Opinion ID: 535995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: UMTA's Regulations

Text: 10 Based on the premise that the use of any controlled substance has the potential to degrade safety performance, UMTA proposed regulations that would detect and deter drug use among mass transportation workers performing sensitive-safety functions. 3 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Control of Drug Use in Mass Transportation Operations, 53 Fed.Reg. at 25,910 (July 8, 1988). On December 21, 1988, after receiving over 170 comments and holding hearings on the proposed rule, UMTA issued its final rule. 53 Fed.Reg. at 47,156. 11 Pursuant to the regulations, recipients of funds under Secs. 3, 9, or 18 of the Act must certify to UMTA that they have established and implemented an anti-drug program with numerous mandatory features. 4 Recipients must develop a policy statement regarding drug use in the workplace. They must also develop employee education and training programs for all employees who perform sensitive-safety functions, and display and distribute information about drug use and abuse. Supervisors must receive at least 60 minutes additional training on these issues. 12 Most significantly, the program must provide for drug testing in five situations: (1) pre-employment testing of an individual selected for a sensitive-safety position; (2) post-accident testing where death, injury requiring medical attention, or $5,000 property damage has occurred; (3) reasonable cause testing triggered by circumstances articulated and substantiated by specific contemporaneous physical indicators of probable drug use; (4) random, unannounced testing; and (5) return-to-duty testing for anyone who failed a post-accident, reasonable cause, or random drug test. The drug testing program must comply with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, 53 Fed.Reg. 11,970 (1988), as they have been adapted and modified by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to take into account differences between federal agencies (which are governed by the HHS guidelines), and DOT-regulated industries. See Final Rule, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs, 54 Fed.Reg. 49,854 (1989) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 40). 13 Before reviewing the validity of these regulations, we will address the government's claim that appellants lack standing to bring this action because they fall outside the zone of interest of the relevant statute.