated employees equally. LACMTA 
and the Task Force would have the FTA treat the grantee's own 
employees, or a contractor's employees that perform routine work, 
differently than a contractor's employee performing rebuilding and 
overhaul work. Because both kinds of work (on-going routine maintenance 
and rebuilding/overhaul) are safety-sensitive, we see no reason to 
distinguish the two.
    We agree, though, that if the overhaul/rebuilding work is done on 
an ad hoc or one-time basis, where there is no long-term contract 
between the grantee and its contractors, subjecting the contractor's 
employees to the rules would be unduly burdensome.
    FTA disagrees with New Flyer's request that we exempt OEMs 
completely from the rules, while requiring other maintenance and 
rebuilding workers and contractors to comply with the rules. We also 
decline to act on the Amalgamated Transit Union's request that FTA 
remove the present OEM warranty exemption. We believe the exemption to 
be a balance between the needs of OEMs to control costs, while at the 
same time, promoting the safety of the riding public.
    FTA intends to keep the phrase ``on-going'' in the definition, as 
it appropriately describes the category of repair subject to the rules 
(on-going, daily repair). As to the suggestion that the definition of 
safety-sensitive include the phrase ``employees and contractors,'' we 
note that the rules describe safety-sensitive functions; the rules do 
not define safety-sensitive persons.

II. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

    This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 or under 
the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. There are no 
significant Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment. The Regulatory impact Analysis used for the 
original 1994 rules assumed that all maintenance workers would be 
covered by the rules. By interpretation in 1994, FTA created a limited 
exemption from testing for safety-sensitive workers who performed 
``less routine'' maintenance such as rebuilding and overhauling 
engines, parts, and revenue service vehicles. We now eliminate that 
exemption. Therefore, the Department certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of transit 
systems; this rule merely restores maintenance workers who overhaul and 
rebuild engines, parts, and revenue service vehicles to the pool of 
safety-sensitive workers to be tested. This rule does not contain new 
information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The agency has determined 
that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking; this rule will cost State, 
local and tribal governments less than $100 million annually.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 653 and 654

    Alcohol testing, Drug testing, Grant programs-transportation, Mass 
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 
Safety-sensitive, Transportation.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FTA is amending Title 49 
Code Federal Regulations, parts 653 and 654 as follows:

PART 653--PREVENTION OF PROHIBITED DRUG USE IN TRANSIT OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 653 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5331, 49 CFR 1.51.


Sec. 653.7  [Amended]

    2. Section 653.7 is amended by revising paragraph (4) in the 
definition of ``safety-sensitive function'' to read as follows:


Sec. 653.7  Definitions.

* * * * *

Safety-Sensitive Function* * *

    (4) Maintaining (including repairs, overhaul, and rebuilding) a 
revenue service vehicle or equipment used in revenue service, unless 
the recipient receives funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309, is in an area less 
than 50,000 in population and contracts out such services, or funding 
under 49 U.S.C. 5311 and contracts out such services.
* * * * *

PART 654--PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL MISUSE IN TRANSIT OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 654 continues to read as 
follows.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5331, 49 CFR 1.52.
    2. Section 654.7 is amended by revising paragraph (4) in the 
definition of ``safety-sensitive function'' to read as follows:


Sec. 654.7  Definitions.

* * * * *

Safety-Sensitive Function* * *

    (4) Maintaining (including repairs, overhaul, and rebuilding) a 
revenue

[[Page 427]]

service vehicle or equipment used in revenue service, unless the 
recipient receives funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309, is in an area less 
than 50,000 in population and contracts out such services, or funding 
under 49 U.S.C. 5311 and contracts out such services.
* * * * *
    Issued on: December 23, 1998.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-111 Filed 1-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M