Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certificated Repair Station Employees Located Outside of the United States, 85137-85155 [2023-26394]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Colored Federal airway B–28 extends
between the Prince Rupert, BC, Canada,
NDB and the Sitka, AK, NDB, excluding
the airspace within Canada. The
decommissioning of the Sitka and
Nichols NDBs would render B–28
unusable. The FAA proposes to revoke
B–28 in its entirety. The loss of B–28 is
mitigated by existing Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) federal airways V–309 and V–
311, which overlie B–28.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke Colored
Federal airway B–28 in Alaska due to
the pending decommissioning of its
supporting Navigational Aids
(NAVAID).
Colored Federal airway B–28 extends
between the Prince Rupert, BC, Canada,
NDB and the Sitka, AK, NDB, excluding
the airspace within Canada. The FAA
proposes to revoke Colored Federal
airway B–28 in its entirety.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under Department of
Transportation (DOT) Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation as the anticipated impact is
so minimal. Since this is a routine
matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11H,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 11, 2023, and
effective September 15, 2023, is
amended as follows:
■
Paragraph 6009(d) Colored Federal
airways.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B–28 [Remove]
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
30, 2023.
Karen Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations
Group.
[FR Doc. 2023–26709 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 120
[Docket No. FAA–2012–1058; Notice No. 24–
05]
RIN 2120–AK09
Send comments on or before
February 5, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2012–1058
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 (DOT), 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Rodriguez-Brown, Office of
Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement
Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267–8442; email:
drugabatement@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Drug and Alcohol Testing of
Certificated Repair Station Employees
Located Outside of the United States
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Frequently Used in This Document
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
Table of Contents
AGENCY:
This notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) would require
certificated repair stations located
outside the territory of the United States
whose employees perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on
certain air carrier aircraft to obtain and
implement a drug and alcohol testing
program in accordance with the
requirements of the Drug and Alcohol
Testing Program published by the FAA
and the Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug Testing Programs
published by the Department of
Transportation.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
85137
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BASA—Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
ICAO—International Civil Aviation
Organization
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. History
B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions
1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012
2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Comment Response
3. FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
of 2016
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Application of 14 CFR Part 120 and 49
CFR Parts 40 Through 145 Certificated
Repair Stations Located Outside the
Territory of the United States (§§ 120.1,
120.123, and 120.227)
B. Conforming Amendments To Facilitate
Drug and Alcohol Procedures Outside
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85138
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
the United States (§§ 120.123 and
120.227)
C. Exemptions and Waivers to Drug and
Alcohol Program Requirements (§§ 120.5
and 120.9)
D. Impact on International Agreements
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule, which the FAA is
required by statute to promulgate,
would implement a statutory mandate
to require certificated part 145 repair
stations located outside the territory of
the United States (U.S.) to ensure that
employees who perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft are subject to a drug and
alcohol testing program, consistent with
the applicable laws of the country in
which the repair station is located. This
proposed rule would require a part 145
repair station located outside the
territory of the U.S. to implement a drug
and alcohol testing program meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 14
CFR part 120, which must cover its
employees who perform maintenance
functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft.
If a part 145 repair station cannot meet
one or all requirements in 49 CFR part
40 (e.g., the laws of the country where
the repair station is located are
inconsistent with the regulations), the
part 145 repair station may apply for an
exemption using the process described
in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a part 145
repair station cannot meet one or all
requirements in 14 CFR part 120, it may
apply for a waiver in accordance with
proposed waiver authority. This
rulemaking would affect approximately
977 part 145 repair stations in about 65
foreign countries.1
1 These estimates are current as of April 2021 and
sourced from the National Vital Information
Subsystem (NVIS). NVIS is a subsystem of the
Flight Standards Automation System, a
comprehensive information system used primarily
by inspectors to record and disseminate data
associated with inspector activity and aviation
environment. While there are more current
estimates (as of March 2023, the rule would affect
approximately 962 part 145 repair stations in about
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
It is the responsibility of the employer
(e.g., the part 121 operator) to ensure
that any person who performs safetysensitive functions (e.g., maintenance or
preventive maintenance), directly or by
contract (including by subcontract at
any tier), is subject to drug and alcohol
testing. The FAA notes that part 145
repair stations located within the
territory of the U.S. may elect to, but are
not required to, implement a drug and
alcohol testing program under 14 CFR
part 120. When hiring by contract, if a
part 145 domestic repair station does
not have a testing program of its own,
the part 121 operator must cover the
repair station’s safety-sensitive
employees under its FAA drug and
alcohol testing program.2 In this
scenario, for purposes of drug and
alcohol testing, the part 121 operator
hires the repair station employees as
covered employees 3 and must apply all
the regulatory requirements of the
program to these employees (e.g.,
conduct a pre-employment drug test, the
records check, the training and
educational information distribution
requirements, and include the
individuals in the random testing pool).
Therefore, all employees performing a
safety-sensitive function within the U.S.
are part of a drug and alcohol testing
program, whether it is the part 121
operator’s program or the repair
station’s program. As further discussed
in this preamble, the FAA does not
propose any changes to its current drug
and alcohol testing requirements
applicable to employees performing a
safety-sensitive function within the U.S.
as part of this rulemaking. In addition,
the FAA invites comments, with
supporting data, on whether the drug
and alcohol testing requirements in this
proposed rule should be extended to
safety sensitive maintenance employees
of part 121 certificate holders located
outside the United States.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is in title 49 of the
United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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. The FAA’s authority to issue
rules on alcohol and drug testing is in
66 foreign countries), the 2021 numbers are used in
the regulatory evaluation and Regulatory Impact
Assessment to estimate cost.
2 14 CFR 120.1(b), 120.105(e), 120.215(a)(5).
3 A covered employee is defined in § 120.7(e) as
an individual who performs, either directly or by
contract, a safety-sensitive function listed in
§§ 120.105 and 120.215 for an employer (as defined
in § 120.7(g)).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49 U.S.C. 45102, which directs the
Administrator to prescribe regulations
that establish a program requiring air
carriers and foreign air carriers to
conduct certain alcohol and controlled
substances testing.
This proposed rule is further
promulgated under section 308 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (the Act), 49 U.S.C. 44733.
Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2),
titled ‘‘Alcohol and Controlled
Substances Testing Program
Requirements,’’ requires the FAA to
‘‘promulgate a proposed rule requiring
that all part 145 repair station
employees responsible for safetysensitive maintenance functions on part
121 air carrier aircraft [be] subject to an
alcohol and controlled substances
testing program determined acceptable
by the [FAA] Administrator and
consistent with the applicable laws of
the country in which the repair station
is located.’’ Additionally, this proposed
rule is promulgated under section 2112
of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016, (the 2016 Act),
which directed publication of a notice
of proposed rulemaking in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 44733. The 2016 Act also
requires that the notice of proposed
rulemaking be finalized.
III. Background
A. History
The FAA and the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST) have
long engaged in a regulatory partnership
regarding drug and alcohol testing of
persons in the aviation industry. The
OST first published its drug testing
procedure regulations in 1988 to require
antidrug programs for certain
transportation industries, including
aviation.4 In that interim final rule, the
OST adopted a modification of
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) guidance in new 49 CFR
part 40 to require employers to conduct
drug testing in accordance with the
HHS’s Mandatory Guidelines for
Federal Workplace Programs.
Simultaneously, the FAA published a
final rule setting forth regulations to
certain entities to implement an antidrug program for employees who
perform sensitive safety or security
related functions.5 These entities
included: domestic and supplemental
air carriers, commercial operators of
large aircraft, air taxi and commuter
4 Interim Final Rule, Procedures for
Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs,
53 FR 47002 (Nov. 21, 1988).
5 Final Rule, Anti-Drug Program for Personnel
Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities, 53 FR
47024 (Nov. 21, 1988).
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operators, certain commercial operators,
certain contractors to these operators,
and air traffic control facilities not
operated by the FAA or the U.S.
military. Before this final rule, the
FAA’s regulatory action pertaining to
drug and alcohol use primarily focused
not on testing programs, but on
restrictions on commercial aviation
personnel (e.g., regulations restricting
crewmembers such as pilots, flight
attendants, flight engineers, and flight
navigators from acting as a crewmember
within eight hours after drinking an
alcoholic beverage, regulations
restricting use of any drug that affects
faculties contrary to safety 6). The final
rule required employers to comply with
the OST’s newly adopted 49 CFR part
40, Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug Testing Programs (i.e.,
comply with the modified HHS
guidance). However, rather than
following the OST structure, which
created a new part to promulgate the
regulations, the FAA adopted a new
appendix within 14 CFR part 121 and
required compliance through various
cross-references in 14 CFR parts 61, 63,
65, and 135.
The 1988 FAA final rule applied only
to domestic U.S. operators but did not
expressly exclude employees located
outside the territory of the U.S. from
testing. In that final rule, the FAA
considered the impact that the
regulations would have on foreign laws
and policy. Specific to foreign repair
stations, individuals at foreign repair
stations under contract to U.S.
certificate holders would not be able to
perform maintenance or preventive
maintenance work on U.S.-registered
aircraft unless they participated in an
anti-drug program. However, as set forth
by then-part 121, appendix I, section
XII, the rule would not be applicable in
any situation where compliance would
violate the domestic laws or policies of
another country. Additionally, the
section provided a longer effectivity
date to aid the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and foreign
governments in reaching permanent
resolutions to any identified conflict
between the final rule and foreign law.
The effectivity date for the final rule
with respect to employees located
outside the territory of the U.S. was
extended several times,7 during which
6 14
CFR 91.11 (1986).
Final Rule—Request for Comments, AntiDrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified
Aviation Activities; 54 FR 15148 (Apr. 14, 1989);
Final Rule—Extension of Compliance Date, AntiDrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified
Aviation Activities, 54 FR 53282 (Dec. 27, 1989),
Final Rule—Extension of Compliance Date, AntiDrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified
7 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
time Congress passed the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of
1991 (OTETA).8 Section 3 of OTETA
added sec. 614 to title VI of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, which directed
the Administrator to prescribe
regulations to establish a program that
requires both air carriers and foreign air
carriers to conduct alcohol and
controlled substance testing for certain
persons. OTETA specified that the FAA
should only establish requirements
applicable to foreign air carriers
consistent with the international
obligations of the U.S. and take any laws
and regulations of the foreign countries
into account.
Again, the OST and the FAA issued
congruent final rules 9 to implement the
legislation, as applicable. Consistent
with the legislation, the FAA final rule
mandated that no employee located
solely outside the territory of the U.S.
shall be tested for illegal use of drugs
under appendix I of part 121. An
employer was required to remove such
employees from the random testing pool
while the employee solely performed
functions in a foreign country, or while
under contract outside the territory of
the U.S. Concurrently, the FAA
proposed and adopted appendix J
within part 121 to supplement the
existing regulations concerning alcohol
misuse to ensure coordination between
OST and FAA. The FAA had originally
proposed 10 that the alcohol testing rule
would apply to direct employees of U.S.
air carriers who performed safetysensitive functions outside the U.S.,
subject to the laws and regulations of
the country in which the testing would
occur; however, in response to
comments, the FAA ultimately decided
not to require alcohol testing of any
employees located outside the territory
of the U.S., mirroring the drug testing
requirements.11
These drug and alcohol testing
regulations remained static for almost
two decades, despite occasional
proposed rulemaking that did not come
Aviation Activities, 56 FR 18978 (Apr. 24, 1991),
Final Rule—Extension of Compliance Date, AntiDrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified
Aviation Activities, 57 FR 31275 (Jul. 14, 1992).
8 105 Stat. 917, Public Law 102–143 (Oct. 28,
1991).
9 DOT Final Rule, Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs, 59
FR 7340 (Feb. 15, 1994). FAA Final Rule, Antidrug
Program for Personnel Engaged in Specific Aviation
Activities, 59 FR 42922 (Aug. 19, 1994).
10 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Alcohol
Misuse Prevention Program for Personnel Engaged
in Specified Aviation Activities, 57 FR 59458 (Dec.
15, 1992).
11 Final Rule, Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation
Activities, 59 FR 7380 (Feb. 15, 1994).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85139
to fruition.12 These regulations were
scattered throughout 14 CFR.13 Most
recently, in 2009, the FAA concluded
that it would be best to streamline and
clarify title 14 to pull the regulations
existing at that time into one location.
Therefore, FAA adopted new part 120 14
to set forth a better organizational
structure for the drug and alcohol
testing program regulations, which is
where it is situated today. The FAA has
engaged in additional rulemaking since
that time to harmonize 14 CFR part 120
with OST’s amendments to 49 CFR part
40, as warranted (e.g., aligning
prohibited drugs in 14 CFR part 120
with those in 49 CFR part 40 15).
B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions
1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012
In 2012, Congress passed the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.16 Section 308(d)(2) of the Act,
implemented in 49 U.S.C. 44733,
requires that the FAA Administrator
publish a proposed rule requiring that
all part 145 repair station employees
responsible for safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft outside the U.S. to be
subject to an alcohol and controlled
substances testing program determined
acceptable by the Administrator and
consistent with the applicable laws of
the country in which the repair station
is located. The FAA considers all
maintenance functions performed on
part 121 air carrier aircraft to be safetysensitive under 14 CFR 120.105 and
120.215.
12 For example, in 1994, the FAA proposed to
require foreign air carriers operating in the U.S. to
implement the same testing required of domestic
U.S. air carriers unless multilateral action was taken
by ICAO to support international standards (59 FR
7420). However, in 1995, ICAO published the
Manual on Prevention of Problematic Use of
Psychoactive Substances in the Aviation
Workplace, and the FAA subsequently withdrew
this proposed rule in 2000 (65 FR 2079).
13 At that time, requirements for affected
certificated airmen were located in parts 61, 63, 65,
and 67. Requirements for affected air carriers and
operators were located in parts 91, 121, and 135.
Requirements for affected air traffic control
facilities and air traffic controllers were located in
subpart B of part 65. Requirements for repair
stations certificated under part 145 and contractors
who elected to have drug and alcohol testing
programs were located in appendices I and J of part
121.
14 Final Rule, Drug and Alcohol Testing Program,
74 FR 22649 (May 14, 2009). Certain inadvertent
errors were corrected in a subsequent final rule:
Correction, Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, 75
FR 3153 (Jan. 20, 2010).
15 Final Rule, Conforming Amendments and
Technical Corrections to Department Rules
Implementing the Transportation Drug Testing
Program).
16 Public Law 112–95 (Feb. 14, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85140
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2. Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Comment Response
In response to the congressional
mandate, the FAA published an
advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 17,
2014.17 The comment period for the
ANPRM closed July 17, 2014. The FAA
received 74 substantive comments of
both support and opposition.
The FAA recognized that foreign
countries and maintenance providers
would have many concerns regarding
drug and alcohol testing of certain
maintenance personnel outside the
territory of the U.S. Therefore, the FAA
chose to issue an ANPRM to seek
comments from the public and
interested governments to help inform
the development of a proposed rule.
Specifically, the FAA recognized and
inquired about the associated legal,
practical, and cultural issues related to
drug and alcohol testing. Additionally,
the FAA asked various questions
pertaining to foreign countries’ laws and
regulations, program elements of
acceptable drug and alcohol testing,
existing drug and alcohol testing
program in other countries, and the
scope of a proposed rule to include
persons performing safety sensitive
maintenance functions on aircraft
operated by part 121 air carriers in
accordance with part 43. The comment
period for the ANPRM, originally set for
60 days, was extended an additional 60
days 18 to allow time for commenters to
analyze the ANPRM and prepare
comments. Few comments provided
specific information on the laws,
cultural practices, and existence of drug
and alcohol testing programs in foreign
countries and instead presented general
arguments in support and opposition.
The FAA received 74 comments: 40
generally supported the ANPRM; 29
generally opposed the ANPRM; and five
stated no position. The 40 commenters
who generally supported the proposal
include 33 individuals, including
certificated airmen (e.g., mechanics,
flight instructors) and members of the
flying public; three airline mechanics’
unions; two aviation consulting firms; a
consumer advocacy group; and an
aircraft manufacturer. These
commenters generally believed that
maintenance personnel both within the
U.S. and abroad should be treated the
17 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance
Provider Employees Located Outside of the United
States, 79 FR 14621 (Mar. 17, 2014).
18 ANPRM—Extension of Comment Period, Drug
and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance
Provider Employees Located Outside of the United
States; Extension of Comment Period, 79 FR 24631
(May 1, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
same with respect to drug and alcohol
testing.
Supporters additionally proposed that
the FAA expand the rule beyond the
scope of the statutory mandate to (1)
make existing domestic regulations and
those that would be extended
internationally more stringent, and (2)
include part 135 operators, part 91
operators, and fractional ownership
operators (under part 91, subpart K) that
use part 145 repair station employees
outside the territory of the U.S. in the
testing requirements. These commenters
also recommended expanding the
testing requirement to employees of
non-certificated repair stations outside
the territory of the U.S., such as
authorized persons who perform
maintenance functions on aircraft
operated by part 121 air carriers in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.17.19 These
supporters include the Teamsters
Aviation Mechanic Coalition, Aircraft
Mechanics Fraternal Association, and
the Transportation Trades Department
labor unions, who stated an expansion
in scope would help improve the safety
of maintenance functions that are
outsourced to repair stations outside the
territory of the U.S. Some commenters
asserted that U.S.-based maintenance
facilities are operating at an economic
disadvantage as maintenance facilities
abroad are not required to subject
employees to drug and alcohol testing
and, therefore, are essentially
circumventing the associated costs to
maintain a testing program.
Outside of the five commenters that
did not state an overt position on the
proposal, the remaining comments were
from nine foreign repair stations, four
foreign governmental aviation
organizations, four trade associations,
four foreign trade associations, three
airline manufacturers, three foreign
airlines, one foreign aviation industry
coalition, and one foreign government
representative. These twenty-nine
commenters generally opposed the
ANPRM stating that the FAA threatens
to overreach its authority and the
proposal fails to recognize national
sovereignty, existing Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreements (BASAs), the impact
of ICAO initiatives,20 and the economic
19 Section 43.17 sets forth requirements for
maintenance and preventative maintenance
performed on U.S. aeronautical products by persons
who hold valid Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Maintenance Engineer licenses and Transport
Canada Civil Aviation Approved Maintenance
Organizations.
20 The FAA notes that as of the publication of the
ANPRM, there were (and continue to be) a number
of ICAO standards and recommended practices that
address misuse of drugs and alcohol by aviation
personnel; however, ICAO did not, and does not,
require ICAO Member States to establish testing
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impact to the aviation industry. The
FAA responds to the comments in the
subsequent sections.
National Sovereignty
More than half of the opposing
commenters cited failure to recognize
each nation’s sovereignty, stating that
the FAA cannot impose regulations on
persons outside the territory of the U.S.
where those regulations conflict with
the laws of sovereign nations. The
Coalition of Industry Groups, which
includes members from Aeronautical
Repair Station Association (ARSA),
Airlines for America (A4A), Regional
Airline Association (RAA), International
Air Transport Association (IATA), and
other associations, supported requiring
drug and alcohol testing programs
outside the territory of the U.S.
However, these aviation associations
also emphasized that many countries
have laws protecting the right to privacy
in employment, as well as labor and
data security laws, that could conflict
with the proposed rule. These
associations and commenters strongly
suggested the FAA respect national
sovereignty and ensure the proposal is
consistent with applicable laws of the
country in which the repair station is
located. Commenters asserted that the
FAA must not move forward with a
proposal that would be applied without
respect to national sovereignty.
FAA Response
In evaluating the international
implications of requiring part 145 repair
stations outside of the United States to
implement drug and alcohol testing
programs that comply with U.S.
domestic testing standards throughout
the global community, the FAA has
become aware of the difficulties
associated with the establishment of
such programs. Specifically, any
regulation that requires 14 CFR part 145
repair stations located outside the
territory of the U.S. to implement drug
or alcohol testing programs without
respect to national sovereignty may be
contrary to international law and might
exceed generally recognized limits to
extraterritorial jurisdiction. Further,
section 308 of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 directs that the
proposed rule be ‘‘consistent with the
applicable laws of the country in which
the repair station is located.’’ Given
these considerations, should the
application of 49 CFR part 40 and 14
CFR part 120 wholly or in part be
inconsistent with a country’s laws or
program to deter or detect inappropriate drug and
alcohol use by aviation personnel with safetysensitive responsibilities.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
regulations, the 14 CFR part 145 repair
station could apply for an exemption
from 49 CFR part 40 using the process
described in 49 CFR 40.7. Additionally,
the repair station could request a waiver
from 14 CFR part 120 following the
instructions proposed in new § 120.9.
As further discussed in section IV.C. of
this preamble, the FAA has proposed
language in 14 CFR 120.5 to clarify that
the FAA will recognize any 49 CFR part
40 exemptions issued to an employer as
meeting the procedures set forth in
accordance with that part.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements
Most of the same commenters
opposing unilateral application of drug
and alcohol testing regulations pointed
to the BASAs the U.S. is party to, (e.g.,
Switzerland, Canada, and the European
Union). Commenters detailed that these
BASAs include separate detailed
agreements on mutual cooperation and
technical assistance in the evaluation
and acceptance of each country’s
approved maintenance organization
systems (i.e., Maintenance
Implementation Procedures
agreements). The International Air
Transport Association (IATA)
commented that BASAs contribute to
growth in aviation services by
dramatically reducing regulatory
compliance costs, making government
oversight more efficient, and helping
aerospace interests grow and compete
globally. IATA recommended that the
FAA focus on working with
governments that impose equivalent,
not duplicate, measures in its efforts to
apply requirements for drug and alcohol
testing programs outside the territory of
the U.S.
Additional commenters asserted that
BASAs contain provisions requiring
consultation before unilateral
rulemaking, which has not yet
happened in relation to this proposal.
The commenters expressed that the
FAA is obligated to ensure that current
international agreements are honored,
which would include such consultation.
Comments from the UK Department for
Transport, International Aviation Safety
and Environment Division specifically
stated that it is important for the FAA
to consider consultations under Article
17 of the EU/U.S. BASA.21
FAA Response
The FAA has been directed by
Congress to promulgate regulations
requiring part 145 repair stations
21 In light of the withdrawal of the UK from the
EU on January 31, 2020, the UK is no longer part
of the EU/U.S. BASA. Consultations between the
U.S. and UK are now governed by Article IV of the
1995 UK/U.S. BASA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
outside the U.S. to have a drug and
alcohol testing program for their
employees who perform work on part
121 aircraft. To the extent that BASA
provisions concerning notice and
consultation are applicable to the
proposed regulations, the FAA intends
to follow those provisions. Commenters
have not identified any specific BASAs
that are in conflict with the statutory
requirements this proposed rule would
implement, nor is FAA aware of any at
this time. The FAA invites comments as
to whether there are any BASAs that
would conflict with the requirements of
this proposed rule. Additional
discussion regarding the FAA’s
international obligations may be found
in section IV.D. of this preamble.
Safety Case
Commenters also raised concerns
regarding the lack of supporting
evidence indicating that a safety case
exists to justify the proposed rule.
Commenters noted that there have been
no documented aviation accidents in
the U.S., the European Union, or Hong
Kong in which drug use and/or alcohol
misuse has been a direct cause or
contributing factor. The Federal Office
of Civil Aviation (FOCA)—Swiss
Confederation stated that it has found
no data that would support the
existence of a safety case, and
Switzerland and other European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Member
States have safety management
provisions in place for maintenance
stations and a verifiable track record
demonstrating that drug use and/or
alcohol misuse does not currently
represent a safety concern requiring
further regulatory action. Commenters
noted that according to the ICAO
Accident Data Reporting system,
between 1970 and 2012, there were no
occurrence reports of drug or alcohol
intake at maintenance facilities.
Additionally, commenters pointed out
that the FAA’s own data demonstrates a
low risk of drug use and/or alcohol
misuse by maintenance personnel in the
U.S.
FAA Response
The FAA does not have sufficient data
to estimate a baseline level of safety risk
associated with drug use and/or alcohol
misuse at foreign repair stations. As
previously discussed, the FAA received
a minimum amount of information
pertaining to foreign countries’ laws and
regulations, program elements of
acceptable drug and alcohol testing, and
existing drug and alcohol testing
programs in other countries. The FAA
also recognizes that the number of
proven accidents and incidents
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85141
involving drug use and/or alcohol
misuse by maintenance personnel at
foreign repair stations is unknown.
Because the FAA does not have testing
data or knowledge of existing testing
programs in other countries, the FAA is
unable to estimate the impact of the
proposed rule in detecting and deterring
drug use and/or alcohol misuse at this
time. Therefore, the FAA cannot
determine whether the rule would have
any additional impact on safety or
persons performing non-safety sensitive
functions and has, accordingly, scoped
this proposal to address the specific
statutory mandates in 49 U.S.C.
44733(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 44733. The
FAA invites comments on this issue.
In addition, the FAA is considering
how best to deter drug and alcohol
misuse for any aircraft mechanic
working on a part 121 aircraft regardless
of how that mechanic is employed.
Therefore, the FAA seeks comments as
to whether the testing requirements in
this proposed rule should be extended
to foreign aircraft mechanics working
directly for part 121 carriers.
Commenters are asked to submit data
that would allow the FAA to quantify
the benefits and costs of expanding drug
and alcohol testing requirements to
these mechanics.
Financial and Operational Concerns
While many of the commenters noted
that it was difficult to estimate the cost
of implementing drug and alcohol
testing programs since any testing
regime closely resembling U.S.
requirements does not exist in most
areas abroad, they also noted that it was
likely that imposition of drug and
alcohol testing requirements would
have a disproportionate financial impact
on small-to-medium sized aerospace
companies. Some commenters,
including A4A, Honeywell, and Taikoo
(Xiamen) Landing Gear Services Co. Ltd.
(TALSCO), among others, provided
some level of estimated costs. Pratt &
Whitney, for example, provided
estimated costs for implementing and
maintaining a drug and alcohol testing
program, specifics of which may be
found in the public docket, and stated
those extensive costs are without
justification if the FAA cannot quantify
the added benefit to safety. The
Coalition of Industry Groups noted its
concern regarding the FAA’s
responsibility to ensure that the costs do
not outweigh the benefits of any agency
action. Additionally, Hong Kong Aero
Engine Services Limited (HAESL) stated
that extra costs will be incurred with no
significant benefit.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85142
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
FAA Response
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns. The FAA used a
combination of the estimates submitted
by commenters and U.S. data to
estimate costs to all part 145 foreign
repair stations developing a drug and
alcohol testing program that meets U.S.
requirements. However, not all
estimates provided by commenters were
used as some estimates were considered
high compared to current practice and
estimates obtained through industry
outreach. The FAA also acknowledges
that small-to-medium sized aerospace
companies would be impacted by this
rulemaking but does not have sufficient
data to isolate the impact to small and
medium size foreign repair stations.
Additionally, although the FAA is
unable to quantify benefits, this
proposed rule would apply the FAA’s
primary tool for detecting and deterring
substance abuse by safety-sensitive
aviation employees throughout the
international aviation community to
enhance safety.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO)
A significant number of commenters
noted that the appropriate vehicle to set
standards to require drug and alcohol
testing programs worldwide would be
an ICAO initiative. Commenters pointed
out that the Act mandates dealing with
this issue under the auspices of an ICAO
initiative.22 Many of these commenters,
including the European Commission,
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, the
Embassy of the Netherlands to the U.S.,
Deutsche Lufthansa, and the Cargo
Airline Association, among others,
supported proceeding through the ICAO
process. Additionally, commenters
stated it is inappropriate for the FAA to
take further action on this issue without
first seeking common ground through
ICAO. IATA stated that an ICAO
initiative would set a common baseline
22 The FAA surmises that the commenters were
indicating § 308(d)(1) of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, which states, ‘‘The
Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Transportation, acting jointly, shall request the
governments of foreign countries that are members
of the International Civil Aviation Organization to
establish international standards for alcohol and
controlled substances testing of persons that
perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on
commercial air carrier aircraft.’’ In response to the
Congressional mandate, the FAA notes that prior to
the publication of the ANPRM, the Department of
State, in conjunction with the FAA, sent a
demarche request to countries with active part 145
repair stations requesting support in ICAO action.
Of the 66 countries surveyed, 29 replied indicating
support to establish international standards for
effective drug and alcohol testing of all persons
performing safety-sensitive functions on
commercial air carrier aircraft within their country
through ICAO initiatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
for safety with adequate flexibility for
varying customs and laws, which
governments could follow when issuing
their own regulations. Most commenters
observed that the FAA’s historical
position regarding global drug and
alcohol testing has been to address
testing issues through ICAO.
FAA Response
The FAA supports the development of
international standards and believes
that they would help deter and detect
drug and alcohol use that could
compromise aviation safety. However,
ICAO standards do not presently require
ICAO Member States to establish (or
direct industry to establish) testing
programs to deter or detect drug use and
alcohol misuse by aviation personnel in
the performance of safety-sensitive
functions. ICAO’s Annex 1 sets forth
international standards and
recommended practices for license
holders concerning their mental fitness
and use of psychoactive substances,
including drugs and alcohol. Annex 1
applies to flight crew members 23 and
other personnel and recommends the
identification and removal of license
holders from their safety-sensitive
functions while under the influence of
any psychoactive substance.
Specifically, annex 1 section 1.2.7, Use
of Psychoactive Substances, states that
holders of licenses provided for in this
Annex shall not exercise the privileges
of their licenses and related ratings
while under the influence of any
psychoactive substance which might
render them unable to safely and
properly exercise these privileges and
shall not engage in any problematic use
of substances.24 ICAO provides further
guidance about drug and alcohol testing
in its Manual on Prevention of
Problematic Use of Substances in the
Aviation Workplace; the manual
outlines suitable methods of identifying
license holders who are under the
influence, including through
biochemical testing under certain
circumstances. Although the ICAO
standards set forth in Annex 1 and
many countries’ aviation regulations
prohibit the use of drugs and alcohol by
certain aviation personnel when use
23 ICAO defines a ‘‘flight crew member’’ as a
licensed crew member charged with duties essential
to the operation of an aircraft during a flight duty
period. ICAO Annex 1, 1.1. Section 1.2(a) identifies
flight crew as private pilots; commercial pilots;
multi-crew pilot; airline transport pilot; glider pilot;
free balloon pilot; flight navigator; and flight
engineer. Section 1.2(b) identifies other personnel
as aircraft maintenance (technician/engineer/
mechanic), air traffic controllers, flight operations
officers/flight dispatchers, and aeronautical station
operators.
24 Annex 1, 1.2.7.1, 1.2.7.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
may threaten aviation safety, many
countries either do not require testing of
aviation personnel to verify compliance
or do not extend testing to maintenance
personnel. In keeping with U.S.
obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA
policy to conform to ICAO Standards
and Recommended Practices (SARP) to
the maximum extent practicable.
However, the FAA proposes this rule in
accordance with the Act’s statutory
mandate in an area within which there
are no ICAO SARPs. Should ICAO adopt
drug and alcohol program standards in
the future the FAA will work to ensure
its drug and alcohol programs are
aligned with such SARPs.
3. FAA Extension, Safety, and Security
Act of 2016
After the FAA published the ANPRM,
as previously discussed, Congress
enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016 (2016 Act),25
which reemphasized Congress’
prioritization of drug and alcohol
programs for foreign repair station
employees in section 2112. Specifically,
section 2112 directed the FAA to (1)
ensure that an NPRM is published
within 90 days of the date of the
enactment of the 2016 Act and (2)
ensure that the rulemaking is finalized
within a year of the NPRM
publication.26 This NPRM is
promulgated in accordance with such
direction. The FAA notes that, while
section 2112 (using the cross-referenced
49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2)) specifies
minimum content for the NPRM, it does
not specify minimum content for the
final rule, which may be changed from
the NPRM in response to comments.
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Application of 14 CFR Part 120 and
49 CFR Parts 40 Through 145
Certificated Repair Stations Located
Outside the Territory of the United
States (§§ 120.1, 120.123 and 120.227)
Currently, the drug and alcohol
testing regulations in 14 CFR part 120
require certain persons to establish a
drug and alcohol program. These
persons include all air carriers and
operators certificated under 14 CFR part
119 authorized to conduct operations
under 14 CFR part 121 or part 135; all
air traffic control facilities not operated
by the FAA or under contract to the U.S.
military; all operators as defined in 14
CFR 91.147; all individuals who
perform a safety sensitive function
provided in subpart E or F of 14 CFR
25 Public
Law 114–190 (Jul. 15, 2016).
2112(b).
26 Section
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
part 120; all 14 CFR part 145 certificate
holders who perform safety-sensitive
functions and elect to implement a drug
and alcohol testing program; and all
contractors who elect to implement a
drug and alcohol testing program.27 The
FAA-mandated testing program consists
of compliance with both the FAA’s drug
and alcohol testing program
requirements, 14 CFR part 120 (as
applicable), as well as the OST’s
procedural regulation, 49 CFR part 40.28
Notably, 14 CFR part 120 restricts
these activities from occurring outside
of the U.S. Specifically, certain
regulations bar (1) any part of the drug
testing process from occurring outside
the territory of the U.S., including
specimen collection, laboratory
processing, and Medical Review Officer
(MRO) actions 29 and (2) any testing for
alcohol misuse while located outside
the territory of the U.S.30 These
regulations have restricted any drug and
alcohol testing under 14 CFR part 120
from applicability outside the territory
of the U.S. As it pertains to this
rulemaking, these regulations are
applicable only to domestic part 145
certificate holders who perform safetysensitive functions within the territories
of the U.S. and elect to implement a
drug and alcohol testing program under
this part.
The U.S. Government has found that
drug and alcohol testing programs for
domestic aviation personnel who
perform safety-sensitive functions on
part 121 aircraft are necessary given the
potential of drugs and alcohol to impair
human performance. Safety-sensitive
personnel are responsible for their own
safety as well as the safety of countless
others due to the inherent nature of
their positions; therefore, the FAA has
defined certain persons as those with
safety-sensitive functions, which
includes individuals employed by a part
145 repair station to perform aircraft
maintenance duties 31 for a part 121
operator. In the absence of data to
CFR 120.1.
CFR 120.5.
29 14 CFR 120.123(a).
30 14 CFR 120.227(a).
31 49 U.S.C. 44733 specifies ‘‘aircraft
maintenance,’’ but does not include ‘‘preventive
maintenance.’’ Safety-sensitive functions are
defined in 14 CFR 120.7(n) as functions listed in 14
CFR 120.105 and 120.215. The FAA notes that the
list of safety-sensitive functions found in 14 CFR
120.105 and 120.215 includes aircraft maintenance
and preventive maintenance as separate duties. The
FAA draws a clear distinction between
maintenance and preventive maintenance (see: 14
CFR 1.1, expressly excluding preventive
maintenance from the definition of maintenance
and defining preventive maintenance as mutually
exclusive from maintenance). Therefore, preventive
maintenance is outside the scope of the mandate
and is not covered in these proposed regulations.
support another approach to drug and
alcohol testing, the FAA would apply its
primary tool for detecting and deterring
substance abuse by aviation employees
performing safety-sensitive maintenance
functions throughout the international
aviation community.
Title 49 U.S.C. 44733 requires the
Administrator to propose a rule
requiring that all employees responsible
for safety sensitive maintenance
functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft
at part 145 repair stations located
outside the U.S.32 be subjected to an
alcohol and controlled substances
testing program determined acceptable
by the Administrator. The FAA notes
that the legislation specifically used the
term ‘‘controlled substances.’’ This term
is also used in 49 U.S.C. 45102, which
originally charged the FAA with
prescribing regulations for air carriers
and foreign air carriers to conduct
certain drug and alcohol testing (i.e.,
eventual 14 CFR part 120). Title 49
U.S.C. chapter 447 does not include a
definition for ‘‘controlled substance.’’
However, the FAA finds that given (1)
the deference to the FAA Administrator
to determine program acceptability in
49 U.S.C. 44733 and (2) the FAA’s
firmly established drug and alcohol
testing regulations based off the original
authority in 49 U.S.C. 45201,
‘‘controlled substances’’ should be
intended to mean the FAA current
definition of ‘‘drug’’ as based off the
definition of ‘‘controlled substances’’
provided by 49 U.S.C. 45201.33
Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 45101 states that
the definition of ‘‘controlled substance’’
means any substance under section 102
of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970
specified by the Administrator of the
FAA.34
In 14 CFR 120.7, the FAA defines a
‘‘prohibited drug’’ as any of the drugs
specified in 49 CFR part 40. OST
defines ‘‘drugs’’ as marijuana, cocaine,
amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP),
and opioids in 49 CFR 40.3. These drugs
27 14
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
28 14
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
32 Section 308 was promulgated in the U.S. Code
as 49 U.S.C. 44733, Inspection of repair stations
located outside the United States. Under 49 U.S.C.
chapter 447, ‘‘United States’’ is defined as the States
of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
the territories and possessions of the United States,
including the territorial sea and the overlying
airspace. 14 CFR 1.1 similarly defines United
States, in a geographical sense, as the States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
possessions including the territorial waters, and the
airspace of those areas.
33 This definition was set forth by Public Law
103–272, section 1(e) (Jul. 5, 1994).
34 The FAA, and the legislation itself, recognize
that countries may have different laws and
regulations that set forth a different set of
acceptable or prohibited drugs. Section IV.C. of this
preamble discusses this issue in further detail.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85143
are aligned with the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines established by the HHS for
Federal drug-testing programs for
scientific testing issues, pursuant to
OTETA, as previously discussed 35 and
updated as HHS updates their drug
categories. Specifically, the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines allow Federal
agencies with drug-testing
responsibilities to test for certain
controlled substances set forth by the
Controlled Substances Act (i.e., the
drugs as defined in 49 CFR 40.3), which
is title II of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970.36 Additionally, the FAA does not
believe that Congress intended to
expand the scope of testing beyond that
required by current airmen and safetysensitive positions. Should the FAA
adopt a differing definition of
‘‘controlled substances,’’ part 145 repair
stations outside the U.S. would be held
to more stringent standards than those
required for domestically situated
current airmen and safety-sensitive
positions. Neither the FAA, nor the
OST, has a mechanism to regulate such
standards at this time. Therefore, the
FAA finds that the established term
‘‘drug’’ meets the intention of Congress
in using the term ‘‘controlled
substances.’’
The FAA, as discussed in section
III.A. of this preamble, has long held
that the standards set forth in 14 CFR
part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 are
acceptable drug and alcohol testing
programs for the aforementioned safetysensitive functions. The FAA finds that
requirements of part 145 repair stations
located outside the territory of the U.S.
should mirror those inside the U.S. who
elect to have a drug and alcohol
program. Specifically, the FAA lacks the
data or studies that would support a
deviation from the current program
requirements as applicable to those
persons who perform safety-sensitive
functions (i.e., 14 CFR part 120 and 49
CFR part 40). Therefore, this proposal
would require all employees of part 145
repair stations located outside the
territory of the U.S. who perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on part
121 air carrier aircraft 37 to be subject to
35 Public Law 102–143, title V, 105 Stat. 952 (Oct.
28, 1991). Specifically, OTETA required the DOT
and agencies to look to the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines for the scientific and technical
guidelines regarding the drugs to be tested.
36 Because this proposal would apply 49 CFR part
40, any type of testing allowed under part 40 would
be permitted, including oral fluid testing once at
least two labs are approved to test those specimens.
37 There are currently 977 part 145 repair stations
located throughout 65 foreign countries that
maintain an FAA-issued certificate. Many of these
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
Continued
07DEP1
85144
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
the current FAA-mandated testing
programs. Accordingly, for purposes of
49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), the Administrator
finds that the current drug and alcohol
testing scheme is acceptable in
applicability to the affected part 145
repair stations outside the territory of
the U.S.
Therefore, the FAA proposes three
revisions to 14 CFR 120.1, which
outlines to whom part 120 applies. First,
the FAA proposes to revise current 14
CFR 120.1(c) to specify that paragraph
(c) applies to those part 145 certificate
holders located in the territory of the
U.S. who elect to implement a drug and
alcohol testing program under 14 CFR
part 120. The FAA notes that there is no
substantive change to the current
applicability of domestic part 145
certificate holders. Next, the FAA
proposes to expand applicability of 14
CFR part 120 to all part 145 certificate
holders outside the territory of the U.S.
who perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft by adding new paragraph
(d).38 This, in turn, would redesignate
current 14 CFR 120.1(d) as paragraph
(e).
Additionally, the FAA finds it
necessary to provide specific
instructions to affected part 145 repair
stations outside the territory of the U.S.,
consistent with the requirements for
other affected persons (i.e., the persons
listed in 14 CFR 120.1), on how to
obtain the necessary authority to
implement a drug and alcohol testing
program. Specifically, 14 CFR 120.117
and 120.225 set forth certain
requirements specific to the person
implementing a drug and alcohol testing
program and do not currently include
part 145 repair stations affected by this
proposed rulemaking.
The FAA, therefore, proposes three
revisions to the charts set forth in 14
CFR 120.117(a) and (c), which would
treat applicable part 145 repair stations
outside the territory of the U.S. similar
to those domestic part 145 repair
stations who choose to enact their own
drug testing programs. First, 14 CFR
120.117(a) provides the documentation
that a company must obtain from the
FAA to implement a drug testing
program: an Antidrug and Alcohol
repair stations provide maintenance functions to
part 121 air carrier aircraft.
38 The FAA notes that domestic repair stations
may elect to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program; however, foreign repair stations must
implement a drug and alcohol testing program
covering employees who perform maintenance on
part 121 aircraft. If a domestic repair station does
not elect to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program, then the part 121 air carrier must cover
the repair station’s safety-sensitive employees
under its FAA drug and alcohol testing program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Misuse Prevention Program Operations
Specification (A449), Letter of
Authorization (A049), or Drug and
Alcohol Testing Program Registration.
Second, a revision to paragraph (a)(5) is
necessary to specify the requirements in
that paragraph, which permit a repair
station to elect to implement a testing
program, are applicable only to part 145
certificate holders located inside the
territory of the U.S. Finally, the FAA
proposes to add new paragraph (a)(6)
within the chart in 14 CFR 120.117.
This paragraph would require a part 145
repair station located outside the
territory of the U.S. whose employees
perform safety-sensitive maintenance
functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft
to obtain an A449 in their Operations
Specification by contacting the repair
station’s Principal Maintenance
Inspector. The A449 serves as the
certification to comply with the drug
and alcohol testing regulations, 49 CFR
part 40 and 14 CFR part 120. In turn,
current 14 CFR 120.117(a)(6) would be
redesignated as paragraph (a)(7).
Similarly, 14 CFR 120.117(c)
prescribes certain requirements
pertaining to the implementation of an
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse
Prevention Program. The FAA proposes
several revisions to 14 CFR 120.117(c).
First, a revision to paragraph (c)(1) is
necessary to specify the requirements in
that paragraph are applicable only to
part 145 certificate holders located
inside the territory of the U.S. Next, the
FAA proposes new paragraph (c)(2) to
require the applicable repair station
located outside the territory of the U.S.
to (1) obtain an A449 in their Operations
Specification by contacting the repair
station’s Principal Maintenance
Inspector, (2) implement the drug
testing program no later than one year
from the effective date of the
regulation 39 (or, if a foreign repair
station begins operations more than one
year after the effective date of the
regulation, implement a drug testing
program no later than the date the repair
station begins operations), and (3) meet
the requirements of 14 CFR part 120,
subpart E. In turn, current 14 CFR
120.117(c)(2) would be redesignated as
paragraph (c)(3). Finally, the FAA
proposes minor grammatical changes to
the headings of the chart set forth by 14
CFR 120.117(c) and introductory text of
39 The FAA finds that a one-year implementation
date from the effective date of the legislation would
give part 145 repair stations outside the territory of
the U.S. sufficient time to identify laws that may
contradict the regulations set forth in 14 CFR part
120 and 49 CFR part 40 and provide the FAA and
DOT sufficient time to process waivers and
exemptions, respectively, addressing such barriers.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) to conform
with the heading revisions.
Subpart F of 14 CFR part 120 sets
forth the alcohol testing program
requirements. The requirements
pertaining to implementation largely
mirror those set forth in subpart E, Drug
Testing Program Requirements. The
FAA, therefore, proposes similar
amendments to the implementation
charts set forth in 14 CFR 120.225(a)
and (c) for the same reasons as
previously discussed. Specifically, in 14
CFR 120.225(a), the FAA proposes to:
first, revise the introductory language of
paragraph (a)(5) to specify that
paragraph is applicable to part 145
certificate holders located inside the
territory of the U.S.; second, add new
paragraph (a)(6) to include the
requirements for a part 145 repair
station located outside the territory of
the U.S. who performs safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft; and, third, redesignate
current paragraph (a)(6) as new (a)(7).
Likewise, in 14 CFR 120.225(c), the
FAA proposes to: first, revise paragraph
(c)(1) as necessary to specify the
requirements in that paragraph are
applicable only to part 145 certificate
holders located inside the territory of
the U.S.; second, add new paragraph
(c)(2) to require the applicable repair
station located outside the territory of
the U.S. to (1) obtain an A449 in their
Operations Specification by contacting
the repair station’s Principal
Maintenance Inspector, (2) implement
the drug testing program no later than
one year from the effective date of the
regulation (or, if a foreign repair station
begins operations more than one year
after the effective date of the regulation,
implement a drug testing program no
later than the date the repair station
begins operations), and (3) meet the
requirements of 14 CFR part 120,
subpart E; and, third, redesignate
current paragraph (c)(2) as (c)(3).
Finally, the FAA proposes, first, minor
grammatical changes to the headings of
the chart set forth by 14 CFR 120.225(c)
and introductory text of paragraphs
(c)(1) and (3) to conform with the
heading revisions and, second, to add
the correct introductory text in
paragraph (d), which is currently and
inadvertently blank in the regulations.
B. Conforming Amendments To
Facilitate Drug and Alcohol Procedures
Outside the United States (§§ 120.123
and 120.227)
There are certain regulations in 14
CFR part 120 that effectively restrict any
drug and alcohol programs from
implementation outside of the U.S.
Specifically, 14 CFR 120.123(a) bars any
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
part of the drug testing process from
being conducted outside the territory of
the U.S. and requires that employees
assigned safety-sensitive functions
solely outside the territory of the U.S. to
be removed from random testing pools,
only to be returned once the covered
employee has resumed functions wholly
or partially in the U.S. Additionally, 14
CFR 120.123(b) states that the
provisions of subpart E (Drug Testing
Program Requirements) do not apply to
any individual who performs a function
pursuant to 14 CFR 120.105 by contract
for an employer outside the territory of
the U.S. Likewise, 14 CFR 120.227(a)
bars covered employees from being
tested for alcohol misuse while located
outside the territory of the U.S. and
mirrors the requirement of removal of a
covered employee outside the territory
of the U.S. from the random testing pool
as with drug testing programs
previously discussed. Additionally, 14
CFR 120.227(b) states that the
provisions of subpart E (Alcohol Testing
Program Requirements) do not apply to
any individual who performs a safety
sensitive function by contract for an
employer outside the territory of the
U.S.
The FAA recognizes that these
regulations serve as barriers to the
implementation of a drug and alcohol
testing program for a part 145 repair
station outside the territory of the U.S.
Without conforming amendments to
except these repair stations from 14 CFR
120.123 and 120.227, it would be
impossible to comply with the proposed
regulations and the current regulations.
Therefore, the FAA proposes to amend
§§ 120.123 and 120.227 to allow drug
and alcohol testing processes to be
conducted on employees of part 145
repair stations located outside the
territory of the U.S. who perform safetysensitive maintenance functions on part
121 air carrier aircraft. Specifically, this
proposal would add language at the
beginning of 14 CFR 120.123(a),
120.123(a)(1), 120.123(b), 120.227(a),
120.227(a)(1), and 120.227(b) that would
except persons under proposed 14 CFR
120.1(d) from applicability of those
regulations restricting drug and alcohol
testing outside the territory of the U.S.
Currently, part 121 air carriers are
responsible for ensuring that
individuals who perform safetysensitive maintenance functions within
the territory of the U.S. are subject to
testing. If a part 121 air carrier does not
include a maintenance worker under
their own testing program, it must
ensure the worker is included in the
FAA-mandated testing program of
whomever the air carrier uses to
perform safety-sensitive maintenance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
functions (e.g., a part 145 repair station).
In keeping with the congressional
mandate, this proposal does not change
the language of the regulation that
removes part 121 employees located
outside of the territory of the U.S. from
the testing pool. Thus, part 121 air
carriers that directly perform their own
maintenance outside the territory of the
U.S. would not be required to test their
employees for drugs and alcohol. If the
part 121 air carrier decides to hire
(either as an employee or an
independent contractor) the foreign part
145 repair station employees who work
on its aircraft, then those employees
would not be subject to testing because
the part 121 air carrier is restricted from
including into its testing pool
employees who work solely outside the
territory of the U.S.
This approach is consistent with the
statutory mandate, which did not
address drug and alcohol testing of part
121 employees performing safetysensitive maintenance functions outside
the territory of the U.S. As previously
discussed, the FAA lacks safety data
and supporting research to support a
proposal of drug and alcohol testing
beyond that required by the legislation.
However, the FAA is considering how
best to deter drug use and alcohol
misuse for any aircraft mechanic
working on a part 121 aircraft regardless
of how that mechanic is employed.
Therefore, the FAA seeks comments,
with supporting data, as to whether the
testing requirements in this proposed
rule should be extended to foreign
aircraft mechanics working directly for
part 121 carriers.
C. Exemptions and Waivers to Drug and
Alcohol Program Requirements
(§§ 120.5 and 120.9)
The FAA recognizes that the different
laws and regulations of some countries
(including, but not limited to, privacy
laws) may place limitations on drug and
alcohol testing, prohibit it entirely, or
place conditions on how testing would
be done. In fact, Congress contemplated
this potential barrier in 49 U.S.C.
44733(d)(2), as evidenced by the
language requiring the drug and alcohol
program to be both acceptable to the
Administrator and consistent with the
applicable laws of the country in which
the repair station is located. As
previously discussed in the responses to
comments to the ANPRM, the FAA
seeks to avoid situations whereby the
regulations of the FAA are inconsistent
with laws in other sovereign countries.
As this proposal extends the drug and
alcohol testing requirements beyond the
territory of the U.S., the FAA realizes
that the different laws of some
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85145
countries, including, but not limited to,
privacy laws, may place limitations on
drug and alcohol testing or prohibit it
entirely. For example, some countries
may bar pre-employment drug testing,
which is required by 14 CFR 120.109(a).
Section 120.5 requires each employer
having a drug and alcohol testing
program under part 120 to ensure that
all drug and alcohol testing conducted
under that part complies with the
procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 40.
In evaluating the effects of the
congressional mandate, the FAA has
scrutinized the many challenges
associated with the establishment and
implementation of drug and alcohol
testing programs outside the U.S. that
comply with both the FAA regulations
and the DOT’s testing standards and
procedures.40 In cases in which
compliance with certain provisions of
49 CFR part 40 would not be attainable
due to legal restrictions in the country
where testing must occur, the part 145
repair station could apply for an
exemption from part 40 using the
process described in 49 CFR 40.7. Under
§ 40.7, an exemption will only be
granted if the requestor documents
special or exceptional circumstances
(e.g., a country’s law) that make
compliance with a specific provision of
49 CFR part 40 impracticable. To
acknowledge the potential need for
foreign repair stations to obtain
exemptions issued by the DOT from 49
CFR part 40, the FAA proposes to add
language to 14 CFR 120.5 to clarify that
an employer’s drug and alcohol testing
conducted pursuant to 14 CFR part 120
must comply with the procedures set
forth in 49 CFR part 40, to include any
exemptions issued to that employer in
accordance with 49 CFR 40.7.
Traditionally, when a person cannot
comply with an FAA regulation, the
person may seek an exemption through
40 49 CFR 40.3 sets forth the terms used in part
40 and includes the definition for laboratory, which
is any U.S. laboratory certified by HHS under the
National Laboratory Certification Program as
meeting the minimum standards of Subpart C of the
HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace
Drug Testing Programs; or, in the case of foreign
laboratories, a laboratory approved for participation
by DOT under part 40. Laboratories participating in
the DOT drug testing program must comply with
the requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and with all
applicable requirements of HHS in testing DOT
specimens. Currently, a laboratory located in the
U.S. is permitted to participate in DOT drug testing
only if it is certified by HHS under the National
Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP), or, in the
case of a foreign laboratory, if it is approved for
participation by the DOT with respect to part 40.
The FAA recognizes that there are, first, no HHS
certified laboratories in any of the foreign countries
impacted by this rulemaking and, second, that there
is a multitude of differently situated laboratories
internationally. Therefore, a foreign laboratory
would be required to seek approval in accordance
with DOT procedures under 49 CFR part 40.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85146
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the procedures set forth by 14 CFR part
11. However, to streamline and
efficiently address potential
international legal conflicts, the FAA
proposes to add waiver authority in new
14 CFR 120.9 that will allow repair
stations located outside of the U.S. to
request waivers from specific provisions
of 14 CFR part 120. Specifically,
proposed 14 CFR 120.9(a) sets forth the
waiver authority for those applicable
repair stations that would be unable to
comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
part 120 due to the laws of the country
within which the repair station is
located. New paragraph (b) would set
forth the information required by the
Administrator to evaluate and process
the waiver request.
For example, the Administrator
requires basic informational details; the
specific section(s) of 14 CFR part 120
from which a waiver is sought; the
reasons why granting the waiver would
not contravene the purpose of 14 CFR
part 120, as defined in § 120.5; a copy
of the law that is inconsistent with 14
CFR part 120; an explanation of how the
law applies to affected employees and
how it is inconsistent with 14 CFR part
120; and a description of alternate
means used to achieve the objectives of
the part 120 provision from which the
waiver is sought (or, if it is impossible
to achieve the objective by alternative
means, a justification of why it would
be so). Finally, new 14 CFR 120.9(c)
would provide the manner in which the
repair station should submit their
waiver request.
The FAA finds that the existing
exemption process in 49 CFR part 40 in
tandem with the proposed waiver
process in new 14 CFR 120.9 would
provide sufficient pathways to work
with part 145 certificated repair stations
outside the territory of the U.S. to
ensure these repair stations are not in
violation of the laws of the country
within which they are situated. The
FAA notes that each process is intended
to provide relief for its respective
regulations. While the FAA requires
compliance with 49 CFR part 40
through its regulations, the FAA does
not have the authority to exempt a
person from the regulations situated
there, and person should not request a
waiver from the FAA for relief from the
DOT’s regulations. If a person
determines they cannot meet certain 49
CFR part 40 requirements (e.g., if their
country’s laws do not allow drug testing
for one or more of the drugs required
under 49 CFR 40.85), the person should
follow the process set forth by 49 CFR
40.7; should the DOT grant the
exemption, the FAA would recognize
the exemption through proposed 14 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
120.5. Likewise, the waiver process set
forth in new 14 CFR 120.9 provides an
avenue by which a person may seek
relief from FAA regulations that a
person determines they cannot meet
(e.g., if their country’s laws do not allow
pre-employment drug testing, which is
required under 14 CFR 120.109(a)). As
such, a person may have to appeal to
both the DOT and FAA for an
exemption and a waiver, respectively, if
there are regulations in each part that a
person seeks relief from.
D. Impact on International Agreements
As noted in the discussion of
comments to the ANPRM, commenters
raised concerns regarding the impact of
the legislation and enabling regulations
on existing Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements (BASA). However,
commenters have not identified any
specific BASAs that are in conflict with
the statutory requirements this proposed
rule would implement, nor is FAA
aware of any at this time. The FAA
invites comments as to whether there
are any BASAs that would conflict with
the requirements of this proposed rule.
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Federal agencies consider impacts of
regulatory actions under a variety of
Executive orders and other
requirements. First, Executive Order
12866 and Executive Order 13563, as
amended by Executive Order 14094
(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’),
direct that each Federal agency may
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 as
amended) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the U.S. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Agreements 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 (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any one year. The
current threshold after adjustment for
inflation is $177,000,000, using the most
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for
the Gross Domestic Product. This
portion of the preamble summarizes the
FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts
of this proposed rule. The FAA has
provided a more detailed Regulatory
Impact Analysis of this proposed rule in
the docket of this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA
has determined that this proposed rule:
is a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 because it raises legal or
policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the
President’s priorities or the principles
set forth in Executive Order 12866 as
amended by Executive Order 14094;
could have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; could create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
U.S.; and would not impose an
unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private
sector by exceeding the threshold
identified above. These analyses are
summarized below.
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
In response to Congressional
direction, the FAA proposes to require
certificated part 145 repair stations
located outside the U.S. and its
territories whose employees perform
safety-sensitive maintenance functions
on part 121 air carrier aircraft to ensure
those employees are subject to a
controlled substance and alcohol testing
program consistent with the applicable
laws of the country in which the repair
station is located. This proposed rule
would require part 145 repair station
located outside the territory of the U.S.
to cover its employees performing
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft under its own testing
program that meets the requirements of
49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120.
However, if a part 145 repair station
cannot meet one or all requirements in
49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the laws of the
country where the repair station is
located are inconsistent with the
regulations), they may apply for an
exemption using the process described
in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a part 145
repair station cannot meet one or all
requirements in 14 CFR part 120, they
may apply for a waiver in accordance
with proposed waiver authority.
Although there are no quantifiable
benefits, this rulemaking would apply
the FAA’s existing primary tool for
detecting and deterring substance abuse
by safety-sensitive aviation employees,
especially illegal drug use, throughout
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the international aviation community to
enhance aviation safety. The total cost,
at seven percent present value, of this
proposed rule equals the foreign repair
station cost of $102.3 million, plus FAA
cost of $6.3 million for a total of $108.7
million ($122.4 million at three percent
present value) over five years.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
• Part 145 Certificated Foreign Repair
Station outside the U.S. that performs
safety-sensitive maintenance functions
on part 121 aircraft.
• The FAA Office of Aerospace
Medicine.
I. Costs of This Rule
Part 145 certificated foreign repair
stations outside the U.S. and the FAA
would incur the cost of this proposed
rule. The estimated cost of the proposed
rule to part 145 certificated foreign
repair stations are the costs to
implement a drug and alcohol testing
program that adheres to U.S. domestic
testing standards. Cost to foreign repair
stations would consist of developing a
85147
drug and alcohol testing program,
training, testing safety sensitive
maintenance employees for drugs and
alcohol, and documentations. Total cost
to foreign repair stations over five years,
at seven percent present value, sums to
$102.3 million with and annualized cost
of $24.9 million. At three percent
present value, estimated total cost to
foreign repair stations is $115.2 million
with an annualized cost of $25.1
million.
TABLE 1—COST TO PART 145 FOREIGN REPAIR STATIONS OVER 5 YEARS
[$Millions] *
Program and
training
development
& maintenance
Year
1
2
3
4
5
Testing
(drug and
alcohol)
Training
Annual
reports
Total cost
(7% PV)
Total cost
(3% PV)
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
$0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
$12.9
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
$0.0
9.0
9.4
9.7
10.1
$3.8
14.1
14.7
15.3
15.9
$16.1
22.5
21.9
21.2
20.6
$16.7
24.3
24.5
24.7
24.9
Total ..................................................
2.2
22.2
38.3
63.9
102.3
115.2
* These numbers are subject to rounding error.
Cost to the FAA would include
inspections and the necessary
documentation associated with
monitoring these repair stations. Total
cost to FAA over five years, at seven
percent present value, sums to $6.3
million with an annualized cost of $1.5
million. At three percent present value,
total cost is $7.2 million with an
annualized cost of $1.6 million.
The FAA also invites commenters to
submit data that would allow it to
quantify the costs of extending this
proposed rule to foreign aircraft
mechanics employed directly by part
121 certificate holders.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Benefits of This Rule
Congress mandated that the FAA
propose a rule that establishes drug and
alcohol testing programs for foreign
repair stations. Any benefits of the
regulations would result from potential
reductions in safety risks, any
improvements in safety in detecting and
deterring drug use and/or alcohol
misuse, and worker productivity. The
FAA concludes that two specific sets of
benefits may accrue from this
rulemaking:
• The prevention of potential injuries
and fatalities and property losses
resulting from accidents attributed to
drug use/alcohol misuse or neglect or
error on the part of individuals whose
judgement or motor skills may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
impaired by the presence of alcohol or
drugs; and
• The potential reduction in
absenteeism, lost worker productivity,
and other cost to employers, as well as
improved general safety in the
workplace, by the deterrence of drug use
and/or alcohol misuse.
However, the FAA lacks sufficient
data to estimate a baseline level of safety
risk associated with a drug and alcohol
testing program at part 145 certificated
foreign repair stations that perform
safety sensitive maintenance on part 121
aircraft. Additionally, it is difficult to
estimate (and the FAA does not have
data on) the impact of the proposed rule
in detecting and deterring drug use and/
or alcohol misuse. To estimate safety
and productivity benefits that would
result from this proposed rule, the FAA
would need estimates of the following:
• Baseline risks attributable to drug
use and/or alcohol misuse;
• Effectiveness of the rule; and
• Value of the reduction in risk of
affected outcomes.
The FAA invites comments on this
issue. The FAA also invites commenters
to submit data that would allow it to
quantify the safety and productivity
benefits of extending this proposed rule
to foreign aircraft mechanics employed
directly by part 121 certificate holders.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Baseline Risks Attributable to Drug Use
and/or Alcohol Misuse
The FAA does not have data to
estimate a baseline level of safety risk
associated with safety-sensitive
maintenance personnel drug use and/or
alcohol misuse. The FAA acknowledges
there have been no accidents or
incidents related to safety-sensitive
maintenance personnel using drugs or
alcohol. The FAA may use accidents or
incidents related to part 121 aircraft that
list maintenance as either a cause or
factor in the accident report as a proxy
to assess the decreased risk of injuries,
fatalities, and property losses. However,
it is difficult to attribute an accident or
incident that occurs months after the
maintenance was completed to poor
maintenance work related to drug use
and/or alcohol misuse.
Effectiveness of the Rule
The FAA would also need data on the
effect of the rule on maintenance
workers’ drug use and/or alcohol misuse
and the resulting effect on job
performance. For example, drug and
alcohol programs may serve as a
deterrent, resulting in less drug use and/
or alcohol misuse by employees and
higher productivity. However, it would
be difficult to analyze the direct causal
effect of less drug use and/or alcohol
misuse to improved productivity. The
FAA would need to retrieve extensive
data, such as employees’ health levels,
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85148
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
employees’ sleep patterns, changes to
operating procedures, levels of
education and training, and staffing
levels, amongst other factors, to isolate
the direct effect of a decrease in drug or
alcohol usage on productivity levels.
Additionally, even if this data were
available, the analysis would be
extensive and there would be academic
questions regarding whether the causal
effect was properly measured.
Additionally, as mentioned above,
there are no accidents or incidents
directly related to drug use and/or
alcohol misuse to estimate the effect of
the rule on injuries, fatalities, or
property loss. Therefore, there is a lack
of information to establish a baseline.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Value of Risk Reduction
The safety risks from drug use and/or
alcohol misuse are increased risk of
injuries and fatalities in the event of an
accident or incident. The FAA values
the reductions in such risks using the
value of statistical life (VSL) for
fatalities and fractions of the VSL based
on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury
Scale (MAIS) for injuries. The
Department of Transportation guidance
on valuing reductions in fatalities and
injuries 41 could be used to monetize
and quantify estimates of the potential
safety benefits associated with this
rulemaking.
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1—the Status Quo—The
status quo represents a situation in
which the FAA would not propose to
require part 145 foreign repair stations
to test their safety-sensitive
maintenance personnel for drugs and
alcohol. This alternative is counter to
Congressional direction and, therefore,
rejected.
Alternative 2—The FAA would work
through the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to create an
international standard for drug and
alcohol testing of maintenance
personnel at repair stations. While the
FAA is willing to work with ICAO, that
alternative may not meet Congressional
direction due to the multitude of
Member State equities considered in the
implementation of an ICAO standard. In
other words, Congress directed the FAA
to establish a program acceptable to the
Administrator; working through ICAO
to create an international standard may
not expeditiously meet this intention
41 DOT Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a
Statistical Life. Economic Analyses. Office of the
Secretary of Transportation. https://
www.transportation.gov/office-policy/
transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
given the time, resources, and scope of
the adoption of an international
standard.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980, Public Law 96–354, (5 U.S.C.
601–612), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121)
and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111–240), requires Federal
agencies to consider the effects of the
regulatory action on small business and
other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The FAA is publishing this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
to aid the public in commenting on the
potential impacts to small entities from
this proposal. The FAA invites
interested parties to submit data and
information regarding the potential
economic impact that would result from
the proposal. The FAA will consider
comments when making a
determination or when completing a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Under section 603(b) and (c) of the
RFA, an IRFA must contain the
following:
(1) A description of the reasons why
the action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the
objective of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and that minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.1 Reasons the Action Is Being
Considered
The proposed rule is in response to
Congressional mandate that the FAA
propose a rule to establish drug and
alcohol testing program requirements
for part 145 repair stations outside the
territory of the United States that
provide safety-sensitive maintenance
functions for part 121 air carriers
acceptable to the FAA Administrator.
1.2 Objectives and Legal Basis of the
Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require
certificated part 145 repair stations
located outside the territory of the
United States (U.S.) to ensure that
employees who perform aircraft
maintenance on part 121 air carrier
aircraft are subject to a drug and alcohol
testing program. A part 145 repair
station located outside the territory of
the U.S. would cover its employees
performing maintenance functions on
part 121 air carrier aircraft under its
own testing program meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 14
CFR part 120. If a part 145 repair station
cannot meet one or all requirements in
49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the laws of the
country where the repair station is
located are inconsistent with the
regulations), the part 145 repair station
may apply for an exemption using the
process described in 49 CFR 40.7.
Similarly, if a part 145 repair station
cannot meet one or all requirements in
14 CFR part 120, they may apply for a
waiver in accordance with proposed
waiver authority.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is in title 49 of the
United States Code (49 U.S.C.),
specifically 49 U.S.C. 106 and 49 U.S.C.
45102. This proposed rule is further
promulgated under section 308 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (the Act) (49 U.S.C. 44733) and
section 2112 of the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016, which
directed publication of a notice of
proposed rulemaking in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 44733.
1.3 All Federal Rules That May
Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
There are no relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
1.4 Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities
This proposed rule would impact part
145 repair stations located outside the
territory of the U.S. that perform safety
sensitive maintenance functions on part
121 air carrier aircraft. The act defines
a small business as ‘‘a business entity
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85149
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
organized for profit, with a place of
business located in the United States,
and which operates primarily within the
United States or which makes a
significant contribution to the U.S.
economy through payment of taxes or
use of American products, materials or
labor.’’ 42 While the regulatory
flexibility determination does not
require small foreign entities to be
considered, foreign repair stations may
be using U.S. components or labor,
especially if they are working on U.S.
manufactured aircraft; therefore, the
FAA assumes the RFA would apply.
The SBA (2022) established size
standards for various types of economic
activities, or industries, under the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS).43 These size standards
generally define small businesses based
on the number of employees or annual
receipts. Table 2 shows the SBA size
standard, based on the NAICS code,
applicable to repair stations, as it
encompasses air transport support
activities to include aircraft
maintenance and repair services.
TABLE 2—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES
NAICS
code
Description
Size
standard
488190 .....................................
Other Support Activities for Air Transportation ..........................................................................
$40.0 million.
Source: SBA (2022).
NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System.
SBA = Small Business Administration.
Although the FAA was able to
identify a size standard for repair
stations to be considered small, the FAA
lacks financial data to determine if
foreign repair stations meet the
applicable size standard. Instead, the
FAA provides an analysis estimating the
total cost to small entities based on
available data for domestic repair
stations. A 2011 antidrug and alcohol
misuse prevention rule for domestic
repair stations analyzed the effect on
domestic repair stations that were small
entities and subcontractors those
entities used. That rule based the
regulatory flexibility determination
analysis on a Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) study that used
Dun & Bradstreet data to estimate the
share of domestic repair stations that
would be considered small entities.44
The findings show that 93.28% of
domestic repair stations would be
classified as small entities.
Extrapolating this estimate to the 977
foreign repair stations used in the
analysis of this rulemaking results in
912 foreign repair stations that could be
considered small entities.45 The FAA
seeks comment and requests data on
how this rulemaking will affect part 145
foreign repair stations.
1.5 Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
Based on the total nominal cost of the
rule to repair stations, $126.5 million,
the cost per repair station is $129,473.46
Multiplying the cost per repair station
by the estimated 912 repair stations that
are small entities results in a total cost
to small entities of $118.1 million over
five years. Table 3 shows the estimated
annualized compliance costs by
category.
TABLE 3—AVERAGE COST OF COMPLIANCE AND SMALL ENTITIES
Number
of small
entities
Category
Program and Training Development & Maintenance Cost .....................................................................................
Training ....................................................................................................................................................................
Testing Cost .............................................................................................................................................................
Paperwork ................................................................................................................................................................
1 Based
$444.69
3,689.98
6,366.88
10,624.49
on a baseline of existing practices and using a 7% discount rate.
Alternative 1—the Status Quo—The
status quo represents a situation in
which the FAA would not propose to
require part 145 foreign repair stations
to test their safety-sensitive
maintenance personnel for drugs and
alcohol. This alternative is counter to
Congressional direction and, therefore,
rejected.
Alternative 2—The FAA would work
through the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to create an
international standard for drug and
alcohol testing of maintenance
personnel at repair stations. While the
FAA is willing to work with ICAO, 49
U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) requires the FAA to
expeditiously proceed with this
rulemaking. In other words, Congress
directed the FAA to establish a program
acceptable to the Administrator;
working through ICAO to create an
international standard may not
expeditiously meet this intention given
42 13 CFR 121.105(a)(1). The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines a ‘‘small business’’ as having
the same meaning as ‘‘small business concern’’
under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C.
601(3). Section 121.105 of 13 CFR contains the
Small Business Administration’s implementing
regulations clarifying the definition of ‘‘small
business concern.’’
43 Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019.
Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019.
https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards.
44 Final Rule, Supplemental Regulatory
Flexibility Determination, Antidrug and Alcohol
Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged
in Specified Aviation Activities: Supplemental
Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 76 FR 12559
(Mar. 8, 2011).
45 The calculation is as follows: 977*.9328 =
911.31. This estimate is rounded up to get 912.
46 $126,495,150/977 = $129,473.03.
1.6 Significant Alternatives
Considered
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
912
912
912
912
Average
annualized
cost per
repair
station
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85150
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the time, resources, and scope of the
adoption of an international standard.
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 U.S. Pursuant to these
Acts, the establishment of standards is
not considered an unnecessary obstacle
to the foreign commerce of the U.S., 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. This rulemaking is
congressionally mandated. The FAA
assessed the potential effect of this
proposed rule and determined that it
ensures the safety of the American
public while noting some countries and
foreign trade associations, in their
comments, voiced their opposition to an
FAA drug and alcohol testing standard
for foreign repair stations. In comments
to the ANPRM, as discussed in section
III.B.2. of this preamble, these countries
cited failure of the legislation to
recognize each nation’s sovereignty and
cited that the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) would be
the appropriate vehicle to set worldwide
standards. As a result, this rulemaking
could create an obstacle or retaliation to
foreign commerce. The FAA invites
comments on this issue.
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
$177.0 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.
According to the 1995 amendments to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
This action contains the following
amendments to the existing information
collection requirements previously
approved under OMB Control Number
2120–0535. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted
these proposed information collection
amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary: Under §§ 120.1, 120.123
and 120.227, the proposed rule would
extend the drug and alcohol testing
regulations beyond the territory of the
U.S. The proposal would require all
employees of part 145 repair stations
located outside of the U.S. who perform
maintenance on part 121 air carrier
aircraft to be subject to a drug and
alcohol testing program. Of the
approximately 977 part 145 repair
stations located throughout 66 foreign
countries, it is likely that all of these
repair stations would continue to
Documentation
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
1. Burden for Program Certification and
Annual Program Maintenance
Hours per
repair station
Hourly wage
Total cost
977
47 16.2
48 $26.90
$425,757
recurring time to update and maintain the testing
list will be 16 hours. The average over five years
results in the 16.2 hours per year.
48 Office and Administrative Support Workers,
All Other (SOC 43–9119) NAICS 481000—Air
PO 00000
Annual Burden Estimate
Number of
repair stations
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification
47 Based on the previous PRA, the FAA assumes
16 hours in the first year to establish the testing
program and one hour to register with the FAA’s
Drug Abatement Division. Therefore, 17 hours are
required for the first year. For each year after, the
perform maintenance on part 121 air
carrier aircraft. If the repair stations
continue to perform maintenance for
part 121 air carrier aircraft, each repair
station would be required to obtain an
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse
Prevention Program Operations
Specification. In addition, each repair
station located outside the territory of
the U.S. would be required to provide
drug and alcohol testing program
management information system (MIS)
data.
Use: The information would be used
by the part 145 repair station located
outside of the territory of the U.S. to
certify implementation and
maintenance of a drug and alcohol
testing program. The FAA’s Drug
Abatement Compliance and
Enforcement Inspectors would use this
information to identify those foreign
repair stations with an active program
for inspection scheduling. Inspections
are used to verify compliance with the
drug and alcohol testing regulations and
requirements. In addition, the Drug
Abatement Division would use the
annual MIS data reported to calculate
the annual random drug and alcohol
testing rates in the aviation industry.
Respondents (including number of):
There are currently 977 part 145
certificated repair stations located
outside the territory of the U.S.
Frequency: Part 145 repair stations
located outside the territory of the U.S.
would provide information for program
certification only once; however, these
repair stations would also incur annual
program maintenance: e.g., updates to
the programs per new guidance; the
random pool list; and the overall testing
process. The aggregate annual testing
data would be provided electronically
through the Department of
Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol
Management Information System.
Sfmt 4702
Transportation, May 2020; Mean Hourly wage
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes439199.htm:
Includes Fringe Benefits.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
85151
2. Burden for Annual Test Data
Hourly wage
Total cost
Average yearly
cost 50
Training records ...................................................................
Records related to the alcohol and drug collection process, test results, refusal to test, employee dispute
records, SAP reports, follow-up tests ..............................
656,720
0.25
51 $34.47
$5,659,285
$1,131,857
335,354
5.0
34.47
57,798,262
11,559,652
Total ..............................................................................
992,074
N/A
N/A
63,457,547
12,691,509
To calculate the number of drug and
alcohol training records, the FAA took
the 2021 data showing 147,194
mechanics and 29,439 supervisors and
accounted for a four percent growth rate
over five years. Accounting for these
rates results in an initial first year total
of 159,205 mechanics and 31,842
supervisors. This is a total of 191,047
employees. In the first year all
mechanics and supervisors will take
anti-drug and alcohol training. These
are two separate trainings. This results
in 191,047 records for anti-drug training
and 191,047 for alcohol training. In
addition, supervisors will have to take
an additional supervisor reasonable
cause/reasonable suspicion
determinations training for drugs and
alcohol. This adds another 63,684
records since they are two separate
trainings as well.52 Therefore, in the
first year, there will be a total of 445,778
records.53
For year two and beyond, for drug
records, the total records reflect the
increase in new mechanics and
supervisors which will be required to
take the drug training. Using the growth
rate this results in 6,368 mechanics and
1,274 supervisors for a total of 7,642
records. The 1,274 new supervisors will
also have to take the reasonable cause/
reasonable suspicion determinations for
drugs training. In addition, there is
recurrent reasonable cause/reasonable
suspicion determinations for drugs
training that all supervisors will have to
take every 12 to 18 months. In year two,
this results in 31,842 supervisors taking
the recurring trainings. Thus, the
records for drug training in year two is
40,758.54 In addition, new mechanics
and supervisors will be required to take
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Time per
record
(hours)
49 Total
records
Documentation
49 Estimated number of records from 2018 to
2022.
50 Average yearly cost is calculated by dividing
total cost by five years.
51 Information and Records Clerks (SOC 43–4000)
NAICS 481000—Air Transportation, May 2020:
Mean Hourly Wage https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/
may/naics3_481000.htm#43-0000: Includes Fringe
Benefits.
52 31,842*2 = 63,684.
53 191,047 + 191,047 + 63,684 = 445,778.
54 7,642 + 1,274 + 31,842 = 40,758.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
alcohol training and supervisors will
have to take the reasonable cause/
reasonable suspicion determinations for
alcohol training. This adds another
8,916 records. There is no recurrent
alcohol training for supervisors.
Therefore, in year two the total records
are 49,674.55
The same calculation for year two is
repeated for years three through five.
There are 51,662 records in year three,
53,729 in year four, and 55,877 in year
five. This results in a total of 656,720
total training records over the five
years.56
To calculate the number of records
related to alcohol and drug collection,
the FAA sums the number of preemployment drug tests, random drug
and alcohol tests, and post-accident,
reasonable cause, return to duty, and
follow-up drug and alcohol tests per
year beginning in year two. First, for
drug testing, every new employee
performing maintenance will be
required to take a pre-employment drug
test but not an alcohol test. Second, the
FAA estimates 25 percent of current
employees performing maintenance will
be randomly drug tested per year. Third,
there will be post-accident, reasonable
cause, return to duty, or follow-up
testing. The FAA estimates 1.70 percent
of employees tested in a given year will
be tested again under this category. The
total drug tests over the five years is
247,521.57
For alcohol testing, no preemployment alcohol testing is required.
The other two categories of alcohol
testing will be the same as for drug
testing. However, the FAA estimates
random drug testing will occur at a rate
of 10 percent of current employees and
4.10 percent for post-accident,
reasonable cause, return to duty, and
follow-up tests. The total alcohol tests
55 40,758
+ 8,916 = 49,674.
+ 49,674 + 51,662 + 53,729 + 55,877
56 445,778
= 656,720.
57 This is broken down by category as 32,452 preemployment drug tests, 210,932 random drug tests,
4,137 post-accident, reasonable cause, return to
duty, and follow-up tests.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
over the five years is 87,833.58 Taking
the sum of drug and alcohol tests results
in 335,354 records related to alcohol
and drug collection.
The agency is soliciting comments
to—
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information requirement is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting
information on those who are to
respond, including by using appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Individuals and organizations may
send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this preamble by February
5, 2024. Comments also should be
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA, New Executive Office
Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20053.
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
58 This is broken down by category as 84,373
random drug tests and 3,460 post-accident,
reasonable cause, return to duty, and follow-up
tests.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85152
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 this
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and
involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. 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. 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 on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory 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 action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609 and has determined that
this action could create differences in
international regulatory requirements.
The FAA acknowledges that the FAA
may need to revisit certain international
agreements, as discussed in section IV.D
and invites comments on this issue.
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
views. The FAA 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 submit only one
time if comments are filed electronically
or commenters should send only one
copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
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 FAA may change
this proposal in light of the comments
it receives.
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.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information
(CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to the person in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
C. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of this NPRM, all comments
received, any final rule, and all
background material may be viewed
online at https://www.regulations.gov
using the docket number listed above. A
copy of this proposed rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval
help and guidelines are available on the
website. It is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. An electronic
copy of this document may also be
downloaded from the Office of the
Federal Register’s website at https://
www.federalregister.gov and the
Government Publishing Office’s website
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may
also be found at the FAA’s Regulations
and Policies website at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
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) 267–9677. 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 in
the electronic docket for this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 120
Alcoholism, Air carriers, Alcohol
abuse, Alcohol testing, Aviation safety,
Drug abuse, Drug testing, Operators,
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Safety-sensitive,
Transportation.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 120
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101–
40103, 40113, 40120, 41706, 41721, 44106,
44701, 44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711,
44733, 45101–45105, 46105, 46306.
2. Amend § 120.1 by:
a. Revising paragraph (c);
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as
paragraph (e);
■ c. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■
■
■
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85153
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
§ 120.1
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) All part 145 certificate holders
located in the territory of the United
States who perform safety-sensitive
functions and elect to implement a drug
and alcohol testing program under this
part.
(d) All part 145 certificate holders
outside the territory of the United States
who perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft.
■ 3. Revise § 120.5 to read as follows:
§ 120.5
Procedures.
Each employer having a drug and
alcohol testing program under this part
must ensure that all drug and alcohol
testing conducted pursuant to this part
complies with the procedures set forth
in 49 CFR part 40 and any exemptions
issued to that employer by the
Department of Transportation in
accordance with 49 CFR 40.7.
■ 4. Add § 120.9 to read as follows:
§ 120.9 Waivers for Part 145 Repair
Stations Outside the Territory of the United
States.
(a) A part 145 repair station whose
employees perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft outside the territory of
the United States may request a waiver
from the Administrator from any
requirements under 14 CFR part 120,
subpart E or F, if specific requirements
of the subpart are inconsistent with the
laws of the country where the repair
station is located.
(b) Each waiver request must include,
at a minimum, the following elements:
(1) Information about your
organization, including your name and
mailing address and, if you wish, other
contact information such as a fax
number, telephone number, or email
address;
(2) The specific section or sections of
this part from which you seek a waiver;
(3) The reasons why granting the
waiver would not adversely affect the
prevention of accidents and injuries
resulting from the use of prohibited
drugs or the misuse of alcohol by
employees;
(4) A copy of the law that is
inconsistent with the provision(s) of this
part from which a waiver is sought;
(5) An explanation of how the law is
inconsistent with the provision(s) of this
part from which a waiver is sought, and;
If you are . . .
(6) A description of the alternative
means that will be used to achieve the
objectives of the provision that is the
subject of the waiver or, if applicable, a
justification of why it would be
impossible to achieve the objectives of
the provision in any way.
(c) Each petition for a waiver must be
submitted to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division
(AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
■ 5. Amend § 120.117 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as
paragraph (a)(7);
■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6);
■ d. Revising paragraph (c);
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 120.117
program.
Implementing a drug testing
(a) * * *
You must . . .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(5) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OperStates who has your own drug testing program.
ations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591, if you opt to conduct your own drug testing
program.
(6) A part 145 repair station located outside the territory of the United Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OperStates whose employees perform safety-sensitive maintenance funcations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Intions on part 121 air carrier aircraft.
spector.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you are an individual or
company that intends to provide safetysensitive services by contract to a part
119 certificate holder with authority to
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
operate under part 121 and/or part 135
of this chapter, an operation as defined
in § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air
traffic control facility not operated by
*
*
the FAA or by or under contract to the
U.S. military, use the following chart to
determine what you must do if you opt
to have your own drug testing program.
If you are . . .
You must . . .
(1) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United
States and opt to conduct your own program under this part.
(i) Have an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug testing program no later than the date you
start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate
holder with authority to operate under parts 121 or 135, or operator
as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
85154
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
If you are . . .
You must . . .
(2) A part 145 repair station located outside the territory of the United
States whose employees perform maintenance functions on part 121
air carrier aircraft.
(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector.
(ii) Implement a drug testing program acceptable to the Administrator
no later than one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION],
or if company operations begin more than one year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION], implement a drug testing program
acceptable to the Administrator no later than the date you start operations, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart in a manner acceptable to
the Administrator.
(i) Register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug testing program no later than the date you
start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate
holder with authority to operate under parts 121 or 135, or operator
as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air traffic control facility
not operated by the FAA or by or under contract to the U.S. Military,
and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer.
(3) A contractor who opts to implement a testing program under this
part.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 120.123 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
and (b) to read as follows:
§ 120.123 Drug testing outside the territory
of the United States.
(a) Except for those testing processes
applicable to persons testing pursuant to
§ 120.1(d), no part of the testing process
(including specimen collection,
laboratory processing, and MRO actions)
shall be conducted outside the territory
of the United States.
(1) Except for those persons testing
pursuant to § 120.1(d), each employee
who is assigned to perform safetysensitive functions solely outside the
territory of the United States shall be
removed from the random testing pool
upon the inception of such assignment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except for those persons testing
pursuant to § 120.1(d), the provisions of
this subpart shall not apply to any
individual who performs a function
listed in § 120.105 by contract for an
employer outside the territory of the
United States.
If you are . . .
7. Amend § 120.225 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as
paragraph (a)(7);
■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6);
■ d. Revising paragraph (c); and
■ e. Revising paragraphs (d)
introductory text and (d)(1).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
§ 120.225 How to implement an alcohol
testing program.
(a) * * *
You must . . .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(5) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OperStates who has your own alcohol testing program.
ations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector or register with the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, if you opt to conduct your own alcohol testing program.
(6) A part 145 repair station located outside the territory of the United Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OperStates who performs safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part
ations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance In121 air carrier aircraft.
spector.
*
*
*
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you are an individual or
company that intends to provide safetysensitive services by contract to a part
*
*
119 certificate holder with authority to
operate under part 121 and/or part 135
of this chapter, or an operator as defined
in § 91.147 of this chapter, use the
*
*
following chart to determine what you
must do if you opt to have your own
drug testing program.
If you are . . .
You must . . .
(1) A part 145 certificate holder located inside the territory of the United
States and opt to conduct your own program under this part.
(i) Have an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specifications or register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
If you are . . .
You must . . .
(2) Are a part 145 repair station located outside of the territory of the
United States who performs maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
(3) A contractor .........................................................................................
(ii) Implement an FAA alcohol testing program no later than the date
you start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate holder with the authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135,
or operator as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer.
(i) Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification by contacting your Principal Maintenance Inspector.
(ii) Implement an alcohol testing program acceptable the Administrator
no later than one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION],
or if company operations begin more than one year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION], implement an alcohol testing program acceptable to the Administrator no later than the date you start
operations, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart in a manner acceptable to
the Administrator.
(i) Register with the FAA, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug testing program no later than the date you
start performing safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate
holder with authority to operate under parts 121 or 135, or operator
as defined in § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air traffic control facility
not operated by the FAA or by or under contract to the U.S. Military,
and
(iii) Meet the requirements of this subpart as if you were an employer.
(d) To obtain an antidrug and alcohol
misuse prevention program operations
specification:
(1) You must contact your FAA
Principal Operations Inspector or
Principal Maintenance Inspector.
Provide him/her with the following
information:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 120.227 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
and (b) to read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
§ 120.227
U.S.
AGENCY:
Employees located outside the
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
33 CFR Part 334
[COE–2023–0010]
Danger Zone; Marine Corps Base
Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu,
Hawaii
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
DoD.
(a) Except for those persons testing
pursuant to § 120.1(d), no covered
employee shall be tested for alcohol
misuse while located outside the
territory of the United States.
(1) Except for those persons testing
pursuant to § 120.1(d), each covered
employee who is assigned to perform
safety-sensitive functions solely outside
the territory of the United States shall be
removed from the random testing pool
upon the inception of such assignment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except for those persons testing
pursuant to § 120.1(d), the provisions of
this subpart shall not apply to any
person who performs a safety-sensitive
function by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United
States.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Susan E. Northrup,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2023–26394 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
85155
17:14 Dec 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comments.
ACTION:
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is proposing to amend the
regulations for the existing danger zone
at the U.S. Marine Corps Ulupau Crater
Weapons Training Range in the vicinity
of Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The U.S.
Marine Corps requested a change to the
hours that weapons firing may occur.
These regulations are necessary to
protect the public from potentially
hazardous conditions which may exist
as a result from use of the areas by the
U.S. Marine Corps.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before January 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number COE–
2023–0010, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Email: david.b.olson@usace.army.mil.
Include the docket number, COE–2023–
0010, in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Attn: CECW–CO–R (David B. Olson),
441 G Street NW, Washington, DC
20314–1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to
security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or
courier.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket number COE–2023–0010. All
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the commenter indicates that the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected, through regulations.gov or
email. The regulations.gov website is an
anonymous access system, which means
we will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email directly to the Corps
without going through regulations.gov,
your email address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, we recommend that you
include your name and other contact
information with your comment. If we
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85137-85155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 120
[Docket No. FAA-2012-1058; Notice No. 24-05]
RIN 2120-AK09
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certificated Repair Station Employees
Located Outside of the United States
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would require
certificated repair stations located outside the territory of the
United States whose employees perform safety-sensitive maintenance
functions on certain air carrier aircraft to obtain and implement a
drug and alcohol testing program in accordance with the requirements of
the Drug and Alcohol Testing Program published by the FAA and the
Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs published
by the Department of Transportation.
DATES: Send comments on or before February 5, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1058
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 (DOT), 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Rodriguez-Brown, Office of
Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8442; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
BASA--Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. History
B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions
1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comment Response
3. FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Application of 14 CFR Part 120 and 49 CFR Parts 40 Through
145 Certificated Repair Stations Located Outside the Territory of
the United States (Sec. Sec. 120.1, 120.123, and 120.227)
B. Conforming Amendments To Facilitate Drug and Alcohol
Procedures Outside
[[Page 85138]]
the United States (Sec. Sec. 120.123 and 120.227)
C. Exemptions and Waivers to Drug and Alcohol Program
Requirements (Sec. Sec. 120.5 and 120.9)
D. Impact on International Agreements
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule, which the FAA is required by statute to
promulgate, would implement a statutory mandate to require certificated
part 145 repair stations located outside the territory of the United
States (U.S.) to ensure that employees who perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft are subject to a
drug and alcohol testing program, consistent with the applicable laws
of the country in which the repair station is located. This proposed
rule would require a part 145 repair station located outside the
territory of the U.S. to implement a drug and alcohol testing program
meeting the requirements of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120, which
must cover its employees who perform maintenance functions on part 121
air carrier aircraft. If a part 145 repair station cannot meet one or
all requirements in 49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the laws of the country where
the repair station is located are inconsistent with the regulations),
the part 145 repair station may apply for an exemption using the
process described in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a part 145 repair
station cannot meet one or all requirements in 14 CFR part 120, it may
apply for a waiver in accordance with proposed waiver authority. This
rulemaking would affect approximately 977 part 145 repair stations in
about 65 foreign countries.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates are current as of April 2021 and sourced
from the National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS). NVIS is a
subsystem of the Flight Standards Automation System, a comprehensive
information system used primarily by inspectors to record and
disseminate data associated with inspector activity and aviation
environment. While there are more current estimates (as of March
2023, the rule would affect approximately 962 part 145 repair
stations in about 66 foreign countries), the 2021 numbers are used
in the regulatory evaluation and Regulatory Impact Assessment to
estimate cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of the employer (e.g., the part 121
operator) to ensure that any person who performs safety-sensitive
functions (e.g., maintenance or preventive maintenance), directly or by
contract (including by subcontract at any tier), is subject to drug and
alcohol testing. The FAA notes that part 145 repair stations located
within the territory of the U.S. may elect to, but are not required to,
implement a drug and alcohol testing program under 14 CFR part 120.
When hiring by contract, if a part 145 domestic repair station does not
have a testing program of its own, the part 121 operator must cover the
repair station's safety-sensitive employees under its FAA drug and
alcohol testing program.\2\ In this scenario, for purposes of drug and
alcohol testing, the part 121 operator hires the repair station
employees as covered employees \3\ and must apply all the regulatory
requirements of the program to these employees (e.g., conduct a pre-
employment drug test, the records check, the training and educational
information distribution requirements, and include the individuals in
the random testing pool). Therefore, all employees performing a safety-
sensitive function within the U.S. are part of a drug and alcohol
testing program, whether it is the part 121 operator's program or the
repair station's program. As further discussed in this preamble, the
FAA does not propose any changes to its current drug and alcohol
testing requirements applicable to employees performing a safety-
sensitive function within the U.S. as part of this rulemaking. In
addition, the FAA invites comments, with supporting data, on whether
the drug and alcohol testing requirements in this proposed rule should
be extended to safety sensitive maintenance employees of part 121
certificate holders located outside the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 14 CFR 120.1(b), 120.105(e), 120.215(a)(5).
\3\ A covered employee is defined in Sec. 120.7(e) as an
individual who performs, either directly or by contract, a safety-
sensitive function listed in Sec. Sec. 120.105 and 120.215 for an
employer (as defined in Sec. 120.7(g)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is in title
49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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. The FAA's authority to issue rules on alcohol and drug
testing is in 49 U.S.C. 45102, which directs the Administrator to
prescribe regulations that establish a program requiring air carriers
and foreign air carriers to conduct certain alcohol and controlled
substances testing.
This proposed rule is further promulgated under section 308 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), 49 U.S.C. 44733.
Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), titled ``Alcohol and Controlled
Substances Testing Program Requirements,'' requires the FAA to
``promulgate a proposed rule requiring that all part 145 repair station
employees responsible for safety-sensitive maintenance functions on
part 121 air carrier aircraft [be] subject to an alcohol and controlled
substances testing program determined acceptable by the [FAA]
Administrator and consistent with the applicable laws of the country in
which the repair station is located.'' Additionally, this proposed rule
is promulgated under section 2112 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016, (the 2016 Act), which directed publication of a
notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44733. The
2016 Act also requires that the notice of proposed rulemaking be
finalized.
III. Background
A. History
The FAA and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
have long engaged in a regulatory partnership regarding drug and
alcohol testing of persons in the aviation industry. The OST first
published its drug testing procedure regulations in 1988 to require
antidrug programs for certain transportation industries, including
aviation.\4\ In that interim final rule, the OST adopted a modification
of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidance in new 49 CFR
part 40 to require employers to conduct drug testing in accordance with
the HHS's Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Interim Final Rule, Procedures for Transportation Workplace
Drug Testing Programs, 53 FR 47002 (Nov. 21, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneously, the FAA published a final rule setting forth
regulations to certain entities to implement an anti-drug program for
employees who perform sensitive safety or security related
functions.\5\ These entities included: domestic and supplemental air
carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, air taxi and commuter
[[Page 85139]]
operators, certain commercial operators, certain contractors to these
operators, and air traffic control facilities not operated by the FAA
or the U.S. military. Before this final rule, the FAA's regulatory
action pertaining to drug and alcohol use primarily focused not on
testing programs, but on restrictions on commercial aviation personnel
(e.g., regulations restricting crewmembers such as pilots, flight
attendants, flight engineers, and flight navigators from acting as a
crewmember within eight hours after drinking an alcoholic beverage,
regulations restricting use of any drug that affects faculties contrary
to safety \6\). The final rule required employers to comply with the
OST's newly adopted 49 CFR part 40, Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug Testing Programs (i.e., comply with the modified HHS
guidance). However, rather than following the OST structure, which
created a new part to promulgate the regulations, the FAA adopted a new
appendix within 14 CFR part 121 and required compliance through various
cross-references in 14 CFR parts 61, 63, 65, and 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Final Rule, Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged in
Specified Aviation Activities, 53 FR 47024 (Nov. 21, 1988).
\6\ 14 CFR 91.11 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1988 FAA final rule applied only to domestic U.S. operators but
did not expressly exclude employees located outside the territory of
the U.S. from testing. In that final rule, the FAA considered the
impact that the regulations would have on foreign laws and policy.
Specific to foreign repair stations, individuals at foreign repair
stations under contract to U.S. certificate holders would not be able
to perform maintenance or preventive maintenance work on U.S.-
registered aircraft unless they participated in an anti-drug program.
However, as set forth by then-part 121, appendix I, section XII, the
rule would not be applicable in any situation where compliance would
violate the domestic laws or policies of another country. Additionally,
the section provided a longer effectivity date to aid the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and foreign governments in reaching permanent
resolutions to any identified conflict between the final rule and
foreign law.
The effectivity date for the final rule with respect to employees
located outside the territory of the U.S. was extended several
times,\7\ during which time Congress passed the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act of 1991 (OTETA).\8\ Section 3 of OTETA added sec.
614 to title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which directed the
Administrator to prescribe regulations to establish a program that
requires both air carriers and foreign air carriers to conduct alcohol
and controlled substance testing for certain persons. OTETA specified
that the FAA should only establish requirements applicable to foreign
air carriers consistent with the international obligations of the U.S.
and take any laws and regulations of the foreign countries into
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Final Rule--Request for Comments, Anti-Drug Program for
Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities; 54 FR 15148
(Apr. 14, 1989); Final Rule--Extension of Compliance Date, Anti-Drug
Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities, 54
FR 53282 (Dec. 27, 1989), Final Rule--Extension of Compliance Date,
Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation
Activities, 56 FR 18978 (Apr. 24, 1991), Final Rule--Extension of
Compliance Date, Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged in
Specified Aviation Activities, 57 FR 31275 (Jul. 14, 1992).
\8\ 105 Stat. 917, Public Law 102-143 (Oct. 28, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the OST and the FAA issued congruent final rules \9\ to
implement the legislation, as applicable. Consistent with the
legislation, the FAA final rule mandated that no employee located
solely outside the territory of the U.S. shall be tested for illegal
use of drugs under appendix I of part 121. An employer was required to
remove such employees from the random testing pool while the employee
solely performed functions in a foreign country, or while under
contract outside the territory of the U.S. Concurrently, the FAA
proposed and adopted appendix J within part 121 to supplement the
existing regulations concerning alcohol misuse to ensure coordination
between OST and FAA. The FAA had originally proposed \10\ that the
alcohol testing rule would apply to direct employees of U.S. air
carriers who performed safety-sensitive functions outside the U.S.,
subject to the laws and regulations of the country in which the testing
would occur; however, in response to comments, the FAA ultimately
decided not to require alcohol testing of any employees located outside
the territory of the U.S., mirroring the drug testing requirements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOT Final Rule, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug
and Alcohol Testing Programs, 59 FR 7340 (Feb. 15, 1994). FAA Final
Rule, Antidrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specific Aviation
Activities, 59 FR 42922 (Aug. 19, 1994).
\10\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Alcohol Misuse Prevention
Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities, 57
FR 59458 (Dec. 15, 1992).
\11\ Final Rule, Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program for Personnel
Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities, 59 FR 7380 (Feb. 15,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These drug and alcohol testing regulations remained static for
almost two decades, despite occasional proposed rulemaking that did not
come to fruition.\12\ These regulations were scattered throughout 14
CFR.\13\ Most recently, in 2009, the FAA concluded that it would be
best to streamline and clarify title 14 to pull the regulations
existing at that time into one location. Therefore, FAA adopted new
part 120 \14\ to set forth a better organizational structure for the
drug and alcohol testing program regulations, which is where it is
situated today. The FAA has engaged in additional rulemaking since that
time to harmonize 14 CFR part 120 with OST's amendments to 49 CFR part
40, as warranted (e.g., aligning prohibited drugs in 14 CFR part 120
with those in 49 CFR part 40 \15\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, in 1994, the FAA proposed to require foreign
air carriers operating in the U.S. to implement the same testing
required of domestic U.S. air carriers unless multilateral action
was taken by ICAO to support international standards (59 FR 7420).
However, in 1995, ICAO published the Manual on Prevention of
Problematic Use of Psychoactive Substances in the Aviation
Workplace, and the FAA subsequently withdrew this proposed rule in
2000 (65 FR 2079).
\13\ At that time, requirements for affected certificated airmen
were located in parts 61, 63, 65, and 67. Requirements for affected
air carriers and operators were located in parts 91, 121, and 135.
Requirements for affected air traffic control facilities and air
traffic controllers were located in subpart B of part 65.
Requirements for repair stations certificated under part 145 and
contractors who elected to have drug and alcohol testing programs
were located in appendices I and J of part 121.
\14\ Final Rule, Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, 74 FR 22649
(May 14, 2009). Certain inadvertent errors were corrected in a
subsequent final rule: Correction, Drug and Alcohol Testing Program,
75 FR 3153 (Jan. 20, 2010).
\15\ Final Rule, Conforming Amendments and Technical Corrections
to Department Rules Implementing the Transportation Drug Testing
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Legislative and Rulemaking Actions
1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.\16\ Section 308(d)(2) of the Act, implemented in 49 U.S.C. 44733,
requires that the FAA Administrator publish a proposed rule requiring
that all part 145 repair station employees responsible for safety-
sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft
outside the U.S. to be subject to an alcohol and controlled substances
testing program determined acceptable by the Administrator and
consistent with the applicable laws of the country in which the repair
station is located. The FAA considers all maintenance functions
performed on part 121 air carrier aircraft to be safety-sensitive under
14 CFR 120.105 and 120.215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85140]]
2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comment Response
In response to the congressional mandate, the FAA published an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 17, 2014.\17\
The comment period for the ANPRM closed July 17, 2014. The FAA received
74 substantive comments of both support and opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Drug and Alcohol
Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside of
the United States, 79 FR 14621 (Mar. 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA recognized that foreign countries and maintenance providers
would have many concerns regarding drug and alcohol testing of certain
maintenance personnel outside the territory of the U.S. Therefore, the
FAA chose to issue an ANPRM to seek comments from the public and
interested governments to help inform the development of a proposed
rule. Specifically, the FAA recognized and inquired about the
associated legal, practical, and cultural issues related to drug and
alcohol testing. Additionally, the FAA asked various questions
pertaining to foreign countries' laws and regulations, program elements
of acceptable drug and alcohol testing, existing drug and alcohol
testing program in other countries, and the scope of a proposed rule to
include persons performing safety sensitive maintenance functions on
aircraft operated by part 121 air carriers in accordance with part 43.
The comment period for the ANPRM, originally set for 60 days, was
extended an additional 60 days \18\ to allow time for commenters to
analyze the ANPRM and prepare comments. Few comments provided specific
information on the laws, cultural practices, and existence of drug and
alcohol testing programs in foreign countries and instead presented
general arguments in support and opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ANPRM--Extension of Comment Period, Drug and Alcohol
Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside of
the United States; Extension of Comment Period, 79 FR 24631 (May 1,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA received 74 comments: 40 generally supported the ANPRM; 29
generally opposed the ANPRM; and five stated no position. The 40
commenters who generally supported the proposal include 33 individuals,
including certificated airmen (e.g., mechanics, flight instructors) and
members of the flying public; three airline mechanics' unions; two
aviation consulting firms; a consumer advocacy group; and an aircraft
manufacturer. These commenters generally believed that maintenance
personnel both within the U.S. and abroad should be treated the same
with respect to drug and alcohol testing.
Supporters additionally proposed that the FAA expand the rule
beyond the scope of the statutory mandate to (1) make existing domestic
regulations and those that would be extended internationally more
stringent, and (2) include part 135 operators, part 91 operators, and
fractional ownership operators (under part 91, subpart K) that use part
145 repair station employees outside the territory of the U.S. in the
testing requirements. These commenters also recommended expanding the
testing requirement to employees of non-certificated repair stations
outside the territory of the U.S., such as authorized persons who
perform maintenance functions on aircraft operated by part 121 air
carriers in accordance with 14 CFR 43.17.\19\ These supporters include
the Teamsters Aviation Mechanic Coalition, Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal
Association, and the Transportation Trades Department labor unions, who
stated an expansion in scope would help improve the safety of
maintenance functions that are outsourced to repair stations outside
the territory of the U.S. Some commenters asserted that U.S.-based
maintenance facilities are operating at an economic disadvantage as
maintenance facilities abroad are not required to subject employees to
drug and alcohol testing and, therefore, are essentially circumventing
the associated costs to maintain a testing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Section 43.17 sets forth requirements for maintenance and
preventative maintenance performed on U.S. aeronautical products by
persons who hold valid Transport Canada Civil Aviation Maintenance
Engineer licenses and Transport Canada Civil Aviation Approved
Maintenance Organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside of the five commenters that did not state an overt position
on the proposal, the remaining comments were from nine foreign repair
stations, four foreign governmental aviation organizations, four trade
associations, four foreign trade associations, three airline
manufacturers, three foreign airlines, one foreign aviation industry
coalition, and one foreign government representative. These twenty-nine
commenters generally opposed the ANPRM stating that the FAA threatens
to overreach its authority and the proposal fails to recognize national
sovereignty, existing Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs), the
impact of ICAO initiatives,\20\ and the economic impact to the aviation
industry. The FAA responds to the comments in the subsequent sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The FAA notes that as of the publication of the ANPRM,
there were (and continue to be) a number of ICAO standards and
recommended practices that address misuse of drugs and alcohol by
aviation personnel; however, ICAO did not, and does not, require
ICAO Member States to establish testing program to deter or detect
inappropriate drug and alcohol use by aviation personnel with
safety-sensitive responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Sovereignty
More than half of the opposing commenters cited failure to
recognize each nation's sovereignty, stating that the FAA cannot impose
regulations on persons outside the territory of the U.S. where those
regulations conflict with the laws of sovereign nations. The Coalition
of Industry Groups, which includes members from Aeronautical Repair
Station Association (ARSA), Airlines for America (A4A), Regional
Airline Association (RAA), International Air Transport Association
(IATA), and other associations, supported requiring drug and alcohol
testing programs outside the territory of the U.S. However, these
aviation associations also emphasized that many countries have laws
protecting the right to privacy in employment, as well as labor and
data security laws, that could conflict with the proposed rule. These
associations and commenters strongly suggested the FAA respect national
sovereignty and ensure the proposal is consistent with applicable laws
of the country in which the repair station is located. Commenters
asserted that the FAA must not move forward with a proposal that would
be applied without respect to national sovereignty.
FAA Response
In evaluating the international implications of requiring part 145
repair stations outside of the United States to implement drug and
alcohol testing programs that comply with U.S. domestic testing
standards throughout the global community, the FAA has become aware of
the difficulties associated with the establishment of such programs.
Specifically, any regulation that requires 14 CFR part 145 repair
stations located outside the territory of the U.S. to implement drug or
alcohol testing programs without respect to national sovereignty may be
contrary to international law and might exceed generally recognized
limits to extraterritorial jurisdiction. Further, section 308 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directs that the proposed rule
be ``consistent with the applicable laws of the country in which the
repair station is located.'' Given these considerations, should the
application of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120 wholly or in part be
inconsistent with a country's laws or
[[Page 85141]]
regulations, the 14 CFR part 145 repair station could apply for an
exemption from 49 CFR part 40 using the process described in 49 CFR
40.7. Additionally, the repair station could request a waiver from 14
CFR part 120 following the instructions proposed in new Sec. 120.9. As
further discussed in section IV.C. of this preamble, the FAA has
proposed language in 14 CFR 120.5 to clarify that the FAA will
recognize any 49 CFR part 40 exemptions issued to an employer as
meeting the procedures set forth in accordance with that part.
Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements
Most of the same commenters opposing unilateral application of drug
and alcohol testing regulations pointed to the BASAs the U.S. is party
to, (e.g., Switzerland, Canada, and the European Union). Commenters
detailed that these BASAs include separate detailed agreements on
mutual cooperation and technical assistance in the evaluation and
acceptance of each country's approved maintenance organization systems
(i.e., Maintenance Implementation Procedures agreements). The
International Air Transport Association (IATA) commented that BASAs
contribute to growth in aviation services by dramatically reducing
regulatory compliance costs, making government oversight more
efficient, and helping aerospace interests grow and compete globally.
IATA recommended that the FAA focus on working with governments that
impose equivalent, not duplicate, measures in its efforts to apply
requirements for drug and alcohol testing programs outside the
territory of the U.S.
Additional commenters asserted that BASAs contain provisions
requiring consultation before unilateral rulemaking, which has not yet
happened in relation to this proposal. The commenters expressed that
the FAA is obligated to ensure that current international agreements
are honored, which would include such consultation. Comments from the
UK Department for Transport, International Aviation Safety and
Environment Division specifically stated that it is important for the
FAA to consider consultations under Article 17 of the EU/U.S. BASA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In light of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU on January
31, 2020, the UK is no longer part of the EU/U.S. BASA.
Consultations between the U.S. and UK are now governed by Article IV
of the 1995 UK/U.S. BASA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Response
The FAA has been directed by Congress to promulgate regulations
requiring part 145 repair stations outside the U.S. to have a drug and
alcohol testing program for their employees who perform work on part
121 aircraft. To the extent that BASA provisions concerning notice and
consultation are applicable to the proposed regulations, the FAA
intends to follow those provisions. Commenters have not identified any
specific BASAs that are in conflict with the statutory requirements
this proposed rule would implement, nor is FAA aware of any at this
time. The FAA invites comments as to whether there are any BASAs that
would conflict with the requirements of this proposed rule. Additional
discussion regarding the FAA's international obligations may be found
in section IV.D. of this preamble.
Safety Case
Commenters also raised concerns regarding the lack of supporting
evidence indicating that a safety case exists to justify the proposed
rule. Commenters noted that there have been no documented aviation
accidents in the U.S., the European Union, or Hong Kong in which drug
use and/or alcohol misuse has been a direct cause or contributing
factor. The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA)--Swiss
Confederation stated that it has found no data that would support the
existence of a safety case, and Switzerland and other European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Member States have safety management provisions in
place for maintenance stations and a verifiable track record
demonstrating that drug use and/or alcohol misuse does not currently
represent a safety concern requiring further regulatory action.
Commenters noted that according to the ICAO Accident Data Reporting
system, between 1970 and 2012, there were no occurrence reports of drug
or alcohol intake at maintenance facilities. Additionally, commenters
pointed out that the FAA's own data demonstrates a low risk of drug use
and/or alcohol misuse by maintenance personnel in the U.S.
FAA Response
The FAA does not have sufficient data to estimate a baseline level
of safety risk associated with drug use and/or alcohol misuse at
foreign repair stations. As previously discussed, the FAA received a
minimum amount of information pertaining to foreign countries' laws and
regulations, program elements of acceptable drug and alcohol testing,
and existing drug and alcohol testing programs in other countries. The
FAA also recognizes that the number of proven accidents and incidents
involving drug use and/or alcohol misuse by maintenance personnel at
foreign repair stations is unknown. Because the FAA does not have
testing data or knowledge of existing testing programs in other
countries, the FAA is unable to estimate the impact of the proposed
rule in detecting and deterring drug use and/or alcohol misuse at this
time. Therefore, the FAA cannot determine whether the rule would have
any additional impact on safety or persons performing non-safety
sensitive functions and has, accordingly, scoped this proposal to
address the specific statutory mandates in 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) and 49
U.S.C. 44733. The FAA invites comments on this issue.
In addition, the FAA is considering how best to deter drug and
alcohol misuse for any aircraft mechanic working on a part 121 aircraft
regardless of how that mechanic is employed. Therefore, the FAA seeks
comments as to whether the testing requirements in this proposed rule
should be extended to foreign aircraft mechanics working directly for
part 121 carriers. Commenters are asked to submit data that would allow
the FAA to quantify the benefits and costs of expanding drug and
alcohol testing requirements to these mechanics.
Financial and Operational Concerns
While many of the commenters noted that it was difficult to
estimate the cost of implementing drug and alcohol testing programs
since any testing regime closely resembling U.S. requirements does not
exist in most areas abroad, they also noted that it was likely that
imposition of drug and alcohol testing requirements would have a
disproportionate financial impact on small-to-medium sized aerospace
companies. Some commenters, including A4A, Honeywell, and Taikoo
(Xiamen) Landing Gear Services Co. Ltd. (TALSCO), among others,
provided some level of estimated costs. Pratt & Whitney, for example,
provided estimated costs for implementing and maintaining a drug and
alcohol testing program, specifics of which may be found in the public
docket, and stated those extensive costs are without justification if
the FAA cannot quantify the added benefit to safety. The Coalition of
Industry Groups noted its concern regarding the FAA's responsibility to
ensure that the costs do not outweigh the benefits of any agency
action. Additionally, Hong Kong Aero Engine Services Limited (HAESL)
stated that extra costs will be incurred with no significant benefit.
[[Page 85142]]
FAA Response
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns. The FAA used a
combination of the estimates submitted by commenters and U.S. data to
estimate costs to all part 145 foreign repair stations developing a
drug and alcohol testing program that meets U.S. requirements. However,
not all estimates provided by commenters were used as some estimates
were considered high compared to current practice and estimates
obtained through industry outreach. The FAA also acknowledges that
small-to-medium sized aerospace companies would be impacted by this
rulemaking but does not have sufficient data to isolate the impact to
small and medium size foreign repair stations. Additionally, although
the FAA is unable to quantify benefits, this proposed rule would apply
the FAA's primary tool for detecting and deterring substance abuse by
safety-sensitive aviation employees throughout the international
aviation community to enhance safety.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
A significant number of commenters noted that the appropriate
vehicle to set standards to require drug and alcohol testing programs
worldwide would be an ICAO initiative. Commenters pointed out that the
Act mandates dealing with this issue under the auspices of an ICAO
initiative.\22\ Many of these commenters, including the European
Commission, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, the Embassy of the Netherlands
to the U.S., Deutsche Lufthansa, and the Cargo Airline Association,
among others, supported proceeding through the ICAO process.
Additionally, commenters stated it is inappropriate for the FAA to take
further action on this issue without first seeking common ground
through ICAO. IATA stated that an ICAO initiative would set a common
baseline for safety with adequate flexibility for varying customs and
laws, which governments could follow when issuing their own
regulations. Most commenters observed that the FAA's historical
position regarding global drug and alcohol testing has been to address
testing issues through ICAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The FAA surmises that the commenters were indicating Sec.
308(d)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which
states, ``The Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Transportation, acting jointly, shall request the governments of
foreign countries that are members of the International Civil
Aviation Organization to establish international standards for
alcohol and controlled substances testing of persons that perform
safety-sensitive maintenance functions on commercial air carrier
aircraft.'' In response to the Congressional mandate, the FAA notes
that prior to the publication of the ANPRM, the Department of State,
in conjunction with the FAA, sent a demarche request to countries
with active part 145 repair stations requesting support in ICAO
action. Of the 66 countries surveyed, 29 replied indicating support
to establish international standards for effective drug and alcohol
testing of all persons performing safety-sensitive functions on
commercial air carrier aircraft within their country through ICAO
initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Response
The FAA supports the development of international standards and
believes that they would help deter and detect drug and alcohol use
that could compromise aviation safety. However, ICAO standards do not
presently require ICAO Member States to establish (or direct industry
to establish) testing programs to deter or detect drug use and alcohol
misuse by aviation personnel in the performance of safety-sensitive
functions. ICAO's Annex 1 sets forth international standards and
recommended practices for license holders concerning their mental
fitness and use of psychoactive substances, including drugs and
alcohol. Annex 1 applies to flight crew members \23\ and other
personnel and recommends the identification and removal of license
holders from their safety-sensitive functions while under the influence
of any psychoactive substance. Specifically, annex 1 section 1.2.7, Use
of Psychoactive Substances, states that holders of licenses provided
for in this Annex shall not exercise the privileges of their licenses
and related ratings while under the influence of any psychoactive
substance which might render them unable to safely and properly
exercise these privileges and shall not engage in any problematic use
of substances.\24\ ICAO provides further guidance about drug and
alcohol testing in its Manual on Prevention of Problematic Use of
Substances in the Aviation Workplace; the manual outlines suitable
methods of identifying license holders who are under the influence,
including through biochemical testing under certain circumstances.
Although the ICAO standards set forth in Annex 1 and many countries'
aviation regulations prohibit the use of drugs and alcohol by certain
aviation personnel when use may threaten aviation safety, many
countries either do not require testing of aviation personnel to verify
compliance or do not extend testing to maintenance personnel. In
keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent practicable.
However, the FAA proposes this rule in accordance with the Act's
statutory mandate in an area within which there are no ICAO SARPs.
Should ICAO adopt drug and alcohol program standards in the future the
FAA will work to ensure its drug and alcohol programs are aligned with
such SARPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ICAO defines a ``flight crew member'' as a licensed crew
member charged with duties essential to the operation of an aircraft
during a flight duty period. ICAO Annex 1, 1.1. Section 1.2(a)
identifies flight crew as private pilots; commercial pilots; multi-
crew pilot; airline transport pilot; glider pilot; free balloon
pilot; flight navigator; and flight engineer. Section 1.2(b)
identifies other personnel as aircraft maintenance (technician/
engineer/mechanic), air traffic controllers, flight operations
officers/flight dispatchers, and aeronautical station operators.
\24\ Annex 1, 1.2.7.1, 1.2.7.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
After the FAA published the ANPRM, as previously discussed,
Congress enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
(2016 Act),\25\ which reemphasized Congress' prioritization of drug and
alcohol programs for foreign repair station employees in section 2112.
Specifically, section 2112 directed the FAA to (1) ensure that an NPRM
is published within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the 2016
Act and (2) ensure that the rulemaking is finalized within a year of
the NPRM publication.\26\ This NPRM is promulgated in accordance with
such direction. The FAA notes that, while section 2112 (using the
cross-referenced 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2)) specifies minimum content for
the NPRM, it does not specify minimum content for the final rule, which
may be changed from the NPRM in response to comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Public Law 114-190 (Jul. 15, 2016).
\26\ Section 2112(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Application of 14 CFR Part 120 and 49 CFR Parts 40 Through 145
Certificated Repair Stations Located Outside the Territory of the
United States (Sec. Sec. 120.1, 120.123 and 120.227)
Currently, the drug and alcohol testing regulations in 14 CFR part
120 require certain persons to establish a drug and alcohol program.
These persons include all air carriers and operators certificated under
14 CFR part 119 authorized to conduct operations under 14 CFR part 121
or part 135; all air traffic control facilities not operated by the FAA
or under contract to the U.S. military; all operators as defined in 14
CFR 91.147; all individuals who perform a safety sensitive function
provided in subpart E or F of 14 CFR
[[Page 85143]]
part 120; all 14 CFR part 145 certificate holders who perform safety-
sensitive functions and elect to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program; and all contractors who elect to implement a drug and alcohol
testing program.\27\ The FAA-mandated testing program consists of
compliance with both the FAA's drug and alcohol testing program
requirements, 14 CFR part 120 (as applicable), as well as the OST's
procedural regulation, 49 CFR part 40.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 14 CFR 120.1.
\28\ 14 CFR 120.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, 14 CFR part 120 restricts these activities from occurring
outside of the U.S. Specifically, certain regulations bar (1) any part
of the drug testing process from occurring outside the territory of the
U.S., including specimen collection, laboratory processing, and Medical
Review Officer (MRO) actions \29\ and (2) any testing for alcohol
misuse while located outside the territory of the U.S.\30\ These
regulations have restricted any drug and alcohol testing under 14 CFR
part 120 from applicability outside the territory of the U.S. As it
pertains to this rulemaking, these regulations are applicable only to
domestic part 145 certificate holders who perform safety-sensitive
functions within the territories of the U.S. and elect to implement a
drug and alcohol testing program under this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 14 CFR 120.123(a).
\30\ 14 CFR 120.227(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government has found that drug and alcohol testing
programs for domestic aviation personnel who perform safety-sensitive
functions on part 121 aircraft are necessary given the potential of
drugs and alcohol to impair human performance. Safety-sensitive
personnel are responsible for their own safety as well as the safety of
countless others due to the inherent nature of their positions;
therefore, the FAA has defined certain persons as those with safety-
sensitive functions, which includes individuals employed by a part 145
repair station to perform aircraft maintenance duties \31\ for a part
121 operator. In the absence of data to support another approach to
drug and alcohol testing, the FAA would apply its primary tool for
detecting and deterring substance abuse by aviation employees
performing safety-sensitive maintenance functions throughout the
international aviation community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 49 U.S.C. 44733 specifies ``aircraft maintenance,'' but
does not include ``preventive maintenance.'' Safety-sensitive
functions are defined in 14 CFR 120.7(n) as functions listed in 14
CFR 120.105 and 120.215. The FAA notes that the list of safety-
sensitive functions found in 14 CFR 120.105 and 120.215 includes
aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance as separate duties.
The FAA draws a clear distinction between maintenance and preventive
maintenance (see: 14 CFR 1.1, expressly excluding preventive
maintenance from the definition of maintenance and defining
preventive maintenance as mutually exclusive from maintenance).
Therefore, preventive maintenance is outside the scope of the
mandate and is not covered in these proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 49 U.S.C. 44733 requires the Administrator to propose a rule
requiring that all employees responsible for safety sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft at part 145
repair stations located outside the U.S.\32\ be subjected to an alcohol
and controlled substances testing program determined acceptable by the
Administrator. The FAA notes that the legislation specifically used the
term ``controlled substances.'' This term is also used in 49 U.S.C.
45102, which originally charged the FAA with prescribing regulations
for air carriers and foreign air carriers to conduct certain drug and
alcohol testing (i.e., eventual 14 CFR part 120). Title 49 U.S.C.
chapter 447 does not include a definition for ``controlled substance.''
However, the FAA finds that given (1) the deference to the FAA
Administrator to determine program acceptability in 49 U.S.C. 44733 and
(2) the FAA's firmly established drug and alcohol testing regulations
based off the original authority in 49 U.S.C. 45201, ``controlled
substances'' should be intended to mean the FAA current definition of
``drug'' as based off the definition of ``controlled substances''
provided by 49 U.S.C. 45201.\33\ Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 45101 states
that the definition of ``controlled substance'' means any substance
under section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 specified by the Administrator of the FAA.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Section 308 was promulgated in the U.S. Code as 49 U.S.C.
44733, Inspection of repair stations located outside the United
States. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 447, ``United States'' is defined as
the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories and possessions of the United States, including the
territorial sea and the overlying airspace. 14 CFR 1.1 similarly
defines United States, in a geographical sense, as the States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the possessions including the
territorial waters, and the airspace of those areas.
\33\ This definition was set forth by Public Law 103-272,
section 1(e) (Jul. 5, 1994).
\34\ The FAA, and the legislation itself, recognize that
countries may have different laws and regulations that set forth a
different set of acceptable or prohibited drugs. Section IV.C. of
this preamble discusses this issue in further detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 14 CFR 120.7, the FAA defines a ``prohibited drug'' as any of
the drugs specified in 49 CFR part 40. OST defines ``drugs'' as
marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and opioids in
49 CFR 40.3. These drugs are aligned with the HHS Mandatory Guidelines
established by the HHS for Federal drug-testing programs for scientific
testing issues, pursuant to OTETA, as previously discussed \35\ and
updated as HHS updates their drug categories. Specifically, the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines allow Federal agencies with drug-testing
responsibilities to test for certain controlled substances set forth by
the Controlled Substances Act (i.e., the drugs as defined in 49 CFR
40.3), which is title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970.\36\ Additionally, the FAA does not believe that
Congress intended to expand the scope of testing beyond that required
by current airmen and safety-sensitive positions. Should the FAA adopt
a differing definition of ``controlled substances,'' part 145 repair
stations outside the U.S. would be held to more stringent standards
than those required for domestically situated current airmen and
safety-sensitive positions. Neither the FAA, nor the OST, has a
mechanism to regulate such standards at this time. Therefore, the FAA
finds that the established term ``drug'' meets the intention of
Congress in using the term ``controlled substances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Public Law 102-143, title V, 105 Stat. 952 (Oct. 28, 1991).
Specifically, OTETA required the DOT and agencies to look to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines for the scientific and technical guidelines
regarding the drugs to be tested.
\36\ Because this proposal would apply 49 CFR part 40, any type
of testing allowed under part 40 would be permitted, including oral
fluid testing once at least two labs are approved to test those
specimens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA, as discussed in section III.A. of this preamble, has long
held that the standards set forth in 14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40
are acceptable drug and alcohol testing programs for the aforementioned
safety-sensitive functions. The FAA finds that requirements of part 145
repair stations located outside the territory of the U.S. should mirror
those inside the U.S. who elect to have a drug and alcohol program.
Specifically, the FAA lacks the data or studies that would support a
deviation from the current program requirements as applicable to those
persons who perform safety-sensitive functions (i.e., 14 CFR part 120
and 49 CFR part 40). Therefore, this proposal would require all
employees of part 145 repair stations located outside the territory of
the U.S. who perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121
air carrier aircraft \37\ to be subject to
[[Page 85144]]
the current FAA-mandated testing programs. Accordingly, for purposes of
49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), the Administrator finds that the current drug
and alcohol testing scheme is acceptable in applicability to the
affected part 145 repair stations outside the territory of the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ There are currently 977 part 145 repair stations located
throughout 65 foreign countries that maintain an FAA-issued
certificate. Many of these repair stations provide maintenance
functions to part 121 air carrier aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the FAA proposes three revisions to 14 CFR 120.1, which
outlines to whom part 120 applies. First, the FAA proposes to revise
current 14 CFR 120.1(c) to specify that paragraph (c) applies to those
part 145 certificate holders located in the territory of the U.S. who
elect to implement a drug and alcohol testing program under 14 CFR part
120. The FAA notes that there is no substantive change to the current
applicability of domestic part 145 certificate holders. Next, the FAA
proposes to expand applicability of 14 CFR part 120 to all part 145
certificate holders outside the territory of the U.S. who perform
safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft
by adding new paragraph (d).\38\ This, in turn, would redesignate
current 14 CFR 120.1(d) as paragraph (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The FAA notes that domestic repair stations may elect to
implement a drug and alcohol testing program; however, foreign
repair stations must implement a drug and alcohol testing program
covering employees who perform maintenance on part 121 aircraft. If
a domestic repair station does not elect to implement a drug and
alcohol testing program, then the part 121 air carrier must cover
the repair station's safety-sensitive employees under its FAA drug
and alcohol testing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FAA finds it necessary to provide specific
instructions to affected part 145 repair stations outside the territory
of the U.S., consistent with the requirements for other affected
persons (i.e., the persons listed in 14 CFR 120.1), on how to obtain
the necessary authority to implement a drug and alcohol testing
program. Specifically, 14 CFR 120.117 and 120.225 set forth certain
requirements specific to the person implementing a drug and alcohol
testing program and do not currently include part 145 repair stations
affected by this proposed rulemaking.
The FAA, therefore, proposes three revisions to the charts set
forth in 14 CFR 120.117(a) and (c), which would treat applicable part
145 repair stations outside the territory of the U.S. similar to those
domestic part 145 repair stations who choose to enact their own drug
testing programs. First, 14 CFR 120.117(a) provides the documentation
that a company must obtain from the FAA to implement a drug testing
program: an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations
Specification (A449), Letter of Authorization (A049), or Drug and
Alcohol Testing Program Registration. Second, a revision to paragraph
(a)(5) is necessary to specify the requirements in that paragraph,
which permit a repair station to elect to implement a testing program,
are applicable only to part 145 certificate holders located inside the
territory of the U.S. Finally, the FAA proposes to add new paragraph
(a)(6) within the chart in 14 CFR 120.117. This paragraph would require
a part 145 repair station located outside the territory of the U.S.
whose employees perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part
121 air carrier aircraft to obtain an A449 in their Operations
Specification by contacting the repair station's Principal Maintenance
Inspector. The A449 serves as the certification to comply with the drug
and alcohol testing regulations, 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120. In
turn, current 14 CFR 120.117(a)(6) would be redesignated as paragraph
(a)(7).
Similarly, 14 CFR 120.117(c) prescribes certain requirements
pertaining to the implementation of an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse
Prevention Program. The FAA proposes several revisions to 14 CFR
120.117(c). First, a revision to paragraph (c)(1) is necessary to
specify the requirements in that paragraph are applicable only to part
145 certificate holders located inside the territory of the U.S. Next,
the FAA proposes new paragraph (c)(2) to require the applicable repair
station located outside the territory of the U.S. to (1) obtain an A449
in their Operations Specification by contacting the repair station's
Principal Maintenance Inspector, (2) implement the drug testing program
no later than one year from the effective date of the regulation \39\
(or, if a foreign repair station begins operations more than one year
after the effective date of the regulation, implement a drug testing
program no later than the date the repair station begins operations),
and (3) meet the requirements of 14 CFR part 120, subpart E. In turn,
current 14 CFR 120.117(c)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (c)(3).
Finally, the FAA proposes minor grammatical changes to the headings of
the chart set forth by 14 CFR 120.117(c) and introductory text of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) to conform with the heading revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The FAA finds that a one-year implementation date from the
effective date of the legislation would give part 145 repair
stations outside the territory of the U.S. sufficient time to
identify laws that may contradict the regulations set forth in 14
CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 and provide the FAA and DOT
sufficient time to process waivers and exemptions, respectively,
addressing such barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart F of 14 CFR part 120 sets forth the alcohol testing program
requirements. The requirements pertaining to implementation largely
mirror those set forth in subpart E, Drug Testing Program Requirements.
The FAA, therefore, proposes similar amendments to the implementation
charts set forth in 14 CFR 120.225(a) and (c) for the same reasons as
previously discussed. Specifically, in 14 CFR 120.225(a), the FAA
proposes to: first, revise the introductory language of paragraph
(a)(5) to specify that paragraph is applicable to part 145 certificate
holders located inside the territory of the U.S.; second, add new
paragraph (a)(6) to include the requirements for a part 145 repair
station located outside the territory of the U.S. who performs safety-
sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft; and,
third, redesignate current paragraph (a)(6) as new (a)(7). Likewise, in
14 CFR 120.225(c), the FAA proposes to: first, revise paragraph (c)(1)
as necessary to specify the requirements in that paragraph are
applicable only to part 145 certificate holders located inside the
territory of the U.S.; second, add new paragraph (c)(2) to require the
applicable repair station located outside the territory of the U.S. to
(1) obtain an A449 in their Operations Specification by contacting the
repair station's Principal Maintenance Inspector, (2) implement the
drug testing program no later than one year from the effective date of
the regulation (or, if a foreign repair station begins operations more
than one year after the effective date of the regulation, implement a
drug testing program no later than the date the repair station begins
operations), and (3) meet the requirements of 14 CFR part 120, subpart
E; and, third, redesignate current paragraph (c)(2) as (c)(3). Finally,
the FAA proposes, first, minor grammatical changes to the headings of
the chart set forth by 14 CFR 120.225(c) and introductory text of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) to conform with the heading revisions and,
second, to add the correct introductory text in paragraph (d), which is
currently and inadvertently blank in the regulations.
B. Conforming Amendments To Facilitate Drug and Alcohol Procedures
Outside the United States (Sec. Sec. 120.123 and 120.227)
There are certain regulations in 14 CFR part 120 that effectively
restrict any drug and alcohol programs from implementation outside of
the U.S. Specifically, 14 CFR 120.123(a) bars any
[[Page 85145]]
part of the drug testing process from being conducted outside the
territory of the U.S. and requires that employees assigned safety-
sensitive functions solely outside the territory of the U.S. to be
removed from random testing pools, only to be returned once the covered
employee has resumed functions wholly or partially in the U.S.
Additionally, 14 CFR 120.123(b) states that the provisions of subpart E
(Drug Testing Program Requirements) do not apply to any individual who
performs a function pursuant to 14 CFR 120.105 by contract for an
employer outside the territory of the U.S. Likewise, 14 CFR 120.227(a)
bars covered employees from being tested for alcohol misuse while
located outside the territory of the U.S. and mirrors the requirement
of removal of a covered employee outside the territory of the U.S. from
the random testing pool as with drug testing programs previously
discussed. Additionally, 14 CFR 120.227(b) states that the provisions
of subpart E (Alcohol Testing Program Requirements) do not apply to any
individual who performs a safety sensitive function by contract for an
employer outside the territory of the U.S.
The FAA recognizes that these regulations serve as barriers to the
implementation of a drug and alcohol testing program for a part 145
repair station outside the territory of the U.S. Without conforming
amendments to except these repair stations from 14 CFR 120.123 and
120.227, it would be impossible to comply with the proposed regulations
and the current regulations. Therefore, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec. Sec. 120.123 and 120.227 to allow drug and alcohol testing
processes to be conducted on employees of part 145 repair stations
located outside the territory of the U.S. who perform safety-sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft. Specifically,
this proposal would add language at the beginning of 14 CFR 120.123(a),
120.123(a)(1), 120.123(b), 120.227(a), 120.227(a)(1), and 120.227(b)
that would except persons under proposed 14 CFR 120.1(d) from
applicability of those regulations restricting drug and alcohol testing
outside the territory of the U.S.
Currently, part 121 air carriers are responsible for ensuring that
individuals who perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions within
the territory of the U.S. are subject to testing. If a part 121 air
carrier does not include a maintenance worker under their own testing
program, it must ensure the worker is included in the FAA-mandated
testing program of whomever the air carrier uses to perform safety-
sensitive maintenance functions (e.g., a part 145 repair station). In
keeping with the congressional mandate, this proposal does not change
the language of the regulation that removes part 121 employees located
outside of the territory of the U.S. from the testing pool. Thus, part
121 air carriers that directly perform their own maintenance outside
the territory of the U.S. would not be required to test their employees
for drugs and alcohol. If the part 121 air carrier decides to hire
(either as an employee or an independent contractor) the foreign part
145 repair station employees who work on its aircraft, then those
employees would not be subject to testing because the part 121 air
carrier is restricted from including into its testing pool employees
who work solely outside the territory of the U.S.
This approach is consistent with the statutory mandate, which did
not address drug and alcohol testing of part 121 employees performing
safety-sensitive maintenance functions outside the territory of the
U.S. As previously discussed, the FAA lacks safety data and supporting
research to support a proposal of drug and alcohol testing beyond that
required by the legislation. However, the FAA is considering how best
to deter drug use and alcohol misuse for any aircraft mechanic working
on a part 121 aircraft regardless of how that mechanic is employed.
Therefore, the FAA seeks comments, with supporting data, as to whether
the testing requirements in this proposed rule should be extended to
foreign aircraft mechanics working directly for part 121 carriers.
C. Exemptions and Waivers to Drug and Alcohol Program Requirements
(Sec. Sec. 120.5 and 120.9)
The FAA recognizes that the different laws and regulations of some
countries (including, but not limited to, privacy laws) may place
limitations on drug and alcohol testing, prohibit it entirely, or place
conditions on how testing would be done. In fact, Congress contemplated
this potential barrier in 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), as evidenced by the
language requiring the drug and alcohol program to be both acceptable
to the Administrator and consistent with the applicable laws of the
country in which the repair station is located. As previously discussed
in the responses to comments to the ANPRM, the FAA seeks to avoid
situations whereby the regulations of the FAA are inconsistent with
laws in other sovereign countries. As this proposal extends the drug
and alcohol testing requirements beyond the territory of the U.S., the
FAA realizes that the different laws of some countries, including, but
not limited to, privacy laws, may place limitations on drug and alcohol
testing or prohibit it entirely. For example, some countries may bar
pre-employment drug testing, which is required by 14 CFR 120.109(a).
Section 120.5 requires each employer having a drug and alcohol
testing program under part 120 to ensure that all drug and alcohol
testing conducted under that part complies with the procedures set
forth in 49 CFR part 40. In evaluating the effects of the congressional
mandate, the FAA has scrutinized the many challenges associated with
the establishment and implementation of drug and alcohol testing
programs outside the U.S. that comply with both the FAA regulations and
the DOT's testing standards and procedures.\40\ In cases in which
compliance with certain provisions of 49 CFR part 40 would not be
attainable due to legal restrictions in the country where testing must
occur, the part 145 repair station could apply for an exemption from
part 40 using the process described in 49 CFR 40.7. Under Sec. 40.7,
an exemption will only be granted if the requestor documents special or
exceptional circumstances (e.g., a country's law) that make compliance
with a specific provision of 49 CFR part 40 impracticable. To
acknowledge the potential need for foreign repair stations to obtain
exemptions issued by the DOT from 49 CFR part 40, the FAA proposes to
add language to 14 CFR 120.5 to clarify that an employer's drug and
alcohol testing conducted pursuant to 14 CFR part 120 must comply with
the procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 40, to include any exemptions
issued to that employer in accordance with 49 CFR 40.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 49 CFR 40.3 sets forth the terms used in part 40 and
includes the definition for laboratory, which is any U.S. laboratory
certified by HHS under the National Laboratory Certification Program
as meeting the minimum standards of Subpart C of the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs; or, in the
case of foreign laboratories, a laboratory approved for
participation by DOT under part 40. Laboratories participating in
the DOT drug testing program must comply with the requirements of 49
CFR part 40 and with all applicable requirements of HHS in testing
DOT specimens. Currently, a laboratory located in the U.S. is
permitted to participate in DOT drug testing only if it is certified
by HHS under the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP),
or, in the case of a foreign laboratory, if it is approved for
participation by the DOT with respect to part 40. The FAA recognizes
that there are, first, no HHS certified laboratories in any of the
foreign countries impacted by this rulemaking and, second, that
there is a multitude of differently situated laboratories
internationally. Therefore, a foreign laboratory would be required
to seek approval in accordance with DOT procedures under 49 CFR part
40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, when a person cannot comply with an FAA regulation,
the person may seek an exemption through
[[Page 85146]]
the procedures set forth by 14 CFR part 11. However, to streamline and
efficiently address potential international legal conflicts, the FAA
proposes to add waiver authority in new 14 CFR 120.9 that will allow
repair stations located outside of the U.S. to request waivers from
specific provisions of 14 CFR part 120. Specifically, proposed 14 CFR
120.9(a) sets forth the waiver authority for those applicable repair
stations that would be unable to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
part 120 due to the laws of the country within which the repair station
is located. New paragraph (b) would set forth the information required
by the Administrator to evaluate and process the waiver request.
For example, the Administrator requires basic informational
details; the specific section(s) of 14 CFR part 120 from which a waiver
is sought; the reasons why granting the waiver would not contravene the
purpose of 14 CFR part 120, as defined in Sec. 120.5; a copy of the
law that is inconsistent with 14 CFR part 120; an explanation of how
the law applies to affected employees and how it is inconsistent with
14 CFR part 120; and a description of alternate means used to achieve
the objectives of the part 120 provision from which the waiver is
sought (or, if it is impossible to achieve the objective by alternative
means, a justification of why it would be so). Finally, new 14 CFR
120.9(c) would provide the manner in which the repair station should
submit their waiver request.
The FAA finds that the existing exemption process in 49 CFR part 40
in tandem with the proposed waiver process in new 14 CFR 120.9 would
provide sufficient pathways to work with part 145 certificated repair
stations outside the territory of the U.S. to ensure these repair
stations are not in violation of the laws of the country within which
they are situated. The FAA notes that each process is intended to
provide relief for its respective regulations. While the FAA requires
compliance with 49 CFR part 40 through its regulations, the FAA does
not have the authority to exempt a person from the regulations situated
there, and person should not request a waiver from the FAA for relief
from the DOT's regulations. If a person determines they cannot meet
certain 49 CFR part 40 requirements (e.g., if their country's laws do
not allow drug testing for one or more of the drugs required under 49
CFR 40.85), the person should follow the process set forth by 49 CFR
40.7; should the DOT grant the exemption, the FAA would recognize the
exemption through proposed 14 CFR 120.5. Likewise, the waiver process
set forth in new 14 CFR 120.9 provides an avenue by which a person may
seek relief from FAA regulations that a person determines they cannot
meet (e.g., if their country's laws do not allow pre-employment drug
testing, which is required under 14 CFR 120.109(a)). As such, a person
may have to appeal to both the DOT and FAA for an exemption and a
waiver, respectively, if there are regulations in each part that a
person seeks relief from.
D. Impact on International Agreements
As noted in the discussion of comments to the ANPRM, commenters
raised concerns regarding the impact of the legislation and enabling
regulations on existing Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASA).
However, commenters have not identified any specific BASAs that are in
conflict with the statutory requirements this proposed rule would
implement, nor is FAA aware of any at this time. The FAA invites
comments as to whether there are any BASAs that would conflict with the
requirements of this proposed rule.
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of Executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order
14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), direct that each Federal
agency may 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 as
amended) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the U.S. In developing
U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is
$177,000,000, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for
the Gross Domestic Product. This portion of the preamble summarizes the
FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. The FAA
has provided a more detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis of this
proposed rule in the docket of this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: is a ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it raises legal or policy
issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the
President's priorities or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094; could have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; could create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the U.S.; and would
not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments,
or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.
These analyses are summarized below.
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
In response to Congressional direction, the FAA proposes to require
certificated part 145 repair stations located outside the U.S. and its
territories whose employees perform safety-sensitive maintenance
functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft to ensure those employees
are subject to a controlled substance and alcohol testing program
consistent with the applicable laws of the country in which the repair
station is located. This proposed rule would require part 145 repair
station located outside the territory of the U.S. to cover its
employees performing maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier
aircraft under its own testing program that meets the requirements of
49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120. However, if a part 145 repair
station cannot meet one or all requirements in 49 CFR part 40 (e.g.,
the laws of the country where the repair station is located are
inconsistent with the regulations), they may apply for an exemption
using the process described in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a part 145
repair station cannot meet one or all requirements in 14 CFR part 120,
they may apply for a waiver in accordance with proposed waiver
authority. Although there are no quantifiable benefits, this rulemaking
would apply the FAA's existing primary tool for detecting and deterring
substance abuse by safety-sensitive aviation employees, especially
illegal drug use, throughout
[[Page 85147]]
the international aviation community to enhance aviation safety. The
total cost, at seven percent present value, of this proposed rule
equals the foreign repair station cost of $102.3 million, plus FAA cost
of $6.3 million for a total of $108.7 million ($122.4 million at three
percent present value) over five years.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
Part 145 Certificated Foreign Repair Station outside the
U.S. that performs safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121
aircraft.
The FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine.
I. Costs of This Rule
Part 145 certificated foreign repair stations outside the U.S. and
the FAA would incur the cost of this proposed rule. The estimated cost
of the proposed rule to part 145 certificated foreign repair stations
are the costs to implement a drug and alcohol testing program that
adheres to U.S. domestic testing standards. Cost to foreign repair
stations would consist of developing a drug and alcohol testing
program, training, testing safety sensitive maintenance employees for
drugs and alcohol, and documentations. Total cost to foreign repair
stations over five years, at seven percent present value, sums to
$102.3 million with and annualized cost of $24.9 million. At three
percent present value, estimated total cost to foreign repair stations
is $115.2 million with an annualized cost of $25.1 million.
Table 1--Cost to Part 145 Foreign Repair Stations Over 5 Years
[$Millions] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program and
training Testing (drug Total cost (7% Total cost (3%
Year development & Training and alcohol) Annual reports PV) PV)
maintenance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $0.5 $12.9 $0.0 $3.8 $16.1 $16.7
2....................................................... 0.4 2.2 9.0 14.1 22.5 24.3
3....................................................... 0.4 2.3 9.4 14.7 21.9 24.5
4....................................................... 0.4 2.4 9.7 15.3 21.2 24.7
5....................................................... 0.4 2.5 10.1 15.9 20.6 24.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2.2 22.2 38.3 63.9 102.3 115.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These numbers are subject to rounding error.
Cost to the FAA would include inspections and the necessary
documentation associated with monitoring these repair stations. Total
cost to FAA over five years, at seven percent present value, sums to
$6.3 million with an annualized cost of $1.5 million. At three percent
present value, total cost is $7.2 million with an annualized cost of
$1.6 million.
The FAA also invites commenters to submit data that would allow it
to quantify the costs of extending this proposed rule to foreign
aircraft mechanics employed directly by part 121 certificate holders.
II. Benefits of This Rule
Congress mandated that the FAA propose a rule that establishes drug
and alcohol testing programs for foreign repair stations. Any benefits
of the regulations would result from potential reductions in safety
risks, any improvements in safety in detecting and deterring drug use
and/or alcohol misuse, and worker productivity. The FAA concludes that
two specific sets of benefits may accrue from this rulemaking:
The prevention of potential injuries and fatalities and
property losses resulting from accidents attributed to drug use/alcohol
misuse or neglect or error on the part of individuals whose judgement
or motor skills may be impaired by the presence of alcohol or drugs;
and
The potential reduction in absenteeism, lost worker
productivity, and other cost to employers, as well as improved general
safety in the workplace, by the deterrence of drug use and/or alcohol
misuse.
However, the FAA lacks sufficient data to estimate a baseline level
of safety risk associated with a drug and alcohol testing program at
part 145 certificated foreign repair stations that perform safety
sensitive maintenance on part 121 aircraft. Additionally, it is
difficult to estimate (and the FAA does not have data on) the impact of
the proposed rule in detecting and deterring drug use and/or alcohol
misuse. To estimate safety and productivity benefits that would result
from this proposed rule, the FAA would need estimates of the following:
Baseline risks attributable to drug use and/or alcohol
misuse;
Effectiveness of the rule; and
Value of the reduction in risk of affected outcomes.
The FAA invites comments on this issue. The FAA also invites
commenters to submit data that would allow it to quantify the safety
and productivity benefits of extending this proposed rule to foreign
aircraft mechanics employed directly by part 121 certificate holders.
Baseline Risks Attributable to Drug Use and/or Alcohol Misuse
The FAA does not have data to estimate a baseline level of safety
risk associated with safety-sensitive maintenance personnel drug use
and/or alcohol misuse. The FAA acknowledges there have been no
accidents or incidents related to safety-sensitive maintenance
personnel using drugs or alcohol. The FAA may use accidents or
incidents related to part 121 aircraft that list maintenance as either
a cause or factor in the accident report as a proxy to assess the
decreased risk of injuries, fatalities, and property losses. However,
it is difficult to attribute an accident or incident that occurs months
after the maintenance was completed to poor maintenance work related to
drug use and/or alcohol misuse.
Effectiveness of the Rule
The FAA would also need data on the effect of the rule on
maintenance workers' drug use and/or alcohol misuse and the resulting
effect on job performance. For example, drug and alcohol programs may
serve as a deterrent, resulting in less drug use and/or alcohol misuse
by employees and higher productivity. However, it would be difficult to
analyze the direct causal effect of less drug use and/or alcohol misuse
to improved productivity. The FAA would need to retrieve extensive
data, such as employees' health levels,
[[Page 85148]]
employees' sleep patterns, changes to operating procedures, levels of
education and training, and staffing levels, amongst other factors, to
isolate the direct effect of a decrease in drug or alcohol usage on
productivity levels. Additionally, even if this data were available,
the analysis would be extensive and there would be academic questions
regarding whether the causal effect was properly measured.
Additionally, as mentioned above, there are no accidents or
incidents directly related to drug use and/or alcohol misuse to
estimate the effect of the rule on injuries, fatalities, or property
loss. Therefore, there is a lack of information to establish a
baseline.
Value of Risk Reduction
The safety risks from drug use and/or alcohol misuse are increased
risk of injuries and fatalities in the event of an accident or
incident. The FAA values the reductions in such risks using the value
of statistical life (VSL) for fatalities and fractions of the VSL based
on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) for injuries. The
Department of Transportation guidance on valuing reductions in
fatalities and injuries \41\ could be used to monetize and quantify
estimates of the potential safety benefits associated with this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ DOT Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical
Life. Economic Analyses. Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1--the Status Quo--The status quo represents a
situation in which the FAA would not propose to require part 145
foreign repair stations to test their safety-sensitive maintenance
personnel for drugs and alcohol. This alternative is counter to
Congressional direction and, therefore, rejected.
Alternative 2--The FAA would work through the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) to create an international standard for
drug and alcohol testing of maintenance personnel at repair stations.
While the FAA is willing to work with ICAO, that alternative may not
meet Congressional direction due to the multitude of Member State
equities considered in the implementation of an ICAO standard. In other
words, Congress directed the FAA to establish a program acceptable to
the Administrator; working through ICAO to create an international
standard may not expeditiously meet this intention given the time,
resources, and scope of the adoption of an international standard.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, (5
U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies
to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and
other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The FAA is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to
small entities from this proposal. The FAA invites interested parties
to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact
that would result from the proposal. The FAA will consider comments
when making a determination or when completing a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
Under section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, an IRFA must contain the
following:
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is
being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
1.1 Reasons the Action Is Being Considered
The proposed rule is in response to Congressional mandate that the
FAA propose a rule to establish drug and alcohol testing program
requirements for part 145 repair stations outside the territory of the
United States that provide safety-sensitive maintenance functions for
part 121 air carriers acceptable to the FAA Administrator.
1.2 Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require certificated part 145 repair
stations located outside the territory of the United States (U.S.) to
ensure that employees who perform aircraft maintenance on part 121 air
carrier aircraft are subject to a drug and alcohol testing program. A
part 145 repair station located outside the territory of the U.S. would
cover its employees performing maintenance functions on part 121 air
carrier aircraft under its own testing program meeting the requirements
of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120. If a part 145 repair station
cannot meet one or all requirements in 49 CFR part 40 (e.g., the laws
of the country where the repair station is located are inconsistent
with the regulations), the part 145 repair station may apply for an
exemption using the process described in 49 CFR 40.7. Similarly, if a
part 145 repair station cannot meet one or all requirements in 14 CFR
part 120, they may apply for a waiver in accordance with proposed
waiver authority.
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is in title
49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.), specifically 49 U.S.C. 106
and 49 U.S.C. 45102. This proposed rule is further promulgated under
section 308 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act)
(49 U.S.C. 44733) and section 2112 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016, which directed publication of a notice of
proposed rulemaking in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44733.
1.3 All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
1.4 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
This proposed rule would impact part 145 repair stations located
outside the territory of the U.S. that perform safety sensitive
maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft. The act defines
a small business as ``a business entity
[[Page 85149]]
organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United
States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which
makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of
taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.'' \42\ While the
regulatory flexibility determination does not require small foreign
entities to be considered, foreign repair stations may be using U.S.
components or labor, especially if they are working on U.S.
manufactured aircraft; therefore, the FAA assumes the RFA would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 13 CFR 121.105(a)(1). The Regulatory Flexibility Act
defines a ``small business'' as having the same meaning as ``small
business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5
U.S.C. 601(3). Section 121.105 of 13 CFR contains the Small Business
Administration's implementing regulations clarifying the definition
of ``small business concern.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SBA (2022) established size standards for various types of
economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\43\ These size standards generally
define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual
receipts. Table 2 shows the SBA size standard, based on the NAICS code,
applicable to repair stations, as it encompasses air transport support
activities to include aircraft maintenance and repair services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. Table of Size
Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
Table 2--Small Business Size Standards: Aircraft Maintenance and Repair
Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code Description Size standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
488190........................ Other Support $40.0 million.
Activities for
Air
Transportation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SBA (2022).
NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System.
SBA = Small Business Administration.
Although the FAA was able to identify a size standard for repair
stations to be considered small, the FAA lacks financial data to
determine if foreign repair stations meet the applicable size standard.
Instead, the FAA provides an analysis estimating the total cost to
small entities based on available data for domestic repair stations. A
2011 antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention rule for domestic repair
stations analyzed the effect on domestic repair stations that were
small entities and subcontractors those entities used. That rule based
the regulatory flexibility determination analysis on a Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) study that used Dun & Bradstreet data to
estimate the share of domestic repair stations that would be considered
small entities.\44\ The findings show that 93.28% of domestic repair
stations would be classified as small entities. Extrapolating this
estimate to the 977 foreign repair stations used in the analysis of
this rulemaking results in 912 foreign repair stations that could be
considered small entities.\45\ The FAA seeks comment and requests data
on how this rulemaking will affect part 145 foreign repair stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Final Rule, Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility
Determination, Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for
Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities: Supplemental
Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 76 FR 12559 (Mar. 8, 2011).
\45\ The calculation is as follows: 977*.9328 = 911.31. This
estimate is rounded up to get 912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5 Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
Based on the total nominal cost of the rule to repair stations,
$126.5 million, the cost per repair station is $129,473.\46\
Multiplying the cost per repair station by the estimated 912 repair
stations that are small entities results in a total cost to small
entities of $118.1 million over five years. Table 3 shows the estimated
annualized compliance costs by category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ $126,495,150/977 = $129,473.03.
Table 3--Average Cost of Compliance and Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of annualized
Category small entities cost per
repair station
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program and Training Development & 912 $444.69
Maintenance Cost.......................
Training................................ 912 3,689.98
Testing Cost............................ 912 6,366.88
Paperwork............................... 912 10,624.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on a baseline of existing practices and using a 7% discount
rate.
1.6 Significant Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1--the Status Quo--The status quo represents a
situation in which the FAA would not propose to require part 145
foreign repair stations to test their safety-sensitive maintenance
personnel for drugs and alcohol. This alternative is counter to
Congressional direction and, therefore, rejected.
Alternative 2--The FAA would work through the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) to create an international standard for
drug and alcohol testing of maintenance personnel at repair stations.
While the FAA is willing to work with ICAO, 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2)
requires the FAA to expeditiously proceed with this rulemaking. In
other words, Congress directed the FAA to establish a program
acceptable to the Administrator; working through ICAO to create an
international standard may not expeditiously meet this intention given
[[Page 85150]]
the time, resources, and scope of the adoption of an international
standard.
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 U.S.
Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the U.S.,
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. This rulemaking is
congressionally mandated. The FAA assessed the potential effect of this
proposed rule and determined that it ensures the safety of the American
public while noting some countries and foreign trade associations, in
their comments, voiced their opposition to an FAA drug and alcohol
testing standard for foreign repair stations. In comments to the ANPRM,
as discussed in section III.B.2. of this preamble, these countries
cited failure of the legislation to recognize each nation's sovereignty
and cited that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
would be the appropriate vehicle to set worldwide standards. As a
result, this rulemaking could create an obstacle or retaliation to
foreign commerce. The FAA invites comments on this issue.
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 $177.0 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. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following amendments to the existing
information collection requirements previously approved under OMB
Control Number 2120-0535. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary: Under Sec. Sec. 120.1, 120.123 and 120.227, the proposed
rule would extend the drug and alcohol testing regulations beyond the
territory of the U.S. The proposal would require all employees of part
145 repair stations located outside of the U.S. who perform maintenance
on part 121 air carrier aircraft to be subject to a drug and alcohol
testing program. Of the approximately 977 part 145 repair stations
located throughout 66 foreign countries, it is likely that all of these
repair stations would continue to perform maintenance on part 121 air
carrier aircraft. If the repair stations continue to perform
maintenance for part 121 air carrier aircraft, each repair station
would be required to obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention
Program Operations Specification. In addition, each repair station
located outside the territory of the U.S. would be required to provide
drug and alcohol testing program management information system (MIS)
data.
Use: The information would be used by the part 145 repair station
located outside of the territory of the U.S. to certify implementation
and maintenance of a drug and alcohol testing program. The FAA's Drug
Abatement Compliance and Enforcement Inspectors would use this
information to identify those foreign repair stations with an active
program for inspection scheduling. Inspections are used to verify
compliance with the drug and alcohol testing regulations and
requirements. In addition, the Drug Abatement Division would use the
annual MIS data reported to calculate the annual random drug and
alcohol testing rates in the aviation industry.
Respondents (including number of): There are currently 977 part 145
certificated repair stations located outside the territory of the U.S.
Frequency: Part 145 repair stations located outside the territory
of the U.S. would provide information for program certification only
once; however, these repair stations would also incur annual program
maintenance: e.g., updates to the programs per new guidance; the random
pool list; and the overall testing process. The aggregate annual
testing data would be provided electronically through the Department of
Transportation's Drug and Alcohol Management Information System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Based on the previous PRA, the FAA assumes 16 hours in the
first year to establish the testing program and one hour to register
with the FAA's Drug Abatement Division. Therefore, 17 hours are
required for the first year. For each year after, the recurring time
to update and maintain the testing list will be 16 hours. The
average over five years results in the 16.2 hours per year.
\48\ Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other (SOC
43-9119) NAICS 481000--Air Transportation, May 2020; Mean Hourly
wage https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes439199.htm: Includes Fringe
Benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Burden Estimate
1. Burden for Program Certification and Annual Program Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per
Documentation repair stations repair station Hourly wage Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention 977 \47\ 16.2 \48\ $26.90 $425,757
Program Operations Specification...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85151]]
2. Burden for Annual Test Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Total Time per Average yearly
Documentation records record (hours) Hourly wage Total cost cost \50\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training records................ 656,720 0.25 \51\ $34.47 $5,659,285 $1,131,857
Records related to the alcohol 335,354 5.0 34.47 57,798,262 11,559,652
and drug collection process,
test results, refusal to test,
employee dispute records, SAP
reports, follow-up tests.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 992,074 N/A N/A 63,457,547 12,691,509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the number of drug and alcohol training records, the
FAA took the 2021 data showing 147,194 mechanics and 29,439 supervisors
and accounted for a four percent growth rate over five years.
Accounting for these rates results in an initial first year total of
159,205 mechanics and 31,842 supervisors. This is a total of 191,047
employees. In the first year all mechanics and supervisors will take
anti-drug and alcohol training. These are two separate trainings. This
results in 191,047 records for anti-drug training and 191,047 for
alcohol training. In addition, supervisors will have to take an
additional supervisor reasonable cause/reasonable suspicion
determinations training for drugs and alcohol. This adds another 63,684
records since they are two separate trainings as well.\52\ Therefore,
in the first year, there will be a total of 445,778 records.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Estimated number of records from 2018 to 2022.
\50\ Average yearly cost is calculated by dividing total cost by
five years.
\51\ Information and Records Clerks (SOC 43-4000) NAICS 481000--
Air Transportation, May 2020: Mean Hourly Wage https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics3_481000.htm#43-0000: Includes Fringe Benefits.
\52\ 31,842*2 = 63,684.
\53\ 191,047 + 191,047 + 63,684 = 445,778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For year two and beyond, for drug records, the total records
reflect the increase in new mechanics and supervisors which will be
required to take the drug training. Using the growth rate this results
in 6,368 mechanics and 1,274 supervisors for a total of 7,642 records.
The 1,274 new supervisors will also have to take the reasonable cause/
reasonable suspicion determinations for drugs training. In addition,
there is recurrent reasonable cause/reasonable suspicion determinations
for drugs training that all supervisors will have to take every 12 to
18 months. In year two, this results in 31,842 supervisors taking the
recurring trainings. Thus, the records for drug training in year two is
40,758.\54\ In addition, new mechanics and supervisors will be required
to take alcohol training and supervisors will have to take the
reasonable cause/reasonable suspicion determinations for alcohol
training. This adds another 8,916 records. There is no recurrent
alcohol training for supervisors. Therefore, in year two the total
records are 49,674.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 7,642 + 1,274 + 31,842 = 40,758.
\55\ 40,758 + 8,916 = 49,674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same calculation for year two is repeated for years three
through five. There are 51,662 records in year three, 53,729 in year
four, and 55,877 in year five. This results in a total of 656,720 total
training records over the five years.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 445,778 + 49,674 + 51,662 + 53,729 + 55,877 = 656,720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the number of records related to alcohol and drug
collection, the FAA sums the number of pre-employment drug tests,
random drug and alcohol tests, and post-accident, reasonable cause,
return to duty, and follow-up drug and alcohol tests per year beginning
in year two. First, for drug testing, every new employee performing
maintenance will be required to take a pre-employment drug test but not
an alcohol test. Second, the FAA estimates 25 percent of current
employees performing maintenance will be randomly drug tested per year.
Third, there will be post-accident, reasonable cause, return to duty,
or follow-up testing. The FAA estimates 1.70 percent of employees
tested in a given year will be tested again under this category. The
total drug tests over the five years is 247,521.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ This is broken down by category as 32,452 pre-employment
drug tests, 210,932 random drug tests, 4,137 post-accident,
reasonable cause, return to duty, and follow-up tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For alcohol testing, no pre-employment alcohol testing is required.
The other two categories of alcohol testing will be the same as for
drug testing. However, the FAA estimates random drug testing will occur
at a rate of 10 percent of current employees and 4.10 percent for post-
accident, reasonable cause, return to duty, and follow-up tests. The
total alcohol tests over the five years is 87,833.\58\ Taking the sum
of drug and alcohol tests results in 335,354 records related to alcohol
and drug collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ This is broken down by category as 84,373 random drug tests
and 3,460 post-accident, reasonable cause, return to duty, and
follow-up tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by February 5, 2024. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20053.
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
[[Page 85152]]
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 this rulemaking
action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph
5-6.6f for regulations and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. 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.
B. 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. 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 on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
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 action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action could create
differences in international regulatory requirements. The FAA
acknowledges that the FAA may need to revisit certain international
agreements, as discussed in section IV.D and invites comments on this
issue.
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA 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 submit only one time if comments
are filed electronically or commenters should send only one copy of
written comments if comments are filed in writing.
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 FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
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.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
C. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this proposed rule will
be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's
Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
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) 267-9677.
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 in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 120
Alcoholism, Air carriers, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Aviation
safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Operators, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Safety-sensitive, Transportation.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 120--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 120 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101-40103, 40113, 40120,
41706, 41721, 44106, 44701, 44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711,
44733, 45101-45105, 46105, 46306.
0
2. Amend Sec. 120.1 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
[[Page 85153]]
Sec. 120.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) All part 145 certificate holders located in the territory of
the United States who perform safety-sensitive functions and elect to
implement a drug and alcohol testing program under this part.
(d) All part 145 certificate holders outside the territory of the
United States who perform safety-sensitive maintenance functions on
part 121 air carrier aircraft.
0
3. Revise Sec. 120.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 120.5 Procedures.
Each employer having a drug and alcohol testing program under this
part must ensure that all drug and alcohol testing conducted pursuant
to this part complies with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 40
and any exemptions issued to that employer by the Department of
Transportation in accordance with 49 CFR 40.7.
0
4. Add Sec. 120.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 120.9 Waivers for Part 145 Repair Stations Outside the Territory
of the United States.
(a) A part 145 repair station whose employees perform safety-
sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft
outside the territory of the United States may request a waiver from
the Administrator from any requirements under 14 CFR part 120, subpart
E or F, if specific requirements of the subpart are inconsistent with
the laws of the country where the repair station is located.
(b) Each waiver request must include, at a minimum, the following
elements:
(1) Information about your organization, including your name and
mailing address and, if you wish, other contact information such as a
fax number, telephone number, or email address;
(2) The specific section or sections of this part from which you
seek a waiver;
(3) The reasons why granting the waiver would not adversely affect
the prevention of accidents and injuries resulting from the use of
prohibited drugs or the misuse of alcohol by employees;
(4) A copy of the law that is inconsistent with the provision(s) of
this part from which a waiver is sought;
(5) An explanation of how the law is inconsistent with the
provision(s) of this part from which a waiver is sought, and;
(6) A description of the alternative means that will be used to
achieve the objectives of the provision that is the subject of the
waiver or, if applicable, a justification of why it would be impossible
to achieve the objectives of the provision in any way.
(c) Each petition for a waiver must be submitted to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement
Division (AAM-800), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
0
5. Amend Sec. 120.117 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c);
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 120.117 Implementing a drug testing program.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(5) A part 145 certificate holder Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
located inside the territory of the Misuse Prevention Program
United States who has your own drug Operations Specification by
testing program. contacting your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or
register with the FAA, Office
of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
Abatement Division (AAM-800),
800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591, if you
opt to conduct your own drug
testing program.
(6) A part 145 repair station located Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
outside the territory of the United Misuse Prevention Program
States whose employees perform safety- Operations Specification by
sensitive maintenance functions on contacting your Principal
part 121 air carrier aircraft. Maintenance Inspector.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) If you are an individual or company that intends to provide
safety-sensitive services by contract to a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate under part 121 and/or part 135 of this
chapter, an operation as defined in Sec. 91.147 of this chapter, or an
air traffic control facility not operated by the FAA or by or under
contract to the U.S. military, use the following chart to determine
what you must do if you opt to have your own drug testing program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A part 145 certificate holder (i) Have an Antidrug and
located inside the territory of the Alcohol Misuse Prevention
United States and opt to conduct your Program Operations
own program under this part. Specification or register with
the FAA, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Drug Abatement
Division (AAM-800), 800
Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug
testing program no later than
the date you start performing
safety-sensitive functions for
a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate
under parts 121 or 135, or
operator as defined in Sec.
91.147 of this chapter, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart as if you were an
employer.
[[Page 85154]]
(2) A part 145 repair station located (i) Obtain an Antidrug and
outside the territory of the United Alcohol Misuse Prevention
States whose employees perform Program Operations
maintenance functions on part 121 air Specification by contacting
carrier aircraft. your Principal Maintenance
Inspector.
(ii) Implement a drug testing
program acceptable to the
Administrator no later than
one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF REGULATION], or if company
operations begin more than one
year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
REGULATION], implement a drug
testing program acceptable to
the Administrator no later
than the date you start
operations, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart in a manner
acceptable to the
Administrator.
(3) A contractor who opts to implement (i) Register with the FAA,
a testing program under this part. Office of Aerospace Medicine,
Drug Abatement Division (AAM-
800), 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug
testing program no later than
the date you start performing
safety-sensitive functions for
a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate
under parts 121 or 135, or
operator as defined in Sec.
91.147 of this chapter, or an
air traffic control facility
not operated by the FAA or by
or under contract to the U.S.
Military, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart as if you were an
employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 120.123 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 120.123 Drug testing outside the territory of the United States.
(a) Except for those testing processes applicable to persons
testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d), no part of the testing process
(including specimen collection, laboratory processing, and MRO actions)
shall be conducted outside the territory of the United States.
(1) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d),
each employee who is assigned to perform safety-sensitive functions
solely outside the territory of the United States shall be removed from
the random testing pool upon the inception of such assignment.
* * * * *
(b) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d),
the provisions of this subpart shall not apply to any individual who
performs a function listed in Sec. 120.105 by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United States.
0
7. Amend Sec. 120.225 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(1).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 120.225 How to implement an alcohol testing program.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(5) A part 145 certificate holder Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
located inside the territory of the Misuse Prevention Program
United States who has your own alcohol Operations Specification by
testing program. contacting your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or
register with the FAA Office
of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
Abatement Division (AAM-800),
800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, if you
opt to conduct your own
alcohol testing program.
(6) A part 145 repair station located Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
outside the territory of the United Misuse Prevention Program
States who performs safety-sensitive Operations Specification by
maintenance functions on part 121 air contacting your Principal
carrier aircraft. Maintenance Inspector.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) If you are an individual or company that intends to provide
safety-sensitive services by contract to a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate under part 121 and/or part 135 of this
chapter, or an operator as defined in Sec. 91.147 of this chapter, use
the following chart to determine what you must do if you opt to have
your own drug testing program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A part 145 certificate holder (i) Have an Antidrug and
located inside the territory of the Alcohol Misuse Prevention
United States and opt to conduct your Program Operations
own program under this part. Specifications or register
with the FAA, Office of
Aerospace Medicine, Drug
Abatement Division (AAM-800),
800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591,
[[Page 85155]]
(ii) Implement an FAA alcohol
testing program no later than
the date you start performing
safety-sensitive functions for
a part 119 certificate holder
with the authority to operate
under parts 121 and/or 135, or
operator as defined in Sec.
91.147 of this chapter, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart as if you were an
employer.
(2) Are a part 145 repair station (i) Obtain an Antidrug and
located outside of the territory of Alcohol Misuse Prevention
the United States who performs Program Operations
maintenance functions on part 121 air Specification by contacting
carrier aircraft. your Principal Maintenance
Inspector.
(ii) Implement an alcohol
testing program acceptable the
Administrator no later than
one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF REGULATION], or if company
operations begin more than one
year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
REGULATION], implement an
alcohol testing program
acceptable to the
Administrator no later than
the date you start operations,
and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart in a manner
acceptable to the
Administrator.
(3) A contractor....................... (i) Register with the FAA,
Office of Aerospace Medicine,
Drug Abatement Division (AAM-
800), 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591,
(ii) Implement an FAA drug
testing program no later than
the date you start performing
safety-sensitive functions for
a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate
under parts 121 or 135, or
operator as defined in Sec.
91.147 of this chapter, or an
air traffic control facility
not operated by the FAA or by
or under contract to the U.S.
Military, and
(iii) Meet the requirements of
this subpart as if you were an
employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) To obtain an antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program
operations specification:
(1) You must contact your FAA Principal Operations Inspector or
Principal Maintenance Inspector. Provide him/her with the following
information:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 120.227 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 120.227 Employees located outside the U.S.
(a) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d), no
covered employee shall be tested for alcohol misuse while located
outside the territory of the United States.
(1) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d),
each covered employee who is assigned to perform safety-sensitive
functions solely outside the territory of the United States shall be
removed from the random testing pool upon the inception of such
assignment.
* * * * *
(b) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec. 120.1(d),
the provisions of this subpart shall not apply to any person who
performs a safety-sensitive function by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United States.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Susan E. Northrup,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2023-26394 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P