Opinion ID: 185665
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relation to Prior Agency Interpretations

Text: 12 Even if the Whitlow Letter is an interpretative rule, ATA further contends, notice-and-comment rulemaking is nonetheless required because the Letter is inconsistent with earlier FAA interpretations of FAR 121.471. Rulemaking, as defined in the APA, includes not only the agency's formulation, but also its modification, of a rule. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(5) (rule making includes agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule); see also Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 586 (Under the APA, agencies are obligated to engage in notice and comment before formulating regulations, which applies as well to `repeals' or `amendments.'  (emphasis in original)). As the United States Supreme Court has noted, APA rulemaking is required if an interpretation adopt[s] a new position inconsistent with... existing regulations. Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 100, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 131 L.Ed.2d 106 (1995). In Alaska Prof'l Hunters Ass'n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C.Cir.1999), we held that [w]hen an agency has given its regulation a definitive interpretation, and later significantly revises that interpretation, the agency has in effect amended its rule, which requires notice and comment. Id. at 1034 (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 586 (agency violates APA if it makes a fundamental change in its interpretation of a substantive regulation without notice and comment). In Alaska Hunters, Alaskan guides who transport their customers to hunting and fishing sites by airplane challenged the FAA's requirement (imposed via a Notice to Operators) that they comply with FAA regulations applicable to commercial pilots. Id. at 1033. The Notice, promulgated without notice and comment, reversed the FAA's thirty-year interpretation that had exempted the guides. Id. The longstanding advice, we held, had become an authoritative departmental interpretation, an administrative common law applicable to Alaskan guide pilots; hence, the Notice changing that interpretation had to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking. Id. at 1035. 13 ATA claims the Whitlow Letter changed fifteen years of [i]nterpretations because recalculation of past rest periods [h]as never [been] required, even though the opportunity to impose such a mandate was presented. Reply Br. at 17. Of the prior interpretations ATA relies on, only one merits discussion. Interpretation 1992-24, like the Whitlow Letter, represents the FAA's response to a request for an interpretation of FAR 121.471. The request asked if a flight delay not caused by the air carrier meant that looking back 24 hours from the actual completion time of the last flight, you will not be able to find the applicable rest period required under FAR 121.471(b) and (c). Interpretation 1992-24 at I-235 (JA 252). Pointing to the prospective language in FAR 121.471, 10 the FAA declared that deviations encountered in the operation of an otherwise legitimately scheduled flight are permitted so long as the schedule otherwise met the flight time limitations and rest requirements. Id. Interpretation 1992-24 did not, according to ATA, require recalculation of past rest based on actual expected arrival time, [nor] ... mandate that a normal, completed paragraph-(b) rest be turned, after the fact, into a paragraph-(c) reduced rest. Reply Br. at 22. The FAA insists that Interpretation 1992-24 speaks only to a short delay that would still allow a carrier to give crewmembers compensatory rest immediately following the extended flight, relying on the following caveat contained in Interpretation 1992-24: It is important to note[,] however, that the delay cannot infringe on the next required rest period. In the FAA's view, then, Interpretation 1992-24 addresses only an alteration in the scheduled flight time short enough to nonetheless provide for compensatory rest following the reduced rest in accordance with subsection (c). In contrast, the Whitlow Letter addresses a delay that makes compliance with either subsection (b) or (c) impossible in light of actual flight conditions. Although Interpretation 1992-24 was not expressly limited to short delays, it nevertheless does not provide a definitive interpretation inconsistent with that of the Whitlow Letter. The FAA did not define the phrase operation of an otherwise legitimately scheduled flight in Interpretation 1992-24; if operation refers only to the in-flight segment of a flight schedule, Interpretation 1992-24 is simply a restatement of the FAA's longstanding enforcement policy not to charge a rest violation for a delay that occurs after take-off. See also Interpretation 1998-7 at I-207. Because Interpretation 1992-24 can reasonably be interpreted in this way, 11 we do not believe the Whitlow Letter significantly revises a previous definitive interpretation of FAR 121.471. See Alaska Hunters, 177 F.3d at 1034. 14 Other prior interpretations of FAR 121.471 buttress our conclusion that the Whitlow Letter, in clarifying a carrier's duty to recalculate previously computed rest periods based on actual flight schedules, addresses only a theretofore unresolved aspect of the rest requirement. In a letter dated July 22, 1994 the FAA construed FAR 121.471 to require that a rest period must occur `... during the 24 hours preceding the scheduled completion of any flight segment' rather than following the flight segment. See Interpretation dated July 22, 1994 (emphasis in original) (quoting FAR 121.471(b)). While ATA is correct that the July 22, 1994 letter does not specifically require recalculation of a rest period caused by an unforeseen delay, it does nonetheless indicate that the FAA, in 1994, required a carrier to provide a compensatory rest period of ten hours at the end of day one despite the fact that the crewmembers had received an extended rest period (more than 24 hours) preceding the scheduled completion of flight segment. More significantly, in Interpretation 1998-7, the FAA declared that both the carrier and its crewmembers would violate FAR 121.471 if they knew prior to departure that due to a ground hold for weather the scheduled arrival time of the last flight segment would force the crew to begin its compensatory rest period later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period. Interpretation 1998-7. The FAA's conclusion was based on the actual expected arrival time calculated prior to departure and is therefore consistent with its approach in the Whitlow Letter. 15 No prior FAA interpretation of FAR 121.471 approaches the definitive interpretation that mandated notice-and-comment rulemaking in Alaska Hunters. No prior interpretation reflects an administrative common law that FAR 121.471 prohibits recalculation of past rest periods based on actual expected flight time. Alaska Hunters, 177 F.3d at 1035; see also Hudson v. FAA, 192 F.3d 1031, 1036 (D.C.Cir.1999) (FAA interpretation did not require notice and comment because it was simply application of the regulation to a changed situation which calls for a different policy). Accordingly, the Whitlow Letter does not alter a definitive prior FAA interpretation of FAR 121.471. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the consolidated petitions for review are denied. 17 So ordered.