[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49975-49979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17451]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 49975]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 707

[EH-RM-19-WSAP]
RIN 1992-AA60


Workplace Substance Abuse Programs at DOE Sites

AGENCY: Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security; U.S. 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or 
the Department) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for 
public comment in which it proposed to amend its regulations on 
contractor workplace substance abuse programs at DOE sites. In this 
final rule, DOE is adopting the amendments proposed in the NOPR without 
change. The amendments decrease the random drug testing rate for 
individuals in certain testing designated positions (TDPs); clarify 
that all positions requiring access authorizations (security 
clearances) are included in the TDPs; and clarify requirements for DOE 
approval prior to allowing persons in certain TDPs to return to work 
after removal for illegal drug use.

DATES: This rule is effective September 14, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Moriah Ferullo, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, EHSS-11, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (301) 903-0881 or by 
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background
II. Authority
III. Discussion of Public Comments
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    H. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Congressional Notification
V. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

I. Background

    Pursuant to DOE's statutory authority, including the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 
DOE promulgated a rule on July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32652), establishing 
minimum requirements for DOE contractor workplace substance abuse 
programs. The rule provided for drug testing of contractor employees 
in, and applicants for, TDPs at sites owned or controlled by DOE and 
operated under the authority of the AEA. The Department determined that 
possible risks of serious harm to the environment and to public health, 
safety, and national security justified the imposition of a uniform 
rule establishing a baseline workplace substance abuse program, 
including drug testing. The rule created a new part 707 of Title 10 in 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) entitled Workplace Substance 
Abuse Programs at DOE Sites.
    On September 14, 2007, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) issued a 
memorandum addressing drug testing for DOE positions that require 
access authorizations (security clearances). The memorandum stated the 
Secretary's determination that all Federal and contractor positions 
that require security clearances, and all employees in positions that 
currently have security clearances, have the potential to significantly 
affect the environment, public health and safety, or national security. 
The Secretary determined that all such positions would be considered to 
be TDPs, which means they are subject to applicant, random, and ``for 
cause'' drug testing. The Secretary further determined, with regard to 
random drug testing, that employees in TDPs, other than those 
designated to be included in the 100 percent annual sample pool 
(primarily employees in the Human Reliability Program), be tested at a 
30 percent annual sample rate. To implement the memorandum's provisions 
regarding TDPs for DOE contractor employees, the Department issued a 
final rule at 10 CFR part 707. See 73 FR 3861 (Jan. 23, 2008). However, 
the 2008 final rule contained incorrect section references. Whereas 10 
CFR 707.7(a)(2) states that positions identified in paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section shall provide for random tests at a rate equal to 30 
percent of the total number of employees in TDPs for each 12-month 
period, the correct reference should have been to paragraphs (b)(2) and 
(b)(3). Furthermore, the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.7(a)(2), 10 CFR 
707.7(b)(2)(iii), and the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.14(e) each 
contain an incorrect reference to paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 707.7. 
Since TDPs identified in paragraph (b)(2) should be tested at a 30 
percent annual sample rate and do not require DOE approval for return 
to work after illegal drug use, there should not have been references 
to ``(b)(2)'' in the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.7(a)(2); in 10 CFR 
707.7(b)(2)(iii); and in the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.14(e).
    On September 7, 2021, the Department published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to correct these errors (86 FR 49932). In 
the NOPR, the Department proposed that the second sentence of 10 CFR 
707.7(a)(2) would state that employees in the positions identified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section will be subject to random 
testing at a rate equal to 100 percent of the total number of employees 
identified, and those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this 
section may be subject to additional drug tests. DOE further proposed 
to replace the reference to (b)(2) with (c) in 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2)(iii). 
In the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.14(e), DOE proposed deleting the 
reference to 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2). DOE also proposed in the NOPR to add a 
new requirement at 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2)(vi) to specify that access 
authorization (security clearance) holders will be tested. DOE proposed 
that the new subsection would refer to all other personnel in positions 
that require an access authorization (security clearance), other than 
those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section. As a 
result of this change, DOE intends that employees identified in 10 CFR

[[Page 49976]]

707.7(b)(2)(vi) would be tested at a rate equal to 30 percent of the 
total number of employees identified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of 
10 CFR 707.7 for each 12-month period, if they are not also identified 
in 10 CFR 707.7(b)(1) and (c). Employees identified in 10 CFR 
707.7(b)(1) and individuals, whether or not employees, identified in 10 
CFR 707.7(c) would be tested at a rate equal to 100 percent of the 
total number of employees or individuals, as applicable, identified for 
each 12-month period, and may be subject to additional drug tests.
    By publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, DOE is 
incorporating the changes proposed in the NOPR into 10 CFR part 707.

II. Authority

    This final rule continues to establish minimum requirements for the 
workplace substance abuse programs for DOE contractors and their 
employees, and is promulgated pursuant to DOE's authority under section 
161(i)(3) and (p) of the AEA to prescribe such regulations as it deems 
necessary to govern any activity authorized by the AEA, including 
standards for the protection of health and minimization of danger to 
life or property (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3) and (p)) and section 8102 of the 
Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, as amended (41 U.S.C. 8102).

III. Discussion of Public Comments

    The Department's NOPR invited public comments on the proposal and 
provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on October 7, 2021. 
This section responds to the comments the Department received. It also 
contains an explanation of certain final rule provisions in order to 
provide interpretative guidance to DOE offices and DOE contractors that 
must comply with this final rule.
    The Department received two general comments (Ex. 1, 2) regarding 
the proposed changes to the rule. One commenter (Ex. 1) stated that the 
workplace substance abuse programs proposed rule was significant 
because DOE employees and contractors who have security clearances have 
the ability to affect the environment, public health and safety, and 
national security, and testing these individuals to make sure that they 
are not in any way distracted or under another influence is imperative 
for DOE's mission to continue unimpeded. A second commenter (Ex. 2) 
stated that implementing substance abuse programs at the DOE sites is a 
good idea and monitoring employees through drug tests will keep the 
sites clean and prevent accidents from happening.
    The Department agrees with the commenters and believes that 
requiring a workplace substance abuse program at its sites will assist 
in maintaining a workplace that is free from the use of illegal drugs 
and creates a safe and healthy workplace for employees at DOE sites.
    One commenter (Ex. 2) stated that some drugs should not be included 
in the drug tests since some people use them for beneficial reasons. 
DOE notes that this comment is beyond the scope of the amendments 
proposed in the NOPR.
    The Department received one comment (Ex.1) regarding the proposed 
30 percent testing rate for employees in positions identified in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of 10 CFR 707.7. The commenter believes 
that DOE should take additional measures to reinforce the idea that 
there is a zero-tolerance policy for substance abuse and that the work 
being conducted should not be conducted by individuals who cannot abide 
by the rules. The commenter suggested that increasing the size of the 
annual sample rate from 30 percent would be one such additional measure 
that would be beneficial to the Department. However, the commenter did 
not suggest an alternative rate.
    DOE has determined that the 30 percent testing rate is: (1) 
consistent with the 2007 Secretarial memorandum; (2) consistent with 
the testing rate for DOE Federal employees with security clearances; 
and (3) appropriate for DOE sites at the present time. Accordingly, DOE 
is retaining the 30 percent testing requirement in the final rule as 
proposed in the NOPR. DOE notes that a DOE contractor could impose a 
higher testing rate pursuant to 10 CFR 707.5, which states that nothing 
in 10 CFR part 707 is intended to prohibit any contractor subject to 
this part from implementing workplace substance abuse requirements 
additional to those of the baseline, including drug testing employees 
and applicants for employment in any position and testing for any 
illegal drugs. However, the contractor is required to inform the 
appropriate Head of DOE Field Element of such additional requirements 
at least 30 days prior to implementation.
    One commenter (Ex. 1) stated that the Department must add 
additional stipulations for the return of a contractor employee who was 
removed from a DOE site for the use of illegal drugs, and that their 
approval to return to a TDP (which necessitates a security clearance) 
should be conditioned on increased testing on their return. The 
commenter believed this would increase the likelihood that the 
Department would know about an individual's use of illegal drugs and 
refusal to comply with the Department's policies.
    In response, DOE notes that when a contractor employee is removed 
from duty for use of illegal drugs, several conditions must be met 
under 10 CFR part 707 before the employee may be returned to a TDP. For 
example, 10 CFR 707.14(c)(1)-(3) provides that an employee may not be 
returned to a TDP unless the employee has successfully completed 
counseling or a program of rehabilitation; undergone a urine drug test 
with a negative result; and been evaluated by the site occupational 
medical department, which has determined that the individual is capable 
of safely returning to duty. Also, 10 CFR 707.14(b)(2) states that the 
failure to take the opportunity for rehabilitation, if it has been made 
available, for the use of illegal drugs, will require significant 
disciplinary action up to and including removal from employment under 
the DOE contract, in accordance with the contractor's policies. In 
addition, any employee who is twice determined to have used illegal 
drugs shall in all cases be removed from employment under the DOE 
contract. As an additional measure, 10 CFR 707.14(g) states that after 
an employee determined to have used illegal drugs has been returned to 
duty, the employee shall be subject to unannounced drug testing, at 
intervals, for a period of 12 months. In addition, in the final rule, 
10 CFR 707.14(e) continues to provide that if a DOE access 
authorization is involved, DOE must be notified of a contractor's 
intent to return to a TDP an employee removed from such duty for use of 
illegal drugs. Therefore, DOE is amending the language in 10 CFR 
707.14(e) as proposed in the NOPR.

                           List of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Exhibit No.                     Company/organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Christian Ruano.
2.....................................  Anonymous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This regulatory action has been determined not to be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, this action is not subject to review under that Executive 
order by the Office of Information and Regulatory

[[Page 49977]]

Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 
DOE has analyzed this action in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that 
this final rule is covered by the Categorical Exclusion (CX) found in 
DOE's NEPA regulations at paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 
CFR part 1021, because it is a rulemaking that interprets or amends an 
existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental 
effect of the rule. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined 
that this final rule is not a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 
NEPA and does not require an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires that an agency prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
for any final rule where the agency was first required by law to 
publish a proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies 
that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). As 
required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website: https://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    This final rule updates DOE's regulations on workplace substance 
abuse programs for its contractor workers. This rule applies only to 
activities conducted by DOE's contractors. DOE expects that any 
potential economic impact of this rule on small businesses would be 
minimal because DOE contractors perform work under contracts with DOE 
or DOE prime contractors at a DOE site. DOE contractors are reimbursed 
through their contracts for the costs of complying with workplace 
substance abuse program requirements. They would not, therefore, be 
adversely impacted by the requirements in this final rule. For these 
reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and DOE has 
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose any new collection of information 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
regulation that may result in the expenditure by State, Tribal, or 
local governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). Section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)(b)). The Act also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officials of State, Tribal, or local governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity to provide timely input to 
potentially affected small governments before establishing any 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on 
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. (62 FR 
12820; also available at: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel 
under ``Guidance & Opinions'' (Rulemaking). DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and has determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or 
analysis is required under UMRA.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family 
well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

H. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999)) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this final rule and has 
determined that it would not preempt State law and will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further 
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following

[[Page 49978]]

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote 
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 
12988 specifically requires, among other things, that executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for the affected conduct while 
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the 
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; (6) 
specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before 
parties may file suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings 
and requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies; and (7) 
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general 
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. 
Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to 
review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 
meet one or more of the standards. DOE has completed the required 
review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final 
rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). 
Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the 
Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated 
guidelines, which are available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf.
    DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare, and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (ii) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the regulation be implemented, and 
of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, DOE has concluded that this final rule 
will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, 
or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy 
action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant 
energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of 
Energy Effects.

L. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), DOE will submit to Congress a 
report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective 
date set forth at the outset of this final rule. The report will state 
it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 707

    Classified information, Drug testing, Employee assistance programs, 
Energy, Government contracts, Health and safety, National security, 
Reasonable suspicion, Special nuclear material, Substance abuse.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 27, 
2022, by Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy. That document with the 
original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative 
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the 
Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer 
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic 
format for publication, as an official document of the Department of 
Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect 
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Energy 
amends part 707 of chapter III of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 707--WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS AT DOE SITES

0
1. The authority citation for part 707 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 8102 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2012, 2013, 2051, 
2061, 2165, 2201b, 2201i, and 2201p; 42 U.S.C. 5814 and 5815; 42 
U.S.C. 7151, 7251, 7254, and 7256; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.


0
2. Section 707.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(b)(2)(iii) through (v) and adding paragraph (b)(2)(vi) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  707.7   Random drug testing requirements and identification of 
testing designated positions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Programs developed under this part for positions identified in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section shall provide for random 
tests at a rate equal to 30 percent of the total number of employees in 
testing designated positions for each 12-month period. Employees in the 
positions identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and 
individuals identified in paragraph (c) of this section will be subject 
to random testing at a rate equal to 100 percent of the total number of 
employees or individuals, as applicable, identified, and those 
identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) may be subject to additional 
drug tests.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Protective force personnel, exclusive of those covered in 
paragraph (b)(1) and (c) of this section, in positions involving use of 
firearms where the duties also require potential contact with, or 
proximity to, the public at large;

[[Page 49979]]

    (iv) Personnel directly engaged in construction, maintenance, or 
operation of nuclear reactors;
    (v) Personnel directly engaged in production, use, storage, 
transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials sufficient to cause 
significant harm to the environment or public health and safety; or
    (vi) All other personnel in positions that require an access 
authorization (security clearance), other than those identified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 707.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  707.14   Action pursuant to a determination of illegal drug use.

* * * * *
    (e) If a DOE access authorization is involved, DOE must be notified 
of a contractor's intent to return to a testing designated position an 
employee removed from such duty for use of illegal drugs. Positions 
identified in Sec.  707.7(b)(1) of this part will require DOE approval 
prior to return to a testing designated position.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-17451 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P