Opinion ID: 186991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comments

Text: The petitioners also contend the FAA failed to respond adequately to comments on the 2006 Final Rule's impact on industry business costs and employees' privacy costs. We conclude the FAA's response was adequate. With regard to the industry costs, the petitioners rely in particular on an industry survey they submitted to the FAA, along with an analysis of it by a distinguished aviation industry economist, Pet'rs Br. at 39, which they claim contradicts the FAA's assessment that none of the commenters opposing the proposal provided specific data challenging the FAA's fundamental economic assumptions, 2006 Final Rule, 71 Fed.Reg. at 1667. Yet immediately following the quoted statement, the 2006 Final Rule went on to note that [t]he regulatory evaluation accompanying this final rule specifically addresses the comments about costs and benefits. Id. In the cited evaluation, the FAA responded at length to the information the commenters submitted, finding, inter alia, that most of the survey information was not useful or credible, JA 112, and rebutting the expert's opinions, JA 113-15. With regard to employees' privacy interests, the petitioners assert the FAA ignored comments complaining that subjecting employees of all subcontractors to the testing requirements will trigger[] countless invasions of privacy through the administration of preemployment, reasonable-suspicion, incident-based, and ongoing random testing, including for employees with flawless past work records and no hint of prior substance abuse. Pet'rs Br. at 41. Again, the FAA responded, albeit succinctly: [T]he issues regarding invasion of privacy were resolved more than 15 years ago when the drug testing regulation carefully balanced the interests of individual privacy with the Federal government's duty to ensure aviation safety. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to reopen the long-settled issue of invasion of privacy. 71 Fed.Reg. at 1668. The petitioners respond that the 2006 Final Rule presents much-heightened privacy concerns, Pet'rs Br. at 22, but do not explain precisely what the heightened concerns are or point to comments that do so. To the extent the purported expansion of the testing class affects privacy rights, we address this issue in our Fourth Amendment discussion. See infra Part II.C.