Revision to Chemical Testing Regulations for Mariners and Marine Employers, 2935-2937 [2012-1156]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
September 27, 2010, meets the inspection
requirement in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the
effective date of this AD using RR SB No.
RB.211–72–G402, Revision 1, dated January
11, 2011, meets the rebalancing requirement
in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) For RB211-Trent 800 series engines:
(i) An on-wing inspection done before the
effective date of this AD using RR ASB No.
RB.211–72–AG264, Revision 3, dated
December 21, 2010, or Revision 4, dated
February 25, 2011, meets the inspection
requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(ii) An in-shop inspection done before the
effective date of this AD using RR ASB No.
RB.211–72–AG085, Revision 1, dated
September 27, 2010, meets the inspection
requirement in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the
effective date of this AD using RR SB No.
RB.211–72–G402, Revision 1, dated January
11, 2011, meets the rebalancing requirement
in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(3) For RB211-Trent 500 series engines:
(i) An in-shop visual inspection done
before the effective date of this AD using RR
ASB No. RB.211–72–AF260, Revision 4,
dated July 28, 2009, meets the inspection
requirement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(ii) An in-shop ECI done before the
effective date of this AD using RR ASB No.
RB.211–72–G448, Revision 2, dated
December 23, 2010, meets the ECI
requirement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
21 CFR Part 73
33 CFR Part 95
[Docket No. FDA–2011–C–0878]
46 CFR Part 16
(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Manager, Engine Certification Office,
FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use
the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to request an
AMOC.
(m) Related Information
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2935
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA;
phone: (781) 238–7143; fax: (781) 238–7199;
email: alan.strom@faa.gov.
(2) European Aviation Safety Agency AD
2011–0221, dated November 14, 2011, also
pertains to the subject of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate
Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332–
242424; fax: 011–44–1332–245418; or email
from https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/
civil_team.jsp. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call (781) 238–7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
January 11, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–1128 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am]
[Docket No. USCG–2010–1064]
Mars, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive
Petition
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that Mars, Inc., has filed a petition
proposing that the color additive
regulations be amended to provide for
the safe use of spirulina blue, an extract
made from the biomass of Anthrospira
platensis (spirulina), to color candy and
chewing gum.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Felicia M. Ellison, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–
265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park,
MD 20740–3835, (240) 402–1264.
Under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C.
379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a color
additive petition (CAP 2C0293) has been
filed by Mars, Inc., c/o Keller and
Heckman LLP, 1001 G St. NW., suite
500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The
petition proposes to amend the color
additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR
part 73) Listing of Color Additives
Exempt From Certification to provide
for the safe use of spirulina blue, an
extract made from the biomass of
Anthrospira platensis (spirulina), as a
color additive in candy and chewing
gum.
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
Dated: January 6, 2012.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2012–599 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:11 Jan 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Revision to Chemical Testing
Regulations for Mariners and Marine
Employers
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
RIN 1625–AB58
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
considering revising the regulations
governing chemical (drug and alcohol)
testing of mariners. In support of that
effort, we would like input from
mariners, marine employers, service
agents, and substance abuse
professionals on a number of questions
relating to the administration of
chemical testing programs for mariners
by mariner employers.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before March 20, 2012 or reach the
Docket Management Facility by that
date.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2010–1064 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov, under
docket number USCG–2010–1064.
(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (202) 366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
Confidential Information, Proprietary
Information and Sensitive Security
Information (SSI): Do not submit
comments that include trade secrets,
confidential commercial or financial
information, or sensitive security
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2936
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information (SSI) to the public
regulatory docket. Please submit such
comments separately from other
comments on the rulemaking.
Comments containing this type of
information should be appropriately
marked as containing such information
and submitted by mail to the Coast
Guard point of contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Upon receipt of such comments, the
Coast Guard will not place the
comments in the public docket and will
handle them in accordance with
applicable safeguards and restrictions
on access. The Coast Guard will hold
them in a separate file to which the
public does not have access, and place
a note in the public docket that Coast
Guard has received such materials from
the commenter. If the Coast Guard
receives a request to examine or copy
this information, we will treat it as any
other request under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Robert Schoening, Office of
Investigations and Casualty Analysis,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (202) 372–
1033, email
Robert.C.Schoening@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to respond to this
request by submitting comments and
related material on the below questions.
All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting comments and
information: If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for
this notice (USCG–2010–1064) and
provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online, or by
fax, mail or hand delivery, but please
use only one of these means. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an email address,
or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Select document Type’’ drop down
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:11 Jan 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
menu select ‘‘Notice’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2010–1064’’ in the ‘‘Enter
Keyword or ID’’ box. Click ‘‘Search’’
then click on the balloon shape in the
‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period.
Viewing the Comments: To view the
comments online, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read
comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ box insert
‘‘USCG–2010–1064’’ and click
‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket
Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket by
visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12–140 on the ground floor
of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business,
labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice
regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal
Register (73 FR 3316).
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is considering
revising the regulations governing drug
testing of mariners in 46 CFR part 16
and alcohol testing in 33 CFR part 95.
In support of that effort, the Coast Guard
is requesting information from marine
employers, mariners, and the public on
several questions related to chemical
testing of merchant mariners. The Coast
Guard also seeks input from State, local,
and Tribal governments and from small
entities on issues related to
administering a drug testing program.
When responding to the questions
below, please provide quantitative data
on costs, benefits, and other relevant
information, specifying sources of
information and citations.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Request for Information
The Coast Guard seeks information on
the following questions:
A. Casualty Data Related to Drug and
Alcohol Use
Casualties involving drug and alcohol
use on commercial vessels can cause a
variety of negative impacts, including
loss of life, injuries, and property
damage. What non-Coast Guard sources
of data or information exist detailing
benefits or avoided damages that may
result from programs which prevent
drug and alcohol-related commercial
vessel casualties?
B. Recurrent Training for Supervisors
Currently, 46 CFR 16.401 requires
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
training for employees subject to the
chemical testing rules in 46 CFR part 16
and their supervisors. The next five
questions focus on supervisors, who are
required to have at least 60 minutes of
EAP training.
(1) Do you, as a marine employer, or
consortium or third-party administrator
(C/TPA), require recurring (annual or
some other frequency) training for
supervisors on the signs and effects of
drug and alcohol use?
(2) If so, what is the duration,
frequency, and cost of training for
supervisors?
(3) What method of training do you
use (e.g., classroom, online, written
materials, etc.)?
(5) What are the costs of your
training?
(6) Would a requirement for recurrent
supervisory training impact your
business operations? How so and by
how much?
(7) What are the benefits, if any, of
training for supervisors on the signs and
effects of drug and alcohol use? How
effective is supervisor training in
helping employers identify and prevent
drug and alcohol use and resulting
accidents?
C. Immediate Reporting for Testing
The Coast Guard is considering a
requirement for crewmembers who are
selected for testing to report
immediately to the testing site upon
being notified. The current requirement
is that crewmembers randomly selected
for testing must report, but how soon
they must report is not specified. The
Coast Guard believes that requiring
mariners to report immediately may
improve the reliability and effectiveness
of employers’ drug-testing programs.
Immediate reporting is currently
required by the Federal Aviation
Administration’s rule at 14 CFR
120.109(b)(8), which regulates aviation
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
employees, and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration’s rule at
49 CFR 382.305(l), which regulates
commercial truck drivers. The following
questions are related to immediate
reporting.
(1) What is the average or usual
amount of time between when
crewmembers are informed of their
selection for random testing and their
reporting for testing at the collection
site?
(2) What is your company or C/TPA’s
policy or practice, if any, regarding how
much time may elapse after the
crewmember is notified of the selection
before your company or C/TPA
considers the delay to be a refusal to
submit to testing?
(3) As a marine employer, would a
requirement to report immediately for
testing impact your business operations?
If so, how and by how much?
(4) Do you conduct on-site collection
of specimens?
(5) How would immediate reporting
for testing improve the reliability and
effectiveness of your drug-testing
programs?
(6) Do marine employees appear for
random drug tests required by Coast
Guard regulations during work hours or
on their own time?
(7) How effective do you believe a
‘‘report immediately’’ requirement
would be in detecting drug use (i.e., by
what percent do you estimate nonnegative test results would increase if
there was a ‘‘report immediately’’
requirement for the industry)?
(8) Do you think a ‘‘report
immediately’’ requirement would result
in a more effective random drug testing
program?
(9) The current requirement is that
crewmembers randomly selected for
testing must report, but how soon they
must report is not specified. Since
industry is currently incurring the costs
of testing, the Coast Guard does not
believe immediate reporting for testing
poses significant additional costs. What
costs, above and beyond current
compliance costs, would be incurred for
immediate reporting after notification
compared to reporting within 24 hours,
or even a few days?
D. Consortia Membership for
Independent Owners/Operators
13:11 Jan 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
E. Marine Employer Reporting of Failed
Chemical Tests
Under 46 CFR 16.201(c), marine
employers who must have a random
drug testing program are only required
to report failed drug test results for
credentialed mariners, not for noncredentialed mariners.
(1) What would be the cost if marine
employers were also required to report
failed drug tests for non-credentialed
mariners?
(2) How many failed drug tests of noncredentialed mariners have you received
during the last 5 years? Out of how
many tests?
(3) How many failed drug tests of noncredentialed mariners would you expect
to see, if marine employers were
required to report those test results to
the Coast Guard.
(4) What benefit, if any, do you see in
requiring all failed drug tests
(credentialed and non-credentialed
mariners) to be reported to the Coast
Guard?
F. Medical Review Officers (MROs)
Reporting Non-Negative Test Results
Directly to the Coast Guard
A non-negative specimen is a urine
specimen that is adulterated,
substituted, positive (for drug(s) or drug
metabolite(s)), and/or invalid.
(1) For MROs, how would a
requirement to report all non-negative
test results to the Coast Guard (in
addition to the marine employer) impact
your business?
(2) For MROs, what would be your
preferred method to report non-negative
drug test results to the Coast Guard?
G. Electronic Reporting of Management
Information System (MIS) Data
Eighty percent of annual Management
Information System reports are
submitted through the internet.
(1) If you do not submit your annual
MIS data through the internet, what
would the cost or savings be if you did?
(2) Would you request an exemption
from electronic reporting if one was
available?
impact be to you if you no longer could
take advantage of this exemption?
(2) What sources of data or
information exist on the number of
employers that are exempt from
mandatory reporting and the cost
impacts of requiring reporting by all
entities?
I. Minimum Drug-Testing Rate
Current regulations require that
employers who must have a random
drug testing program test their
crewmembers at a rate equal to 50
percent of their covered crewmembers
annually. The Coast Guard is
considering allowing individual
companies to use a lower testing rate
(25 percent) if they can demonstrate a
positive test results rate of 1 percent or
less for 2 consecutive years.
(1) As an employer, based on past
performance, do you believe that you
could qualify for the lower testing rate?
If so, what would be the cost savings
associated with the lower testing rate?
(2) To C/TPAs, how would managing
clients, some of whom have a lower
testing threshold (25 percent) and others
at the standard testing threshold
(50 percent), impact your business
operations?
J. Impacts on Small Entities
Would the measures discussed in this
notice have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities? What sources of data or
information exist detailing the economic
impact on small entities, which may
result if the measures discussed above
were implemented?
Any information provided in response
to this request for comments is
appreciated and will be considered by
the Coast Guard. This notice is issued
under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
33 CFR 1.05–1.
Dated: January 13, 2012.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director
of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012–1156 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
H. Exemption From Reporting
(1) If you are an independent owner/
operator, do you use a Consortium or
Third Party Administrator (C/TPA) to
manage the random testing portion of
your chemical testing program? If not,
how would it impact your business
operations, including costs and burden,
to use a consortium?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
(2) What are the benefits of using a C/
TPA to manage the random testing
portion of your chemical testing
program?
2937
40 CFR Part 52
Under 46 CFR 16.500(c), employers
who must have a random drug testing
program but who have 10 or fewer
employees are exempt from mandatory
MIS reporting after their third year of
reporting.
(1) Are you taking advantage of this
exemption? If so, what would the
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0925; FRL- 9619–6]
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Nonattainment New
Source Review Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2935-2937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 95
46 CFR Part 16
[Docket No. USCG-2010-1064]
RIN 1625-AB58
Revision to Chemical Testing Regulations for Mariners and Marine
Employers
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is considering revising the regulations
governing chemical (drug and alcohol) testing of mariners. In support
of that effort, we would like input from mariners, marine employers,
service agents, and substance abuse professionals on a number of
questions relating to the administration of chemical testing programs
for mariners by mariner employers.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before March 20,
2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-1064 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, under
docket number USCG-2010-1064.
(2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
Confidential Information, Proprietary Information and Sensitive
Security Information (SSI): Do not submit comments that include trade
secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or sensitive
security
[[Page 2936]]
information (SSI) to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such
comments separately from other comments on the rulemaking. Comments
containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as
containing such information and submitted by mail to the Coast Guard
point of contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Upon receipt of such comments, the Coast Guard will not place the
comments in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with
applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. The Coast Guard will
hold them in a separate file to which the public does not have access,
and place a note in the public docket that Coast Guard has received
such materials from the commenter. If the Coast Guard receives a
request to examine or copy this information, we will treat it as any
other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C.
552).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Robert Schoening, Office of Investigations and Casualty
Analysis, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (202) 372-1033, email
Robert.C.Schoening@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related material on the below questions. All comments received will
be posted, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.
Submitting comments and information: If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2010-1064) and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include
your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Select document Type'' drop down menu
select ``Notice'' and insert ``USCG-2010-1064'' in the ``Enter Keyword
or ID'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
Viewing the Comments: To view the comments online, go to https://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' box
insert ``USCG-2010-1064'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is considering revising the regulations governing
drug testing of mariners in 46 CFR part 16 and alcohol testing in 33
CFR part 95. In support of that effort, the Coast Guard is requesting
information from marine employers, mariners, and the public on several
questions related to chemical testing of merchant mariners. The Coast
Guard also seeks input from State, local, and Tribal governments and
from small entities on issues related to administering a drug testing
program. When responding to the questions below, please provide
quantitative data on costs, benefits, and other relevant information,
specifying sources of information and citations.
Request for Information
The Coast Guard seeks information on the following questions:
A. Casualty Data Related to Drug and Alcohol Use
Casualties involving drug and alcohol use on commercial vessels can
cause a variety of negative impacts, including loss of life, injuries,
and property damage. What non-Coast Guard sources of data or
information exist detailing benefits or avoided damages that may result
from programs which prevent drug and alcohol-related commercial vessel
casualties?
B. Recurrent Training for Supervisors
Currently, 46 CFR 16.401 requires Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
training for employees subject to the chemical testing rules in 46 CFR
part 16 and their supervisors. The next five questions focus on
supervisors, who are required to have at least 60 minutes of EAP
training.
(1) Do you, as a marine employer, or consortium or third-party
administrator (C/TPA), require recurring (annual or some other
frequency) training for supervisors on the signs and effects of drug
and alcohol use?
(2) If so, what is the duration, frequency, and cost of training
for supervisors?
(3) What method of training do you use (e.g., classroom, online,
written materials, etc.)?
(5) What are the costs of your training?
(6) Would a requirement for recurrent supervisory training impact
your business operations? How so and by how much?
(7) What are the benefits, if any, of training for supervisors on
the signs and effects of drug and alcohol use? How effective is
supervisor training in helping employers identify and prevent drug and
alcohol use and resulting accidents?
C. Immediate Reporting for Testing
The Coast Guard is considering a requirement for crewmembers who
are selected for testing to report immediately to the testing site upon
being notified. The current requirement is that crewmembers randomly
selected for testing must report, but how soon they must report is not
specified. The Coast Guard believes that requiring mariners to report
immediately may improve the reliability and effectiveness of employers'
drug-testing programs. Immediate reporting is currently required by the
Federal Aviation Administration's rule at 14 CFR 120.109(b)(8), which
regulates aviation
[[Page 2937]]
employees, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's rule
at 49 CFR 382.305(l), which regulates commercial truck drivers. The
following questions are related to immediate reporting.
(1) What is the average or usual amount of time between when
crewmembers are informed of their selection for random testing and
their reporting for testing at the collection site?
(2) What is your company or C/TPA's policy or practice, if any,
regarding how much time may elapse after the crewmember is notified of
the selection before your company or C/TPA considers the delay to be a
refusal to submit to testing?
(3) As a marine employer, would a requirement to report immediately
for testing impact your business operations? If so, how and by how
much?
(4) Do you conduct on-site collection of specimens?
(5) How would immediate reporting for testing improve the
reliability and effectiveness of your drug-testing programs?
(6) Do marine employees appear for random drug tests required by
Coast Guard regulations during work hours or on their own time?
(7) How effective do you believe a ``report immediately''
requirement would be in detecting drug use (i.e., by what percent do
you estimate non-negative test results would increase if there was a
``report immediately'' requirement for the industry)?
(8) Do you think a ``report immediately'' requirement would result
in a more effective random drug testing program?
(9) The current requirement is that crewmembers randomly selected
for testing must report, but how soon they must report is not
specified. Since industry is currently incurring the costs of testing,
the Coast Guard does not believe immediate reporting for testing poses
significant additional costs. What costs, above and beyond current
compliance costs, would be incurred for immediate reporting after
notification compared to reporting within 24 hours, or even a few days?
D. Consortia Membership for Independent Owners/Operators
(1) If you are an independent owner/operator, do you use a
Consortium or Third Party Administrator (C/TPA) to manage the random
testing portion of your chemical testing program? If not, how would it
impact your business operations, including costs and burden, to use a
consortium?
(2) What are the benefits of using a C/TPA to manage the random
testing portion of your chemical testing program?
E. Marine Employer Reporting of Failed Chemical Tests
Under 46 CFR 16.201(c), marine employers who must have a random
drug testing program are only required to report failed drug test
results for credentialed mariners, not for non-credentialed mariners.
(1) What would be the cost if marine employers were also required
to report failed drug tests for non-credentialed mariners?
(2) How many failed drug tests of non-credentialed mariners have
you received during the last 5 years? Out of how many tests?
(3) How many failed drug tests of non-credentialed mariners would
you expect to see, if marine employers were required to report those
test results to the Coast Guard.
(4) What benefit, if any, do you see in requiring all failed drug
tests (credentialed and non-credentialed mariners) to be reported to
the Coast Guard?
F. Medical Review Officers (MROs) Reporting Non-Negative Test Results
Directly to the Coast Guard
A non-negative specimen is a urine specimen that is adulterated,
substituted, positive (for drug(s) or drug metabolite(s)), and/or
invalid.
(1) For MROs, how would a requirement to report all non-negative
test results to the Coast Guard (in addition to the marine employer)
impact your business?
(2) For MROs, what would be your preferred method to report non-
negative drug test results to the Coast Guard?
G. Electronic Reporting of Management Information System (MIS) Data
Eighty percent of annual Management Information System reports are
submitted through the internet.
(1) If you do not submit your annual MIS data through the internet,
what would the cost or savings be if you did?
(2) Would you request an exemption from electronic reporting if one
was available?
H. Exemption From Reporting
Under 46 CFR 16.500(c), employers who must have a random drug
testing program but who have 10 or fewer employees are exempt from
mandatory MIS reporting after their third year of reporting.
(1) Are you taking advantage of this exemption? If so, what would
the impact be to you if you no longer could take advantage of this
exemption?
(2) What sources of data or information exist on the number of
employers that are exempt from mandatory reporting and the cost impacts
of requiring reporting by all entities?
I. Minimum Drug-Testing Rate
Current regulations require that employers who must have a random
drug testing program test their crewmembers at a rate equal to 50
percent of their covered crewmembers annually. The Coast Guard is
considering allowing individual companies to use a lower testing rate
(25 percent) if they can demonstrate a positive test results rate of 1
percent or less for 2 consecutive years.
(1) As an employer, based on past performance, do you believe that
you could qualify for the lower testing rate? If so, what would be the
cost savings associated with the lower testing rate?
(2) To C/TPAs, how would managing clients, some of whom have a
lower testing threshold (25 percent) and others at the standard testing
threshold (50 percent), impact your business operations?
J. Impacts on Small Entities
Would the measures discussed in this notice have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? What sources
of data or information exist detailing the economic impact on small
entities, which may result if the measures discussed above were
implemented?
Any information provided in response to this request for comments
is appreciated and will be considered by the Coast Guard. This notice
is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 1.05-1.
Dated: January 13, 2012.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-1156 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P