Opinion ID: 186991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employees Responsible for Safety-Sensitive Functions

Text: Second, the petitioners assert that the FAA exceeded its statutory authority because noncertificated subcontractors' employees are not employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions as required under section 45102(a)(1). They argue that under FAA regulations, if a certificated repair station has used a noncertificated subcontractor, only the certificated repair station is `responsible' for the safety aspects of the subcontractor's work. Pet'rs Br. at 18 (citing 14 C.F.R. § 145.217(b)(2), (3) (requiring certificated repair station to verify satisfactory performance of subcontracted noncertificated work and airworthiness of aviation component before return to service)). The FAA responds that responsible for as used in section 45102(a)(1) does not mean legally responsible for, as the petitioners argue, but simply the agent or cause, in this case denoting the person performing the maintenance work. FAA Br. at 26-27. The FAA's interpretation of the phrase responsible for is a permissible one. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1935 (1993) (defining responsible as answerable as the primary cause, motive, or agent); Hines v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Va., 788 F.2d 1016, 1018 (4th Cir.1986) (The ordinary meaning of a `person responsible for such injuries' is the person who caused the injuries, who did the damage.). Because the Congress expressly directed the FAA Administrator to determine by regulation those other air carrier employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions, we defer to the FAA's interpretation. See Envtl. Def. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1320, 1328-29 (D.C.Cir.2007) (if Congress `has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill,' we uphold agency's reasonable statutory interpretation) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778).