Opinion ID: 185665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FAA's Interpretation of FAR 121.471

Text: 5 Because the Whitlow Letter 7 constitutes the FAA's interpretation of its own regulation, that interpretation must be afforded substantial deference and upheld unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994); see also Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 584 (D.C.Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1003, 118 S.Ct. 1184, 140 L.Ed.2d 315 (1998). Accordingly, we defer to the FAA's view unless an alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's plain language or by other indications of the [agency's] intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. at 2386-87 ( quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S.Ct. 1306, 99 L.Ed.2d 515 (1988)). ATA contends that the Whitlow Letter, by requiring the recalculation of a previously computed rest period, is inconsistent with both the text and the purpose of FAR 121.471. ATA maintains that the phrase scheduled completion of any flight segment in subsection (b) means that compliance with FAR 121.471 turns solely on the legality of the originally established flight schedule irrespective of any unexpected flight delay that may require re -scheduling. See ATA Blue Br. at 25. The phrase, ATA asserts, cannot be squared with the Whitlow Letter, which requires scheduled flight time to take into account actual expected flight time. See Whitlow Letter at 4. 6 The FAA responds that the phrase scheduled completion of any flight segment can reasonably be understood to include a re-scheduled flight time based on actual flight conditions. To be sure, scheduled completion can be construed narrowly to refer only to the originally scheduled flight completion time. The point, however, is that the FAA's more expansive interpretation is not unreasonable. A re scheduled completion of a flight segment based on flight conditions existing in fact is nonetheless a scheduled completion. Nothing in the text of FAR 121.471 or in the ordinary usage of the word scheduled 8 dictates that the timetable of a particular flight segment can be determined only when the schedule is originally created regardless of adjustments made necessary by then-current conditions. 7 ATA's interpretations of subsection (b)'s term scheduled rest period and subsection (c)'s reference to reduce a scheduled rest are similarly unavailing. Its construction of scheduled rest would allow a carrier to set up adequate rest periods in advance and then disregard whether the rest periods in fact occurred in light of actual flight conditions because, under its construction, scheduled rest means rest [that] is lawfully established at the time of scheduling. ATA Blue Br. at 26. ATA argues that the term refers only to a future rest period and cannot justify a retrospective recalculation of rest a crewmember has already taken. Even if the semantic point were valid, which we doubt as set forth below, this argument ignores the structure of the regulation itself. Under FAR 121.471, all rest requirements flow from the scheduled completion of a particular flight segment. The minimum rest requirements described in subsection (b) are all keyed to the twenty-four hour period before the completion is to occur. The required rest must be scheduled during those 24 hours. The carrier's first step therefore must be to determine this scheduled completion time. It must then be able to look back from that point to find a sufficient rest period scheduled within the previous twenty-four hours. Once that hour is allowed to change in response to unanticipated delays, what is then recalculated is not (as ATA claims) the rest that a crewmember has already received but instead the 24-hour period in which the requisite amount of scheduled rest must occur. Moreover, ATA's prospective-only view of scheduled is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the word; a rest period already calculated, then recalculated, can yet be understood as scheduled because it has been place[d] on a schedule. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 2028 (1993) (schedule: vt -ed means to place [o]n a schedule). Nor does subsection (c), in allowing a carrier to reduce a scheduled rest, mean that a rest period already completed cannot be recalculated in light of actual flight times. 8 Further, the Whitlow Letter is not inconsistent with the purpose of the 1985 amendment to FAR 121.471. Granted that simplified scheduling and added scheduling flexibility for carriers were two goals of the 1985 amendment, it does not necessarily follow that an interpretation cabining a carrier's flexibility is therefore unauthorized. The Whitlow Letter, while imposing a measure of rigidity, nonetheless maintains the system of flexible scheduling created by the amendment. Moreover, protection against acute short-term fatigue of crewmembers was also one of the FAA's goals. Flight Time Limitations Rest Requirements for Flight Crewmembers, 49 Fed.Reg. at 12,137. The rest requirement regulation was expressly promulgated under FAA's statutory authority to issue reasonable rules and regulations governing, in the interest of safety, the maximum hours or periods of service of aircrew and other employees of air carriers. Id. at 12,136 (citing statutory requirements codified at 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(4)). While the 1985 amendment may have been aimed at increasing scheduling flexibility, the FAA is statutorily obligated to strike the best balance between flexibility and safety. Having concluded the FAA's interpretation via the Whitlow Letter represents a permissible construction of FAR 121.471, we do not believe the fact that it may lessen flexibility renders it invalid.