ДЕЙСТВИЕ
Уведомление о предложенном правиле (NPRM).
ДАТЫ
Отправляйте комментарии до 5 февраля 2024 года.
АДРЕСА
• Почта: Отправьте комментарии в Докладную службу, M–30; Министерство транспорта США, 1200 Новый Джерси авеню ЮВ, Комната W12–140, Западное здание Первый этаж, Вашингтон, округ Колумбия, 20590–0001.
• Личная доставка или курьер: Возьмите комментарии в Докладную службу в Комнате W12–140 Западного здания Первый этаж по адресу 1200 Новый Джерси авеню ЮВ, Вашингтон, округ Колумбия, с 9 утра до 5 вечера, с понедельника по пятницу, за исключением федеральных праздников.
• Факс: Отправьте комментарии в Докладную службу по факсу на номер 202–493–2251.
ПОЛЕЗНАЯ ИНФОРМАЦИЯ
Для получения дополнительной информации свяжитесь с:
СПИСОК АББРЕВИАТУР И СОКРАЩЕНИЙ, ЧАСТО ИСПОЛЬЗУЕМЫХ В ЭТОМ ДОКУМЕНТЕ
BASA—Двустороннее соглашение об авиационной безопасности
ICAO—Международная организация гражданской авиации
Содержание
I. Обзор предложенного правила
II. Полномочия для принятия данного правоприменительного акта
B. Законодательные и правоприменительные действия
Закон о модернизации и реформе ФАА 2012 года
Предварительное уведомление о предложенном правиле и отзывы на комментарии
Закон ФАА о продлении, безопасности и защите 2016 года
IV. Обсуждение предложения
A. Применение 14 КФР Часть 120 и 49 КФР Части 40 по 145 Сертифицированные станции ремонта, находящиеся за пределами территории Соединенных Штатов (§§ 120.1, 120.123, and 120.227)
B. Поправки для облегчения процедур по наркотикам и алкоголю за пределами Стартовой страницы 85138 Соединенных Штатов (§§ 120.123 and 120.227)
C. Освобождения и отступления от требований программы по наркотикам и алкоголю (§§ 120.5 and 120.9)
D. Влияние на международные соглашения
V. Регулирующие уведомления и анализы
A. Регулирующая оценка
B. Определение гибкости регулирования
C. Оценка воздействия на международную торговлю
D. Оценка ненасильственных мер
E. Закон о сокращении бумажной работы
F. Международная совместимость
G. Оценка воздействия на окружающую среду
VI. Распоряжения Президента
A. Распоряжение Президента 13132, Федерализм
B. Распоряжение Президента 13211, Регулирование, которое значительно влияет на энергоснабжение, распределение или использование
C. Распоряжение Президента 13609, Поощрение международного сотрудничества в области регулирования
VII. Дополнительная информация
A. Приглашаем к комментариям
B. Конфиденциальная коммерческая информация
C. Электронный доступ и подача заявлений
ФОН
III. Предыстория
Законодательство и действия по установлению правил
Большинство тех же комментаторов, выступающих против одностороннего применения правил тестирования на наркотики и алкоголь, указали на SAPA, к которым США являются стороной (например, Швейцария, Канада и Европейский союз). Комментаторы подробно описали, что эти SAPA включают отдельные детальные соглашения о взаимном сотрудничестве и технической помощи при оценке и приеме систем одобренных организаций по техническому обслуживанию каждой страны (т.е. соглашения о процедурах реализации технического обслуживания). Международная ассоциация воздушного транспорта (ИАТА) отметила, что SAPA способствуют росту авиационных услуг, значительно снижая затраты на соблюдение нормативов, делая государственный контроль более эффективным и помогая компаниям в области аэрокосмической деятельности расти и конкурировать на глобальном рынке. ИАТА рекомендовала ФАА сфокусироваться на сотрудничестве с правительствами, которые предпринимают эквивалентные, а не дублирующие меры в своих усилиях по применению требований для программ тестирования на наркотики и алкоголь за пределами территории США.
Комментаторы также высказали опасения относительно отсутствия доказательств, подтверждающих необходимость предлагаемого правила. Комментаторы отметили, что на территории США, Европейского союза и Гонконга не было зарегистрировано ни одной авиационной катастрофы, в которой употребление наркотиков и/или злоупотребление алкоголем были прямой причиной или фактором. Федеральное управление гражданской авиации (FOCA) – Швейцарская конфедерация заявило, что не обнаружило данных, подтверждающих необходимость такого правила, и Швейцария и другие государства-члены Агентства Европейской авиационной безопасности (EASA) имеют внедренные меры управления безопасностью для обслуживающих станций и проверенный результат, демонстрирующий, что употребление наркотиков и/или злоупотребление алкоголем в настоящее время не представляют угрозы безопасности, требующей дальнейших регулирующих мер. Комментаторы отметили, что согласно Системе отчетности об авиационных происшествиях ИКАО с 1970 по 2012 годы не было сообщений об употреблении наркотиков или алкоголя на обслуживающих станциях. Кроме того, комментаторы указали на то, что собственные данные ФАА демонстрируют низкий риск употребления наркотиков и/или злоупотребления алкоголем со стороны персонала обслуживания в США.
Значение безопасности воздушного движения в контексте употребления наркотиков и алкоголя
В настоящее время у ФАА нет достаточных данных для того, чтобы оценить базовый уровень риска безопасности, связанного с употреблением наркотиков и/или злоупотреблением алкоголем на зарубежных станциях ремонта. Как уже упоминалось ранее, ФАА получила минимальное количество информации, касающейся законов и нормативных актов зарубежных стран, элементов программ допустимого тестирования на наркотики и алкоголь, а также существующих программ тестирования на наркотики и алкоголь в других странах. ФАА также признает, что количество доказанных аварий и происшествий, связанных с употреблением наркотиков и/или злоупотреблением алкоголем сотрудниками по обслуживанию на зарубежных станциях ремонта, неизвестно. Поскольку у ФАА нет данных о тестировании или знании о существующих программах тестирования в других странах, ФАА не в состоянии оценить влияние предложенного правила на выявление и предотвращение употребления наркотиков и/или злоупотребления алкоголем на данный момент. Следовательно, ФАА не может определить, будет ли это правило оказывать дополнительное влияние на безопасность или лиц, выполняющих функции, не связанные с безопасностью, и, соответственно, ограничила данное предложение для учета конкретных законодательных мандатов в 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2) и 49 U.S.C. 44733. ФАА приглашает к комментариям по этому вопросу.
Рассмотрение вопроса управления и финансов
Помимо этого, ФАА рассматривает лучшие способы предотвращения употребления наркотиков и алкоголя для любого авиамеханика, работающего с частью 121 самолета, независимо от того, как этот механик нанят. Поэтому ФАА просит комментарии относительно того, следует ли распространить требования по тестированию наркотиков и алкоголя на иностранных авиамехаников, работающих непосредственно на часть 121 перевозчиков. Запрашивается представление данных, позволяющих ФАА количественно оценить плюсы и минусы расширения требований по тестированию наркотиков и алкоголя для этих механиков.
Финансовые и операционные вопросы
Хотя многие комментаторы отметили, что трудно оценить стоимость внедрения программ тестирования наркотиков и алкоголя, поскольку такой режим тестирования, близкий к требованиям США, не существует в большинстве стран за границей, они также отметили, что, вероятно, наложение требований по тестированию наркотиков и алкоголя окажет диспропорционное финансовое воздействие на мелкие и средние авиационные компании. Некоторые комментаторы, включая A4A, Honeywell и Taikoo (Xiamen) Landing Gear Services Co. Ltd. (TALSCO), среди других, предоставили какой-то уровень предполагаемых издержек. Например, Pratt & Whitney предоставил оценки затрат на внедрение и поддержание программы тестирования наркотики и алкоголь, подробности которой можно найти в общедоступном досье, и заявил, что такие обширные издержки не оправданы, если ФАА не может количественно оценить добавленную пользу в безопасности. Коалиция отраслевых групп выразила беспокойство относительно ответственности ФАА по обеспечению того, чтобы издержки не превышали пользы от действий агентства. Кроме того, Hong Kong Aero Engine Services Limited (HAESL) заявила, что дополнительные затраты будут понесены без значительных польз.
[Конец статьи]
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)
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).
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 Start Printed 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 §§ 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 (§§ 120.5 and 120.9)
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
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 Start Printed 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 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
YearProgram and training development & maintenanceTrainingTesting (drug and alcohol)Annual reportsTotal cost (7% PV)Total cost (3% PV)
* 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 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, Start Printed 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
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.
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.
(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.
Reasons the Action Is Being Considered
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.
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.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Table 2—Small Business Size Standards: Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
NAICS codeDescriptionSize standard
488190Other Support Activities for Air Transportation$40.0 million.
Source: SBA (2022).
NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
Table 3—Average Cost of Compliance and Small Entities
CategoryNumber of small entitiesAverage annualized cost per repair station
Program and Training Development & Maintenance Cost912$444.69
1 Based on a baseline of existing practices and using a 7% discount rate.
Significant Alternatives Considered
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.
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 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.
Annual Burden Estimate
DocumentationNumber of repair stationsHours per repair stationHourly wageTotal cost
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification97747 16.248 $26.90$425,757
Start Printed Page 85151
Burden for Annual Test Data
Documentation49 Total recordsTime per record (hours)Hourly wageTotal costAverage yearly cost 50
Training records656,7200.2551 $34.47$5,659,285$1,131,857
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 Start Printed 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
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.