64262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2013 / Notices 

22. Project Sponsor and Facility: WPX 

Energy Appalachia, LLC (Turner Lake), 

Liberty Township, Susquehanna 

County, Pa. Application for renewal of 

surface water withdrawal of up to 0.393 

mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20090601). 

23. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Winner Water Services, Inc. (Manor #44 

Deep Mine), Girard Township, 

Clearfield County, Pa. Application for 

surface water withdrawal of up to 0.144 

mgd (peak day). 

24. Project Sponsor and Facility: York 

Water Company (Susquehanna River 

and South Branch Codorus Creek), 

Lower Windsor and Spring Garden 

Townships, York County, Pa. 

Modification to authorize supply of 

water to Gettysburg Municipal 

Authority through an interconnection, 

subject to receipt by Gettysburg 

Municipal Authority of an interbasin 

diversion approval (Docket No. 

20021023). 

Public Hearing—Projects Scheduled for 

Action Involving a Diversion 

1. Project Sponsor: Gettysburg 

Municipal Authority. Project Facility: 

Hunterstown Wastewater Treatment 

Plant, Straban Township, Adams 

County, Pa. Modification to increase 

authorized diversion to accommodate 

occasional power plant surge (Docket 

No. 20100916). 

2. Project Sponsor: Gettysburg 

Municipal Authority. Project Facility: 

York Water Company Interconnection, 

Straban Township, Adams County, Pa. 

Application for an out-of-basin 

diversion of up to 3.000 mgd (peak day) 

to the Potomac River Basin. 

Authority: Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 

et seq., 18 CFR Parts 806–808. 

Dated: October 11, 2013. 

Stephanie L. Richardson, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25320 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2013–0131] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Request for Comments of a 

Previously Approved Information 

Collection: Procedures for 

Transportation Drug and Alcohol 

Testing Programs 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request abstracted below is 

being forwarded to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

comments. A Federal Register Notice 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on renewing the same 

information collection was published on 

July 12, 2013 [78 FR 41974]. There were 

three responses to the docket with a 

total of seven comments. Two of the 

respondents were consortium/third 

party administrators from the trucking 

and pipeline industries, and one 

respondent represented a collection site 

that performs DOT urine collections and 

pre-employment medical exams. Our 

responses to the respondents’ comments 

are explained in this notice and the 

supporting statement to OMB. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the proposed information collection, 

including burden estimate, and 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of 

the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395– 

5806, or via electronic mail to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and 

Alcohol Policy and Compliance, Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W62–317, 

Washington, DC 20590; 202–366–3784 

(voice), 202–366–3897 (fax), or 

bohdan.baczara@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 2105–0529. 

Title: Procedures for Transportation 

Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. 

Type of Request: Renewal of a 

Previously Approved Information 

Collection. 

Background: Under the Omnibus 

Transportation Employee Testing Act of 

1991, DOT is required to implement a 

drug and alcohol testing program in 

various transportation-related 

industries. This specific requirement is 

elaborated in 49 CFR Part 40, 

Procedures for Transportation 

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs. This request for a renewal of 

the information collection for the 

program includes 43 burden items 

among which are the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form 

(ATF) and the DOT Drug and Alcohol 

Testing Management Information 

System (MIS) Data Collection Form. 

The ATF includes the employee’s 

name, the type of test taken, the date of 

the test, and the name of the employer. 

The ATF is essential to the alcohol 

testing program. Data on each test 

conducted, including test results, are 

necessary to document tests conducted 

and actions taken to ensure safety in the 

workplace. 

The MIS form includes employer 

specific drug and alcohol testing 

information such as the reason for the 

test and the cumulative number of 

positive, negative and refusal test 

results. The MIS data is used by each of 

the affected DOT Agencies (i.e., Federal 

Aviation Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, Federal 

Railroad Administration, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, and the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration) and the United States 

Coast Guard when calculating their 

random testing rates. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

The information will be used by 

transportation employers, Department 

representatives, and a variety of service 

agents. Estimated total number of 

respondents is 2,639,331. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

6,548,043. 

Frequency: The information will be 

collected annually. 

Annual Estimated Total Number 

Burden Hours: 678,986 

Discussion of Comments to the Docket 

There were three respondents to the 

docket with a total of seven comments. 

Two of the respondents are consortium/ 

third party administrators from the 

trucking and pipeline industries, and 

one respondent represented a collection 

site that performs pre-employment 

medical exams and DOT urine 

collections. Below are our responses to 

the respondents’ comments. 

Comment 

Most of the respondents expressed 

support for the Department’s use of the 

Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) to be the 

record of an alcohol test and the 

Management Information System (MIS) 

form to document an employer’s DOT 

testing data. They also supported the 

Department’s estimate of burden hours 

associated with collection and handling 

each of the forms. 

DOT Response 

The Department agrees with the 

commenters’ supportive statements 

regarding use of the forms and the 

calculation of burden hours. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2013 / Notices 64263 

Comment 

Two of the respondents wondered if 

the DOT was contemplating an 

electronic ATF in the future and 

suggested moving away from a paperbased system. 

DOT Response 

The Department has no objection to 

pursuing establishing the framework for 

an electronic ATF. We are interested in 

and currently working with the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services on issues related to 

implementing an electronic Federal 

Drug Testing Custody and Control Form 

(CCF). We believe that issues associated 

with the electronic CCF will be similar 

to issues associated with the electronic 

ATF. For these reasons, the Department 

will explore implementing an electronic 

ATF after an electronic CCF has been 

implemented. 

Comment 

One respondent suggested that we 

modify the urine collection process to 

permit a portion of the DOT urine 

sample to also be used for other tests. 

DOT Response 

Because the comment is not germane 

to the ATF or MIS form, the Department 

has no response other than to welcome 

the respondent to submit comments on 

this issue during any future rulemaking 

involving Part 40’s urine collections. 

Comment 

One respondent, a large C/TPA 

providing services to the trucking 

industry, recommended allowing ‘‘. . . 

third-party administrators to be part of 

the remediation process for alcohol tests 

as is the case with controlled substances 

tests.’’ The C/TPA went on to say that 

the current three-part ATF does not 

provide for the capability for employers 

to rapidly share information leading to 

a hole in recordkeeping and making 

wrong choices regarding drivers with 

positive test results. 

DOT Response 

The ATF is a 3-page form and the 

drug test CCF is a 5-page form. The 

difference in who ultimately gets certain 

pages of the form is based upon the fact 

that drug testing utilizes laboratories 

and Medical Review Officers, and 

alcohol testing does not. Hence, the ATF 

is 3 pages, not 5. As in drug testing, 

copies of the ATF go to the employee, 

the employer, and the BAT [in drug 

testing, the collector]. It is unclear as to 

what remediation process the 

respondent is referring. If the issue is 

that of permitting C/TPAs to transmit 

positive alcohol test results to employer, 

the Department has already an 

established position. The immediate 

transmission of positive alcohol test 

result to the employer is a safety matter. 

Because time is of the essence, the 

Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) is 

required to immediately transmit the 

result of the confirmation test result (i.e. 

.020 or greater) to the Designated 

Employer Representative (DER) so the 

DER can take the appropriate action. For 

these reasons, C/TPAs are not permitted 

to act as intermediaries in transmitting 

this information to the DER. The 

Department has no reason to believe 

that BATs have not been transmitting or 

cannot immediately transmit this 

information to the DER. 

With respect to employers making 

incorrect choices regarding what to do 

with employees who have positive 

alcohol test results, as a service agent, 

a C/TPA can advise an employer on the 

regulation. For example, a C/TPA can 

explain that an employer’s 

responsibility is to permanently remove 

an employee from safety sensitive duties 

when the employee has an alcohol test 

result of .040 or greater. They can also 

advise the employer about actions for 

results 0.02 through 0.039. 

Comment 

One respondent, a C/TPA servicing 

the pipeline industry, did not have any 

concern over the Department’s 

estimated burden hours for either form. 

That same respondent went on to say 

that the burden hours should include an 

estimate for data entry into the Drug and 

Alcohol Management Information 

System (DAMIS) as the DAMIS 

procedures vary by Agency. 

DOT Response 

DAMIS is an on-line portal to the 

electronic MIS form. Because of the 

nature of each transportation industry, 

each DOT Agency may require different 

log-in and setup procedures to ensure 

the accountability by those entities 

required to submit MIS information. 

These administrative procedures are 

external to the actual completion of the 

MIS form and are independent of the 

estimated time to actually enter the MIS 

data once in DAMIS. 

Comment 

One respondent, a C/TPA servicing 

the pipeline industry, wanted to know 

‘‘. . . what other uses the Department 

makes of this data in the aggregate and 

by agency.’’ 

DOT Response 

As the respondent noted, the MIS data 

is primarily used by the DOT Agencies 

to determine their respective industry’s 

random testing rate for the next calendar 

year. We would like to add that the DOT 

Agencies often use the MIS data for 

planning audit/inspection strategy as 

well. 

Comment 

One respondent, a C/TPA servicing 

the pipeline industry, made several 

comments related to minimizing the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents. Their comments 

focused on the pipeline industry and 

were on issues leading up to the 

submission of the MIS data, such as: (1) 

The varying request dates for submitting 

the MIS data; (2) the standardization of 

data entry into DAMIS, as well as 

permitting to upload a data file into 

DAMIS; (3) standardizing the input 

process for contractors in the pipeline 

industry; and (4) permitting an audit 

service to log into DAMIS as the 

employer in order to be able to enter 

contractor data into DAMIS. 

DOT Response 

With respect to item 1, it is a wellknown fact that the due-date for 

submitting MIS data is set in each of the 

Agency’s regulations as March 15 of the 

following year. A DOT Agency may see 

the need to extend that date to 

accommodate the stakeholders’ request 

for an extension or the DOT Agency 

may have identified issues that have 

prevented their efforts to provide notice 

to employers in a timely manner so that 

employers could enter information by 

the March 15 due-date. In either 

scenario, extending the due-date would 

not add a paperwork burden to 

employers. 

With respect to item 2, the one DOT 

Agency referenced in this comment as a 

potential beneficiary of ‘‘data entry 

standardization’’ is PHMSA. In 

particular, it appears the login process 

for this agency was the commenter’s 

primary issue and was characterized as, 

‘‘complicated.’’ According to PHMSA, 

the suggestion to change this process for 

the sake of ‘‘standardization’’ may result 

in unintended consequences when there 

is a misunderstanding of the 

overarching intent of the login process. 

For PHMSA, each transportation 

employer—designated as either an 

‘‘operator’’ or ‘‘contractor’’—is issued a 

unique ‘‘user name’’ and ‘‘password’’ for 

purposes of data integrity and security. 

It is important to understand that 

operators are solely accountable for 

their contractors’ ‘‘covered employees’’ 

during the MIS reporting year. This 

means that contractors must provide 

MIS testing data under the banner of 

each operator for their contractor’s 

covered employees when they have 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2013 / Notices 

performed covered functions, at any 

time and duration, on the operator’s 

jurisdictional pipeline facilities. With 

this operator-contractor association rule 

lodged in the programming, DAMIS 

designates contractor login information 

that is solely and directly associated 

with the operator who has listed them 

as a ‘‘covered function performing’’ 

contractor. DAMIS also captures one 

contractor employer entry as a ‘‘data of 

record’’ for accounting purposes and 

avoiding duplication of data. 

Eliminating these processes has the 

possible unintended consequence of 

degrading data security or forcing the 

agency to create a login process that is 

complicated, requiring additional 

processes such as contractor 

registration, to assure data integrity. 

The suggestion for developing a 

process for downloading a DAMIS file 

onto a transportation employer’s 

computer server and then uploading it 

back to DAMIS while laudable is replete 

with potential IT security challenges. 

Among them are: Providing prescriptive 

stakeholder data entry procedures 

(especially those with limited computer 

skills); programing challenges 

associated with each DOT Agency; and 

agency budgetary considerations for 

developing such programming. 

With respect to item 3, we mentioned 

earlier DAMIS is an on-line portal to the 

electronic MIS form. Because of the 

nature of the each transportation 

industry, each DOT Agency may require 

different log-in and setup procedures to 

ensure the accountability by those 

entities required to submit MIS 

information. These administrative 

procedures are external to the actual 

completion of the MIS form and are 

independent of the estimated time to 

actually enter the MIS data once in 

DAMIS. 

In the DOT Agency example, PHMSA 

is being cited as duplicating the 

reporting requirements for contractor 

employers. Each contractor login 

designation is uniquely associated with 

the operator employer who has 

identified them in the DAMIS electronic 

reporting system. This reporting 

association is consistent with PHMSA 

regulatory mandate regarding operator 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

under Title 49 CFR part 199, 199.115 

and 245, which address contractor 

covered employees. 

With respect to item 4, while we 

recognized the value of MIS provider 

service performed by C/TPAs, 

accommodating them for business 

process efficiency, with a single login, 

presents significant potential risk to 

maintaining data integrity and security. 

Moreover, current regulations assign 

accountability and responsibility on the 

employer for MIS reporting. 

With regard to entering multiple 

contractor MIS data under the PHMSA 

regulation, operator employers, or their 

designated C/TPAs, always had the 

option of issuing the DAMIS unique 

user name and password to these 

contractors, and then allowing them to 

enter their data directly into DAMIS. 

This option is utilized effectively with 

DOT/FTA grantees/grantors, which 

allows for shared responsibility for this 

MIS information. In similar fashion, the 

pipeline safety operator employer, or 

their designated C/TPA, can monitor 

contractor employers’ submissions for 

data review and approval. Utilizing this 

process could alleviate the number of 

contractor MIS data has to be physically 

entered by operator employers or their 

C/TPA. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Department, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1:48. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 

2013. 

Authority and Issuance. 

Patricia Lawton, 

DOT PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25272 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Receipt of Noise Compatibility 

Program and Request for Review; 

Southwest Florida International 

Airport, Ft. Myers, Florida 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces that it 

is reviewing a proposed Noise 

Compatibility Program that was 

submitted for Southwest Florida 

International Airport under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47504 et seq (the 

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 

Act hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act’’) 

and 14 CFR part 150 by the Lee County 

Port Authority. This program was 

submitted subsequent to a 

determination by FAA that the 

associated Noise Exposure Maps 

submitted under 14 CFR part 150 for the 

Southwest Florida International Airport 

were in compliance with applicable 

requirements effective February 8, 2013, 

and was published in the Federal 

Register on February 8, 2013. The 

proposed Noise Compatibility Program 

will be approved or disapproved on or 

before April 19, 2014. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of the start of FAA’s review of the 

associated noise compatibility program 

is October 21, 2013. The public 

comment period ends December 20, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Orlando Airports 

District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 

Drive, Orlando, FL 32822, (407) 812– 

6331. Comments on the proposed noise 

compatibility program should also be 

submitted to the above office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA is 

reviewing a proposed Noise 

Compatibility Program for Southwest 

Florida International Airport which will 

be approved or disapproved on or before 

April 19, 2014. This notice also 

announces the availability of this 

program for public review and 

comment. 

An airport operator who has 

submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are 

found by FAA to be in compliance with 

the requirements of Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, may 

submit a Noise Compatibility Program 

for FAA approval which sets forth the 

measures the operator has taken or 

proposes to reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent the 

introduction of additional noncompatible uses. 

The FAA has formally received the 

Noise Compatibility Program for 

Southwest Florida International Airport, 

effective on October 21, 2013. The 

airport operator has requested that the 

FAA review this material and that the 

noise mitigation measures, to be 

implemented jointly by the airport and 

surrounding communities, be approved 

as a Noise Compatibility Program under 

Section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary 

review of the submitted material 

indicates that it conforms to the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES