Opinion ID: 1198956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: FAA Regulations

Text: Federal regulations promoting the proper manufacture and inspection of component airline parts advance the important public policy objectives we have discussed in the cases following Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330. In the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. former appen. § 1301 et seq., now § 40101 et seq.), Congress declared the public interest in commercial air safety in 49 United States Code section 44701: (a) ... The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing[!] (1) minimum standards required in the interest of safety for ... the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft.... In other provisions, Congress authorized the federal government to supervise closely the design and manufacture of aircraft or component aircraft parts. (49 U.S.C. § 44704(a), (b) [establishing a system of certificates manufacturers must obtain from the FAA to produce aircraft or aircraft components].) The FAA, in turn, used the congressional grant of authority to establish an intricate regulatory scheme in order to ensure that aircraft design meets safety standards and aircraft manufacture conforms to the design. Regulations require prime manufacturers (such as Boeing) to establish quality control inspection systems for components they produce and ensure their subcontractors (such as defendant) do the same, (a) Each [prime manufacturer] must submit, for approval, data describing the inspection and test procedures necessary to ensure that each article produced conforms to the type design and is in a condition for safe operation, including as applicable ... [1]... [¶] (2) A description of inspection procedures for ... parts and assemblies produced by manufacturers' suppliers [such as defendant] including methods used to ensure acceptable quality of parts and assemblies that cannot be completely inspected for conformity and quality when delivered to the prime manufacturer's plant; [¶] ... [¶] (b) Each prime manufacturer shall make available to the Administrator information regarding all delegation of authority to suppliers [such as defendant] to make major inspections of parts or assemblies for which the prime manufacturer is responsible. (14 C.F.R. § 21.143 (1998).) In United States v. Varig Airlines (1984) 467 U.S. 797, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 ( Varig ), the high court recognized the importance of this regulatory scheme. It approved congressional delegation to the FAA of authority to promulgate regulations and the concomitant FAA regulatory prerogative. In Varig, a commercial aircraft owner sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damages for a destroyed aircraft. The court held the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act precluded tort actions based on the FAA's alleged negligence in failing to check certain items in the course of certifying commercial airplanes. ( Varig, supra, 467 U.S. at pp. 819-820, 104 S.Ct. 2755.) The court also stated that the Secretary of Transportation has the duty to promote safety in air transportation by promulgating reasonable rules and regulations governing the inspection, servicing, and overhaul of civil aircraft. ( Id. at p. 816, 104 S.Ct. 2755.) More importantly, Varig held that [i]n the exercise of this discretion, the FAA, as the Secretary's designee, has devised a system of compliance review that involves certification of aircraft design and manufacture at several stages of production. [Citation.] The FAA certification process is founded upon a relatively simple notion: the duty to ensure that an aircraft conforms to FAA safety regulations lies with the manufacturer and operator, while the FAA retains the responsibility for policing compliance. Thus, the manufacturer is required to develop the plans and specifications and perform the inspections and tests necessary to establish that an aircraft design comports with the applicable regulations.... ( Varig, supra, 467 U.S. at pp. 816-817, 104 S.Ct. 2755, fn. omitted.) That Congress delegated to the FAA regulatory power in the commercial aircraft safety context is not unusual or surprising. A substantial body of law, advancing significant public policy objectives, is found in administrative regulations that promulgate important legislative objectives. This is especially true of laws pertaining to the protection of public health and safety. (See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300g et seq. [delegating to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to issue safe drinking water regulations]; Health & Saf. Code, § 1275, subd. (a) [authorizing Department of Health Services to promulgate regulations for health facilities]; Health & Saf. Code, § 25150, subd. (a) [authorizing the Department of Toxic Substances Control to promulgate regulations regarding hazardous waste disposal].) The United States Supreme Court has stated that the development of its jurisprudence regarding congressional delegation of rulemaking authority to administrative and executive agencies has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. ( Misiretta v. United States (1989) 488 U.S. 361, 372, 109 S.Ct. 647,102 L.Ed.2d 714.) In California, administrative agencies routinely adopt quasi-legislative regulations under express statutory authority. For such regulations to be valid in this state, they must be consistent with the terms or intent of the authorizing statute. ( California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 11, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796, 793 P.2d 2.) A valid regulation must also be reasonably necessary to effectuate the statutory purpose of its authorizing legislation. ( Ibid. ) Federal law is similar. (See Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (1984) 467 U.S. 837, 842-845, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694.) It therefore follows that if a statute that seeks to further a public policy objective delegates the authority to adopt administrative regulations to an administrative agency in order to fulfill that objective, and that agency adopts regulations that are within the scope of its statutory authority and effectuate the statutory policy, then those regulations may be manifestations of important public policy. Plaintiff performed the FAA-required inspections on the parts intended for use in Boeing aircraft to further a fundamental public policy: to ensure that each article produced conforms to the type design and is in a condition for safe operation. (14 C.F.R. § 21.143(a) (1998).) Therefore, this regulation-based fundamental public policy may serve as the foundation for plaintiffs Tameny claim. It furthers important safety policies affecting the public at large and does not merely serve either the employee's or employer's personal or proprietary interest. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 669-671, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) As we have noted, '[t]here is no `public policy more important or more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens.' ( General Dynamics, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1183, 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 876 P.2d 487.)