Security Threat Disqualification Update, 34795-34800 [2018-15534]
Download as PDF
34795
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 141
Monday, July 23, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 3, 61, 63, and 65
[Docket No.: FAA–2018–0656; Notice No.
18–03]
RIN 2120–AL04
Security Threat Disqualification Update
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to amend
and consolidate the security threat
disqualification regulations. This
proposed rule would outline the FAA
actions on certificates or applications
for certificates when the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) notifies
the FAA that an individual poses a
security threat.
DATES: Send comments on or before
August 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2018–0656
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at (202) 493–2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
https://www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590–0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions concerning this action,
contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the
Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–3073;
email Courtney.Freeman@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
United States Code. Subtitle I, Section
106, describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the
scope of the agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated
under 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the
Administrator to promulgate regulations
and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5),
which requires the Administrator to
promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing regulations
and setting minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security.
This rulemaking is also promulgated
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111, which
requires the Administrator to amend,
modify, suspend, or revoke any
certificate or any part of a certificate
issued under Title 49 when the TSA
notifies the FAA that the holder of the
certificate poses or is suspected of
posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism
or a threat to airline or passenger safety.
Additionally, this rulemaking is
promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires that
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TSA coordinate with the Administrator
of the FAA to ensure that individuals
are screened before being certificated by
the FAA. Thus, the FAA will not issue
a certificate to screened individuals
identified by TSA as security threats.
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This proposed rulemaking would
amend and consolidate the current FAA
security threat disqualification
regulations found in 14 CFR 61.18,
63.14, and 65.14 into part 3 of Title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). Those regulations provide, in
sum, that no person is eligible to hold
a certificate, rating, or authorization
issued under each of those parts when
the TSA notifies the FAA in writing of
an adverse security threat
determination.
Since 2004, the FAA has not applied
these regulations to United States (U.S.),
citizens or resident aliens, instead
relying on the statutory authority in 49
U.S.C. 46111, Public Law 108–176 (Dec.
12, 2003), and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), Public Law 108–458
(Dec. 17, 2004), enacted after the FAA
issued its security threat
disqualification regulations. Section
46111 directs the FAA to take action
against ‘‘any part of a certificate’’ issued
under Title 49 in response to a security
threat determination by the TSA and
also provides a hearing and appeal
process for U.S. citizens. Section
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) provides that
individuals will be screened against the
consolidated and integrated terrorist
watchlist maintained by the federal
government prior to being certificated
by the FAA. This proposed rule is
necessary to conform the above-cited
FAA regulations to 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) and to clarify the FAA’s
process for preventing the issuance of
certificates to applicants that the TSA
finds to be security threats.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the proposed security
threat regulations describe the actions
the FAA will take on a certificate or
certificate application when it receives
notification from the TSA that an
individual is a security threat. As with
current practice under the statute, the
FAA would not issue a certificate or any
part of a certificate when the TSA has
notified the FAA in writing that the
individual poses, or is suspected of
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
34796
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism
or a threat to airline or passenger safety.
For certificates already issued, the FAA
would amend, modify, suspend, or
revoke any FAA-issued certificate or
part of such certificate upon written
notification from the TSA that the
certificate holder poses, or is suspected
of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism
or a threat to airline or passenger
safety.1
B. Costs and Benefits
This rule is not expected to impose
anything other than minimal cost, if
any. The proposed regulations would
merely codify existing, statutorilymandated procedures that FAA has
been following since 2004. This
proposed rule, therefore, would not
have significant economic impact
within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and DOT’s policies and
procedures.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Background
A. Current Statutory and Regulatory
Structure Governing Security Threat
Disqualification
In response to the attack on the
United States on September 11, 2001,
the FAA issued the current security
threat disqualification regulations to
prevent a possible imminent hazard to
aircraft, persons, and property within
the United States. Specifically, in 2003,
the FAA, in consultation with the TSA,
determined that security threat
disqualification regulations were
necessary to minimize security threats
and potential security vulnerabilities to
the fullest extent possible. The FAA, the
TSA, and other federal security agencies
were concerned about the potential use
of aircraft to carry out further terrorist
acts in the United States. Accordingly,
the FAA issued a final rule, Ineligibility
for an Airman Certificate Based on
Security Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24,
2003), providing that an individual
determined by the TSA to be a security
threat is ineligible for airman
certification and thus cannot not hold
an FAA-issued airman certificate. The
FAA took this action because a person
who poses a security threat should not
be in a position that could be used to
take actions that are contrary to civil
aviation security and, therefore, safety
in air commerce. These security threat
disqualification regulations are found in
§§ 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14.
Subsequent to the issuance of the
current FAA security threat
1 The TSA directs what specific action the FAA
should take on the certificate and includes that
information in the letter notifying the FAA of the
security threat determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
disqualification regulations, the
President signed into law 49 U.S.C.
46111 2 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).3
Section 46111 requires the FAA to
amend, modify, suspend, or revoke
certificates or any part of a certificate
issued under Title 49, when the TSA
informs the FAA that the holder ‘‘poses,
or is suspected of posing, a risk of air
piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline
or passenger safety.’’ Under section
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the TSA and the FAA
must work together to ‘‘ensure that
individuals are screened . . . before
being certificated by the [FAA].’’ After
the passage of these statutes, the FAA
did not update its regulations, though it
did publish in the Federal Register its
disposition of comments to the 2003
final rule which noted that if additional
rulemaking was necessary to reflect the
statutory requirements of 46111, the
FAA would utilize notice and comment
rulemaking.4 The FAA’s Federal
Register document also summarized
two D.C. Circuit cases from 2004 that
sought judicial review of the FAA and
the TSA’s security threat
disqualification regulations. In one of
those cases, Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184
(D.C. Cir. 2004), the FAA, the TSA, and
the Department of Justice pledged not to
apply existing regulations to U.S.
citizens or resident aliens, as further
addressed in the Discussion of the
Proposal.5
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Scope
The proposed rule would codify the
FAA’s authority to amend, modify,
suspend, and revoke FAA-issued
certificates and any part of such
certificates issued to individuals under
Title 49 based on the TSA’s written
notification that a certificate holder
poses a security threat. The proposed
rule would also clarify the FAA’s
authority to deny or hold in abeyance
applications for certificates and any
parts of such certificates when the TSA
notifies the FAA that an applicant poses
a security threat. The proposed rule
would implement the security threat
2 Vision 100—Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108–176, 117 Stat.
2490 (Dec. 12, 2003).
3 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act, Public Law 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17,
2004).
4 Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on
Security Grounds, 70 FR 25761 (May 16, 2005).
5 Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking
Dockets Nos. TSA–2002–13732 and TSA–2002–
13733, Transportation Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
disqualification requirement mandated
in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this
proposed rule relies, refer to certificate
holders and applicants in terms of
individuals, rather than entities.6 While
there is separate statutory authority for
FAA certificate-action against entities
based on TSA security threat
determinations,7 this proposed rule
addresses only individuals who hold or
are applying for certificates issued
under Title 49 of the United States
Code.
B. Certificate Applicants
While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a
mechanism by which the FAA handles
the amendment, modification,
suspension, or revocation of an
individual’s certificate, it is silent as to
how the FAA should handle security
threat determinations at the certificate
application stage. This proposed rule
would codify the FAA’s process for
preventing the issuance of certificates to
individuals at the application stage
when the TSA finds the individuals to
be security threats. FAA’s authority to
deny or hold in abeyance an
individual’s certificate application
based on the TSA’s written notification
that an individual poses a security
threat is necessary to implement the
intent of 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i),
which requires the FAA to coordinate
with the TSA to ensure that certificate
applicants are screened against all
appropriate records in the consolidated
and integrated terrorist watchlist
maintained by the federal government
before being certificated by the FAA.
The FAA must not issue certificates to
individuals who the TSA finds to be a
security threat. The proposed rule
would provide that, upon notification
from the TSA, the FAA would hold in
abeyance the applications of these
individuals while they are provided the
6 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing
‘‘individuals’’ who are U.S. citizens to have a
hearing on the record); § 46111(f) (‘‘An individual
who commences an appeal’’); § 46111(g)(3) (‘‘upon
request of the individual adversely affected by an
order of the [FAA] Administrator’’); 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) (requiring screening of
‘‘individuals); Cf. Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) Vetting of Airmen Certificates
and General Aviation Airport Access and Security
Procedures, DHS OIG (July 2011), https://
www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-96_
Jul11.pdf; Memorandum To The Dockets, TSA
Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA–2002–13732 and
TSA–2002–13733, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (Mar. 16, 2004).
7 For example, 49 U.S.C. 44924, provides for FAA
suspension or revocation of a repair station’s
certificate based on a TSA determination regarding
the repair station’s security measures and security
risk.
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
opportunity to appeal the TSA’s
security threat determination under the
TSA’s appeal process. The FAA would
deny an application only upon the
TSA’s notification of a final security
threat determination. Alternatively, if
the TSA notifies the FAA that it has
withdrawn its security threat
determination, the FAA would continue
processing the application.
C. Application of Regulations to U.S.
Citizens and Resident Aliens
The FAA proposes to apply the
security threat disqualification
regulations to all individuals, including
U.S. citizens and resident aliens, who
hold FAA-issued certificates or are
applying for these certificates. This
approach would harmonize the
proposed security threat disqualification
regulations with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). It would also close a
gap in the FAA’s security threat
disqualification regulations which are
currently not being applied to U.S.
citizens and resident aliens as a result
of a pledge made by the FAA and the
TSA in the case Coalition of Airline
Pilots Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d
1184 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In the Coalition of
Airline Pilots Associations case, unions
representing aviation workers raised
various challenges to the TSA and the
FAA’s current security threat
disqualification regulations. The D.C.
Circuit never reached the merits of the
unions’ claims. Instead, the Court
dismissed the unions’ petition for
review, finding that intervening events
had mooted their claims, specifically
the new laws enacted by Congress. Both
the TSA and the FAA pledged that the
existing security threat regulations
would no longer be applied to U.S.
citizens or resident aliens as a result of
the passage of § 46111 which provides
a different mechanism for TSA security
threat determinations and appeal
procedures for U.S. citizens.8 The
agencies also noted that when they
issued new security threat
disqualification regulations they would
do so pursuant to notice and comment
rulemaking. Another D.C. Circuit
decision, decided on the same day as
the Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations case, upheld the
application of the same FAA security
threat disqualification regulations to
non-resident aliens because the
regulations provide sufficient due
process for non-resident aliens. Jifry v.
FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). This
8 Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking
Dockets Nos. TSA–2002–13732 and TSA–2002–
13733, Transportation Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
proposal would establish regulations
that apply equally to all certificate
holders and applicants.
D. TSA Security Threat Determinations
and Appeals
The FAA’s certificate denials are
generally covered under 49 U.S.C.
44703 and, therefore, are appealable to
the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB). In cases of security threat
disqualifications, if the certificate action
is appealable to the NTSB, the FAA
does not anticipate that the scope of
these appeals would extend beyond an
examination of the procedural ground
for the certificate action or application
denial because an affected individual
would be provided the opportunity to
challenge the substance of TSA’s
security threat determination under
TSA’s appeal process.9
In the case of a security threat
disqualification, the certificate action or
application denial would be based on
the TSA’s applicant vetting and security
threat determinations, as mandated
under 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). The FAA’s reliance on
TSA’s vetting and security threat
determinations is also based on the
broad statutory authority and
responsibility that the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA),
Public Law 107–71, (115 Stat. 597, Nov.
19, 2001), placed in the office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security with regard to intelligence
information and security threat
assessments. The FAA is not privy to
the basis for the TSA’s security threat
determinations, which often include
classified information. Therefore, the
FAA’s certificate actions and
application denials are based solely on
written notification by the TSA of a
security threat determination against an
individual. Accordingly, appeals of the
security threat determinations made by
the TSA are made through the TSA’s
administrative appeal process.10
9 The appropriate venue for appealing a certificate
action based on a security threat determination was
also discussed substantially in Jifry v. FAA, 370
F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). The court stated that
‘‘Section 46111 makes no provision for NTSB
review even for citizens, and the Conference Report
states that non-resident aliens ‘have the right to the
appeal procedures that [TSA] has already provided
for them.’ H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108–334 at 152 (2003).
In addition, § 46111(a) requires the FAA to respond
automatically to TSA threat assessments . . . if
these pilots retain any right to NTSB review at all,
it is no broader than the review for procedural
regularity that they have received . . .’’ Jifry at
1180.
10 See 49 U.S.C. 46111. TSA currently is using
interim redress procedures for U.S. citizen, U.S.
non-citizen national, and lawful permanent resident
certificate holders. While section 46111 does not
require that TSA provide ALJ review to U.S. noncitizen nationals and lawful permanent residents,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34797
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade
Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of
U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of this proposed rule.
The existing security threat
disqualification regulations, 14 CFR
parts 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, disqualify
any person who the TSA has found to
be a security threat from obtaining an
FAA certificate. These regulations went
into effect on January 24, 2004. A year
later, the President signed statutory
authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49
U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) into law. 49
U.S.C. 46111 directs the FAA to take
action against the holder of any part of
a certificate in response to a security
threat determination by the TSA and
also provides an appeal process for U.S.
citizens. 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i)
directs TSA to coordinate with the FAA
to ensure that individuals are screened
against a consolidated and integrated
terrorist watchlist maintained by the
federal government prior to being
certificated by the FAA. The existing
regulations and the statutory authority
are virtually identical, and the FAA has
been relying on the statutory authority,
not the existing regulations, to prevent
TSA has chosen to do so in its interim procedures.
TSA also provides U.S. non-citizen nationals and
lawful permanent residents with review by the TSA
Final Decision Maker if those individuals choose to
appeal an ALJ Decision.
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
34798
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
individuals who are security threats
from obtaining or holding a certificate.
The FAA has not updated its regulations
since the enactment of statutory
authority 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Since there are no new
requirements in the proposed rule, the
expected outcome would be a minimal
cost, if any, and a full regulatory
evaluation was not prepared. The FAA
requests comments with supporting
justification about the FAA
determination of minimal economic
impact.
The FAA has, therefore, determined
that this proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration. The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. The certification must
include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and
the reasoning should be clear.
The proposed rule provides similar
requirements found in the existing
security threat disqualification
regulations in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and
65.14, and statutory authority located at
49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed
rule would not impose any new costs to
the industry. The expected outcome
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
would be a minimal economic impact
on any small entity affected by this
rulemaking action.
If an agency determines that a
rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
head of the agency may so certify under
section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as
provided in section 605(b), the head of
the FAA certifies that this proposed
rulemaking would not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this proposed rule
and determined that the objective of the
rule is for the safety of the American
public and is therefore not considered
an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155
million in lieu of $100 million. This
proposed rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
FAA consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
burdens imposed on the public. The
FAA has determined that there would
be no new requirement for information
collection associated with this proposed
rule.
F. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
conform to International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined that there are no ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed
regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined preliminarily
that this rulemaking action qualifies for
the categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This rule is not subject to the
requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017) because it is issued
with respect to a national security
function of the United States.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed
rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
agency has determined that this action
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, or the relationship
between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and,
therefore, would not have Federalism
implications.
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The
agency has determined that it would not
be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under
the executive order and would not be
likely to have a significant adverse effect
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
D. Executive Order 13609, International
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation,
promotes international regulatory
cooperation to meet shared challenges
involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed
this proposed action under the policies
and agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609, and has determined that
this action would have no effect on
international regulatory cooperation.
VI. Additional Information
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. The agency also invites
comments relating to the economic,
environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting
the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments it receives, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The agency may
change this proposal in light of the
comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business
Information: Commenters should not
file proprietary or confidential business
information in the docket. Such
information must be sent or delivered
directly to the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document, and marked as
proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark
the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is proprietary or confidential.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is
aware of proprietary information filed
with a comment, the agency does not
place it in the docket. It is held in a
separate file to which the public does
not have access, and the FAA places a
note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to
examine or copy this information, it
treats it as any other request under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552). The FAA processes such a request
under Department of Transportation
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking
Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking
documents may be obtained from the
internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing
Office’s web page at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by
sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of
Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or
by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters
must identify the docket or notice
number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in
developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and
technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 3
Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation
and recreation areas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 63
Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation
(air), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures.
14 CFR Part 65
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft,
Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34799
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 3—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 3 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44704, and 46111.
2. Add a new subpart A heading to
read as follows:
■
Subpart A—General Requirements
Concerning Type Certificated Products
or Products, Parts, Appliances, or
Materials That May Be Used on TypeCertificated Products
3. Designate §§ 3.1 and 3.5 as
subpart A.
■ 4. Add new subpart B to read as
follows:
■
Subpart B—Security Threat
Disqualification
Sec.
3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a
certificate or any part of a certificate held
by an individual.
3.205 Effect of TSA notification on
applications by individuals for a
certificate or any part of a certificate.
§ 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a
certificate or any part of a certificate held
by an individual.
When the TSA notifies the FAA that
an individual holding a certificate or
part of a certificate issued by the FAA
poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk
of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
airline or passenger safety, the FAA will
issue an order amending, modifying,
suspending, or revoking any certificate
or part of a certificate issued by the
FAA.
§ 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on
applications by individuals for a certificate
or any part of a certificate.
(a) When the TSA notifies the FAA
that an individual who has applied for
a certificate or any part of a certificate
issued by the FAA poses, or is
suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy
or terrorism or a threat to airline or
passenger safety, the FAA will hold the
individual’s certificate applications in
abeyance pending further notification
from the TSA.
(b) When the TSA notifies the FAA
that the TSA has made a final security
threat determination regarding an
individual, the FAA will deny all the
individual’s certificate applications.
Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the
FAA that it has withdrawn its security
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
34800
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
threat determination, the FAA will
continue processing the individual’s
applications.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
5. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729,
44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302; Sec.
2307 Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
U.S.C. 44703 note).
§ 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed
and Reserved]
■
6. Remove and reserve § 61.18.
PART 63—CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT
CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN
PILOTS
7. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,
45301–45302.
§ 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed
and Reserved]
■
8. Remove and reserve § 63.14.
PART 65—CERTIFICATION:
AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT
CREWMEMBERS
9. The authority citation for part 65
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113,
44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–
45103, 45301–45302.
§ 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed
and Reserved]
■
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–102,
–103, and –106 airplanes; Model DHC–
8–200 series airplanes; and Model DHC–
8–300 series airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by a report that a
certain modification to the auto relight
system is incompatible with a certain
beta lockout system modification and
could result in de-activation of the auto
ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. This
proposed AD would require an
inspection of the auto ignition system
and applicable rectification. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc.,
Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–
4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com;
internet https://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St, Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195.
SUMMARY:
PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS,
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
10. Remove and reserve § 65.14.
Issued, under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 46111, and 44903(j) in
Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018.
Charles Trippe,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018–15534 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Examining the AD Docket
Federal Aviation Administration
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2018–
0635; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone
800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2018–0635; Product
Identifier 2017–NM–183–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Program Management
Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room
107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847–294–
7140; fax 847–294–7834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2018–0635; Product Identifier 2017–
NM–183–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this NPRM based
on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this NPRM.
Discussion
Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA), which is the aviation authority
for Canada, has issued Canadian AD
CF–2017–21R1, dated June 28, 2017
(referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information,
or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc.,
Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106
airplanes; Model DHC–8–200 series
airplanes; and Model DHC–8–300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the incorporation of the Auto
Relight modification per Bombardier SB
[Service Bulletin] 8–74–02 on an aeroplane
with a Beta Lockout System (BLS) installed,
it was noticed that if SB 8–74–02 is
incorporated in conjunction with, or after the
incorporation of BLS SB 8–76–35 ([Canadian]
AD CF–2013–15) or SB 8–76–24 (FAA AD
2000–02–13 [Amendment 39–11531 (65 FR
4095, January 26, 2000)]), the #2 engine auto
ignition function of the beta lockout system
will not be available when the beta lockout
system is activated. This condition, if not
corrected, may result in a #2 engine
uncommanded in-flight shut down.
To preclude any future occurrence of the
noted deficiency, Bombardier has issued SB
8–74–02 Revision B to highlight its
incompatibility with post SB 8–76–35 or 8–
76–24 BLS compliant aeroplanes. In
addition, Bombardier issued a new SB, 8–74–
06 for Auto Relight System modification that
can be incorporated in conjunction with or
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34795-34800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15534]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34795]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 3, 61, 63, and 65
[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0656; Notice No. 18-03]
RIN 2120-AL04
Security Threat Disqualification Update
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend and consolidate the security threat
disqualification regulations. This proposed rule would outline the FAA
actions on certificates or applications for certificates when the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) notifies the FAA that an
individual poses a security threat.
DATES: Send comments on or before August 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0656
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce
by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security.
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111,
which requires the Administrator to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke
any certificate or any part of a certificate issued under Title 49 when
the TSA notifies the FAA that the holder of the certificate poses or is
suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
airline or passenger safety.
Additionally, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires that TSA coordinate with the
Administrator of the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened before
being certificated by the FAA. Thus, the FAA will not issue a
certificate to screened individuals identified by TSA as security
threats.
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This proposed rulemaking would amend and consolidate the current
FAA security threat disqualification regulations found in 14 CFR 61.18,
63.14, and 65.14 into part 3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR). Those regulations provide, in sum, that no person
is eligible to hold a certificate, rating, or authorization issued
under each of those parts when the TSA notifies the FAA in writing of
an adverse security threat determination.
Since 2004, the FAA has not applied these regulations to United
States (U.S.), citizens or resident aliens, instead relying on the
statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111, Public Law 108-176 (Dec. 12,
2003), and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), Public Law 108-458 (Dec. 17,
2004), enacted after the FAA issued its security threat
disqualification regulations. Section 46111 directs the FAA to take
action against ``any part of a certificate'' issued under Title 49 in
response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also
provides a hearing and appeal process for U.S. citizens. Section
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) provides that individuals will be screened against
the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the
federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. This
proposed rule is necessary to conform the above-cited FAA regulations
to 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) and to clarify the FAA's
process for preventing the issuance of certificates to applicants that
the TSA finds to be security threats.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the proposed
security threat regulations describe the actions the FAA will take on a
certificate or certificate application when it receives notification
from the TSA that an individual is a security threat. As with current
practice under the statute, the FAA would not issue a certificate or
any part of a certificate when the TSA has notified the FAA in writing
that the individual poses, or is suspected of
[[Page 34796]]
posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or
passenger safety. For certificates already issued, the FAA would amend,
modify, suspend, or revoke any FAA-issued certificate or part of such
certificate upon written notification from the TSA that the certificate
holder poses, or is suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or
terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TSA directs what specific action the FAA should take on
the certificate and includes that information in the letter
notifying the FAA of the security threat determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Costs and Benefits
This rule is not expected to impose anything other than minimal
cost, if any. The proposed regulations would merely codify existing,
statutorily-mandated procedures that FAA has been following since 2004.
This proposed rule, therefore, would not have significant economic
impact within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT's policies
and procedures.
II. Background
A. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Security Threat
Disqualification
In response to the attack on the United States on September 11,
2001, the FAA issued the current security threat disqualification
regulations to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons,
and property within the United States. Specifically, in 2003, the FAA,
in consultation with the TSA, determined that security threat
disqualification regulations were necessary to minimize security
threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent
possible. The FAA, the TSA, and other federal security agencies were
concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out further
terrorist acts in the United States. Accordingly, the FAA issued a
final rule, Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security
Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24, 2003), providing that an individual
determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman
certification and thus cannot not hold an FAA-issued airman
certificate. The FAA took this action because a person who poses a
security threat should not be in a position that could be used to take
actions that are contrary to civil aviation security and, therefore,
safety in air commerce. These security threat disqualification
regulations are found in Sec. Sec. 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14.
Subsequent to the issuance of the current FAA security threat
disqualification regulations, the President signed into law 49 U.S.C.
46111 \2\ and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).\3\ Section 46111 requires
the FAA to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke certificates or any part
of a certificate issued under Title 49, when the TSA informs the FAA
that the holder ``poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air
piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.'' Under
section 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the TSA and the FAA must work together to
``ensure that individuals are screened . . . before being certificated
by the [FAA].'' After the passage of these statutes, the FAA did not
update its regulations, though it did publish in the Federal Register
its disposition of comments to the 2003 final rule which noted that if
additional rulemaking was necessary to reflect the statutory
requirements of 46111, the FAA would utilize notice and comment
rulemaking.\4\ The FAA's Federal Register document also summarized two
D.C. Circuit cases from 2004 that sought judicial review of the FAA and
the TSA's security threat disqualification regulations. In one of those
cases, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184
(D.C. Cir. 2004), the FAA, the TSA, and the Department of Justice
pledged not to apply existing regulations to U.S. citizens or resident
aliens, as further addressed in the Discussion of the Proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public
Law 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490 (Dec. 12, 2003).
\3\ Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Public Law
108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, 2004).
\4\ Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security
Grounds, 70 FR 25761 (May 16, 2005).
\5\ Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-
2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Scope
The proposed rule would codify the FAA's authority to amend,
modify, suspend, and revoke FAA-issued certificates and any part of
such certificates issued to individuals under Title 49 based on the
TSA's written notification that a certificate holder poses a security
threat. The proposed rule would also clarify the FAA's authority to
deny or hold in abeyance applications for certificates and any parts of
such certificates when the TSA notifies the FAA that an applicant poses
a security threat. The proposed rule would implement the security
threat disqualification requirement mandated in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this proposed
rule relies, refer to certificate holders and applicants in terms of
individuals, rather than entities.\6\ While there is separate statutory
authority for FAA certificate-action against entities based on TSA
security threat determinations,\7\ this proposed rule addresses only
individuals who hold or are applying for certificates issued under
Title 49 of the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing ``individuals'' who
are U.S. citizens to have a hearing on the record); Sec. 46111(f)
(``An individual who commences an appeal''); Sec. 46111(g)(3)
(``upon request of the individual adversely affected by an order of
the [FAA] Administrator''); 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) (requiring
screening of ``individuals); Cf. Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General
Aviation Airport Access and Security Procedures, DHS OIG (July
2011), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-96_Jul11.pdf;
Memorandum To The Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-2002-
13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, 2004).
\7\ For example, 49 U.S.C. 44924, provides for FAA suspension or
revocation of a repair station's certificate based on a TSA
determination regarding the repair station's security measures and
security risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Certificate Applicants
While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a mechanism by which the FAA handles
the amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an
individual's certificate, it is silent as to how the FAA should handle
security threat determinations at the certificate application stage.
This proposed rule would codify the FAA's process for preventing the
issuance of certificates to individuals at the application stage when
the TSA finds the individuals to be security threats. FAA's authority
to deny or hold in abeyance an individual's certificate application
based on the TSA's written notification that an individual poses a
security threat is necessary to implement the intent of 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires the FAA to coordinate with the TSA to
ensure that certificate applicants are screened against all appropriate
records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist
maintained by the federal government before being certificated by the
FAA.
The FAA must not issue certificates to individuals who the TSA
finds to be a security threat. The proposed rule would provide that,
upon notification from the TSA, the FAA would hold in abeyance the
applications of these individuals while they are provided the
[[Page 34797]]
opportunity to appeal the TSA's security threat determination under the
TSA's appeal process. The FAA would deny an application only upon the
TSA's notification of a final security threat determination.
Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its
security threat determination, the FAA would continue processing the
application.
C. Application of Regulations to U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens
The FAA proposes to apply the security threat disqualification
regulations to all individuals, including U.S. citizens and resident
aliens, who hold FAA-issued certificates or are applying for these
certificates. This approach would harmonize the proposed security
threat disqualification regulations with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). It would also close a gap in the FAA's security
threat disqualification regulations which are currently not being
applied to U.S. citizens and resident aliens as a result of a pledge
made by the FAA and the TSA in the case Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In the Coalition
of Airline Pilots Associations case, unions representing aviation
workers raised various challenges to the TSA and the FAA's current
security threat disqualification regulations. The D.C. Circuit never
reached the merits of the unions' claims. Instead, the Court dismissed
the unions' petition for review, finding that intervening events had
mooted their claims, specifically the new laws enacted by Congress.
Both the TSA and the FAA pledged that the existing security threat
regulations would no longer be applied to U.S. citizens or resident
aliens as a result of the passage of Sec. 46111 which provides a
different mechanism for TSA security threat determinations and appeal
procedures for U.S. citizens.\8\ The agencies also noted that when they
issued new security threat disqualification regulations they would do
so pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. Another D.C. Circuit
decision, decided on the same day as the Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations case, upheld the application of the same FAA security
threat disqualification regulations to non-resident aliens because the
regulations provide sufficient due process for non-resident aliens.
Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). This proposal would
establish regulations that apply equally to all certificate holders and
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-
2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. TSA Security Threat Determinations and Appeals
The FAA's certificate denials are generally covered under 49 U.S.C.
44703 and, therefore, are appealable to the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB). In cases of security threat disqualifications, if
the certificate action is appealable to the NTSB, the FAA does not
anticipate that the scope of these appeals would extend beyond an
examination of the procedural ground for the certificate action or
application denial because an affected individual would be provided the
opportunity to challenge the substance of TSA's security threat
determination under TSA's appeal process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The appropriate venue for appealing a certificate action
based on a security threat determination was also discussed
substantially in Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). The
court stated that ``Section 46111 makes no provision for NTSB review
even for citizens, and the Conference Report states that non-
resident aliens `have the right to the appeal procedures that [TSA]
has already provided for them.' H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-334 at 152
(2003). In addition, Sec. 46111(a) requires the FAA to respond
automatically to TSA threat assessments . . . if these pilots retain
any right to NTSB review at all, it is no broader than the review
for procedural regularity that they have received . . .'' Jifry at
1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a security threat disqualification, the certificate
action or application denial would be based on the TSA's applicant
vetting and security threat determinations, as mandated under 49 U.S.C.
46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). The FAA's reliance on TSA's vetting and
security threat determinations is also based on the broad statutory
authority and responsibility that the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71, (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001),
placed in the office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security with regard to intelligence information and security threat
assessments. The FAA is not privy to the basis for the TSA's security
threat determinations, which often include classified information.
Therefore, the FAA's certificate actions and application denials are
based solely on written notification by the TSA of a security threat
determination against an individual. Accordingly, appeals of the
security threat determinations made by the TSA are made through the
TSA's administrative appeal process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 49 U.S.C. 46111. TSA currently is using interim redress
procedures for U.S. citizen, U.S. non-citizen national, and lawful
permanent resident certificate holders. While section 46111 does not
require that TSA provide ALJ review to U.S. non-citizen nationals
and lawful permanent residents, TSA has chosen to do so in its
interim procedures. TSA also provides U.S. non-citizen nationals and
lawful permanent residents with review by the TSA Final Decision
Maker if those individuals choose to appeal an ALJ Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
The existing security threat disqualification regulations, 14 CFR
parts 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, disqualify any person who the TSA has
found to be a security threat from obtaining an FAA certificate. These
regulations went into effect on January 24, 2004. A year later, the
President signed statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) into law. 49 U.S.C. 46111 directs the FAA to take
action against the holder of any part of a certificate in response to a
security threat determination by the TSA and also provides an appeal
process for U.S. citizens. 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) directs TSA to
coordinate with the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened against
a consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the
federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. The existing
regulations and the statutory authority are virtually identical, and
the FAA has been relying on the statutory authority, not the existing
regulations, to prevent
[[Page 34798]]
individuals who are security threats from obtaining or holding a
certificate. The FAA has not updated its regulations since the
enactment of statutory authority 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Since there are no new requirements in the proposed
rule, the expected outcome would be a minimal cost, if any, and a full
regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with
supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal
economic impact.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The proposed rule provides similar requirements found in the
existing security threat disqualification regulations in 14 CFR 61.18,
63.14, and 65.14, and statutory authority located at 49 U.S.C. 46111
and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed rule would not
impose any new costs to the industry. The expected outcome would be a
minimal economic impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking
action.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this proposed rulemaking would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
the objective of the rule is for the safety of the American public and
is therefore not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
F. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined preliminarily that this rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national
security function of the United States.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect
[[Page 34799]]
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
D. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this proposed action under the policies and agency
responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this
action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 3
Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 63
Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,
Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures.
14 CFR Part 65
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 3--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44704, and 46111.
0
2. Add a new subpart A heading to read as follows:
Subpart A--General Requirements Concerning Type Certificated
Products or Products, Parts, Appliances, or Materials That May Be
Used on Type-Certificated Products
0
3. Designate Sec. Sec. 3.1 and 3.5 as subpart A.
0
4. Add new subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Security Threat Disqualification
Sec.
3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of a
certificate held by an individual.
3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals for
a certificate or any part of a certificate.
Sec. 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of
a certificate held by an individual.
When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual holding a
certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is
suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
airline or passenger safety, the FAA will issue an order amending,
modifying, suspending, or revoking any certificate or part of a
certificate issued by the FAA.
Sec. 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals
for a certificate or any part of a certificate.
(a) When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual who has
applied for a certificate or any part of a certificate issued by the
FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism
or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will hold the
individual's certificate applications in abeyance pending further
notification from the TSA.
(b) When the TSA notifies the FAA that the TSA has made a final
security threat determination regarding an individual, the FAA will
deny all the individual's certificate applications. Alternatively, if
the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its security
[[Page 34800]]
threat determination, the FAA will continue processing the individual's
applications.
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
5. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub.
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
Sec. 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 61.18.
PART 63--CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS
0
7. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
Sec. 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
0
8. Remove and reserve Sec. 63.14.
PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS
0
9. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
Sec. 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
0
10. Remove and reserve Sec. 65.14.
Issued, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 46111,
and 44903(j) in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018.
Charles Trippe,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-15534 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P