ARSA RSS Feed ARSA LinkedIn
Ask ARSA Online Portal

Court Sides with ARSA on Small Business Issue While Upholding New FAA Drug & Alcohol Rule

ARSA’s lawsuit, initiated in March 2006, which challenged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandate that anti-drug and alcohol testing programs apply to aviation maintenance contractors “at any tier” received an opinion from the court on July 17, 2007. In a two-to-one decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with ARSA that the FAA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by not properly considering the impact of its rule on small businesses. While the Court upheld the agency’s new testing requirements, it remanded the rule, directing the FAA to conduct the proper RFA analysis.

The FAA had determined that repair stations and their subcontractors were not directly affected by the rule and, therefore, the Administration did not need to complete the RFA analysis. The Court disagreed; it ruled that contractors are directly regulated, entitled to the protections of the RFA and it instructed the FAA to conduct the required analysis. In the meantime, the Court allowed the FAA to enforce the final rule even against small businesses. “We plan to keep the agency’s feet to the fire on the Court mandated economic-impact analysis to protect small businesses from undue burdens,” promised Sarah MacLeod, ARSA’s Executive Director.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge David B. Sentelle echoed ARSA’s central contention that employees of subcontractors are not “other air carrier employees” and therefore the FAA’s new testing requirements should be set aside. Judge Sentelle agreed with ARSA’s reasoning that the FAA exceeded its statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act.

“One of three judges fully embraced our core point that the new rule exceeds the FAA’s legal authority,” said attorney Al Givray. “If we had convinced one more judge, the 2-1 decision would have gone completely in our favor, and the new rule would have been set aside. As it is, we are very pleased that we persuaded the Court that the FAA erred in disregarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act.”

This ruling means that any entity performing a safety-sensitive function (maintenance) for an air carrier at any tier in the contract must continue to comply with the drug and alcohol testing requirements of 14 CFR part 121.

A copy of the court’s opinion may be found here



More from ARSA

How’s Marshall?

On July 8, ARSA Managing Director & General Counsel Marshall S. Filler underwent successful heart surgery. He is recovering at home and is on track to continue his passion as…Read More

Anti-Viral Measures

For the use of its members and the larger aviation community, ARSA is maintaining this page as a resource for virus-related updates on policy initiatives and business needs. Please bookmark…Read More

DOT Reopens Jobs Program Applications

To keep tabs on all of ARSA’s work related to the current pandemic, visit arsa.org/anti-viral-measures. On July 26, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced it will re-open applications for the…Read More

FAA to Restart Global Leadership Meeting

On July 20, the FAA announced plans to host its 8th Annual Global Leadership Meeting in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 22-23. The event will have both in-person and online attendance…Read More

Lawmakers Explore Aviation Workforce Diversity

The House Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing July 20 to discuss enhancing diversity in the aviation workforce. The witnesses were (click a name to download their written testimony): Rebecca Lutte,…Read More
ARSA