source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      Justice Scalia
      Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
    No. 93-356.
    Argued March 21, 1994
    Decided June 17, 1994

      Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun and Souter, JJ., joined, post, p. 235. O’Connor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

      Christopher J. Wright argued the cause for the federal petitioners. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Bingaman, and Deputy Solicitor General Wallace. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner in No. 93-356. With him on the briefs were Chester T. Kamin, Michael H. Salsbury, Anthony C. Epstein, John B. Morris, Jr., Donald J. Elardo, Frank W Krogh, and Richard G. Taranto.

      David W. Carpenter argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief for respondent American Telephone & Telegraph Co. were Thomas W. Merrill, Peter D. Keisler, Joseph D. Kearney, Mark C. Rosenblum, and John J. Langhauser. Leon M. Kestenbaum, Michael B. Fingerhut, Theodore Case Whitehouse, and W. Theodore Pierson, Jr., filed a brief for respondent Sprint Communications Co. L. P. et al.

      Together with No. 93-521, United States et al. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for International Business Machines Corporation by T. Roger Wollenberg, William T. Lake, John H. Harwood II, and Sheila McCartney; for the California Bankers Clearing House Association et al. by Henry D. Levine, Ellen G. Block, and Francis E. Fletcher, Jr.; and for Wiltel, Inc., by David G. Leitch.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 203(a) of Title 47 of the United States Code requires communications common carriers to file tariffs with the Federal Communications Commission, and § 203(b) authorizes the Commission to “modify” any requirement of §203. These cases present the question whether the Commission’s decision to make tariff filing optional for all nondominant long-distance carriers is a valid exercise of its modification authority.

I

Like most cases involving the role of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in our national telecommunication system, these have a long history. An understanding of the cases requires a brief review of the Commission’s efforts to regulate and then deregulate the telecommunications industry. When Congress created the Commission in 1934, AT&T, through its vertically integrated Bell system, held a virtual monopoly over the Nation’s telephone service. The Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, authorized the Commission to regulate the rates charged for communication services to ensure that they were reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The requirements of §203 that common carriers file their rates with the Commission and charge only the filed rate were the centerpiece of the Act’s regulatory scheme.

In the 1970’s, technological advances reduced the entry costs for competitors of AT&T in the market for long-distance telephone service. The Commission, recognizing the feasibility of greater competition, passed regulations to facilitate competitive entry. By 1979, competition in the provision of long-distance service was well established, and some urged that the continuation of extensive tariff filing requirements served only to impose unnecessary costs on new entrants and to facilitate collusive pricing. The Commission held hearings on the matter, see Competitive Carrier Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking, 77 F. C. C. 2d 308 (1979), following which it issued a series of rules that have produced this litigation.

The First Report and Order, 85 F. C. C. 2d 1,20-24 (1980), distinguished between dominant carriers (those with market power) and nondominant carriers — in the long-distance market, this amounted to a distinction between AT&T and everyone else — and relaxed some of the filing procedures for non-dominant carriers, id., at 30-49. In the Second Report and Order, 91 F. C. C. 2d 59 (1982), the Commission entirely eliminated the filing requirement for resellers of terrestrial common carrier services. This policy of optional filing, or permissive detariffing, was extended to all other resellers, and to specialized common carriers, including petitioner MCI Telecommunications Corp., by the Fourth Report and Order, 95 F. C. C. 2d 554 (1983), and to virtually all remaining categories of nondominant carriers by the Fifth Report and Order, 98 F. C. C. 2d 1191 (1984). Then, in 1985, the Commission shifted to a mandatory detariffing policy, which prohibited nondominant carriers from filing tariffs. See Sixth Report and Order, 99 F. C. C. 2d 1020. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, struck down the Sixth Report’s mandatory detariffing policy in a challenge brought — somewhat ironically as it now appears — by MCI. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. F. C. C., 765 F. 2d 1186 (1985) (Ginsburg, J.). The Court of Appeals reasoned that § 203(a)’s command that “[e]very common carrier . . . shall. . . file” tariffs was mandatory. And although § 203(b) authorizes the Commission to “modify any requirement” in the section, the Court of Appeals concluded that that phrase “suggested] circumscribed alterations — not, as the FCC now would have it, wholesale abandonment or elimination of a requirement.” Id., at 1192.

In the wake of the invalidation of mandatory detariffing by the Court of Appeals, MCI continued its practice of not filing tariffs for certain services, pursuant to the permissive detariffing policy of the Fourth Report and Order. On August 7, 1989, AT&T filed a complaint, pursuant to the third-party complaint provision of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 208(a), which alleged that MCI’s collection of unified rates violated §§ 203(a) and (c). MCI responded that the Fourth Report was a substantive rule, and so MCI had no legal obligation to file rates. AT&T rejoined that the Fourth Report and Order was simply a statement of the Commission’s nonenforcement policy, which did not immunize MCI from private enforcement actions; and that if the Fourth Report and Order established a substantive rule, it was in excess of statutory authority. The Commission did not take final action on AT&T’s complaint until almost ZVz years after its filing. See AT&T Communications v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 7 FCC Rcd 807 (1992). It characterized the Fourth Report and Order as a substantive rule and dismissed AT&T’s complaint on the ground that MCI was in compliance with that rule. It refused to address, however, AT&T’s contention that the rule was ultra vires, announcing instead a proposed rulemaking to consider that question. See Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Red 804 (1992).

AT&T petitioned for review, arguing, inter alia, that the Commission lacked authority to defer to a later rulemaking consideration of an issue which was dispositive of an adjudicatory complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the petition for review. See American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. F. C. C., 978 F. 2d 727 (1992) (Silberman, J.). The Court of Appeals characterized the Commission’s failure to address its authority to promulgate the permissive detariffing policy as “a sort of administrative law shell game,” id., at 731-732. Addressing that question itself, the Court of Appeals concluded that the permissive detariffing policy of the Fourth Report and Order was rendered indefensible by the 1985 MCI decision: “Whether detariffing is made mandatory, as in the Sixth Report, or simply permissive, as in the Fourth Report, carriers are, in either event, relieved of the obligation to file tariffs under section 203(a). That step exceeds the limited authority granted the Commission in section 203(b) to ‘modify’ requirements of the Act.” Id., at 736. The Court of Appeals then remanded the case so that the Commission could award appropriate relief. See id., at 736-737. We denied certiorari. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 509 U. S. 913 (1993).

Moving now with admirable dispatch, less than two weeks after the decision by the Court of Appeals concerning the adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission released a Report and Order from the rulemaking proceeding commenced in response to AT&T’s complaint. See In re Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, 7 FCC Rcd 8072 (1992), stayed pending further notice, 7 FCC Red 7989 (1992). That is the Report and Order at issue in this case. The Commission, relying upon the § 203(b) authority to “modify” that had by then been twice rejected by the District of Columbia Circuit, determined that its permissive detariffing policy was within its authority under the Communications Act. AT&T filed a motion with the District of Columbia Circuit seeking summary reversal of the Commission’s order. The motion was granted in an unpublished per curiam order stating: “The decision of this court in [American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 978 F. 2d 727 (1992),] conclusively determined that the FCC’s authorization of permissive detariffing violates Section 203(a) of the Communications Act.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. Both MCI and the United States (together with the Commission) petitioned for certiorari. We granted the petitions and consolidated them. 510 U. S. 989 (1993).

II

Section 203 of the Communications Act contains both the filed rate provisions of the Act and the Commission’s disputed modification authority. It provides in relevant part:

“(a) Filing; public display.
“Every common carrier, except connecting carriers, shall, within such reasonable time as the Commission shall designate, file with the Commission and print and keep open for public inspection schedules showing all charges ..., whether such charges are joint or separate, and showing the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges....
“(b) Changes in schedule; discretion of Commission to modify requirements.
“(1) No change shall be made in the charges, classifications, regulations, or practices which have been so filed and published except after one hundred and twenty days notice to the Commission and to the public, which shall be published in such form and contain such information as the Commission may by regulations prescribe.
“(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.
“(c) Overcharges and rebates.
“No carrier, unless otherwise provided by or under authority of this chapter, shall engage or participate in such communication unless schedules have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and with the regulations made thereunder; and no carrier shall (1) charge, demand, collect, or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such communication ... than the charges specified in the schedule then in effect, or (2) refund or remit by any means or device any portion of the charges so specified, or (3) extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such schedule.” 47 U. S. C. §203 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).

The dispute between the parties turns on the meaning of the phrase “modify any requirement” in § 203(b)(2). Petitioners argue that it gives the Commission authority to make even basic and fundamental changes in the scheme created by that section. We disagree. The word “modify” — like a number of other English words employing the root “mod-” (deriving from the Latin word for “measure”), such as “moderate,” “modulate,” “modest,” and “modicum” — has a connotation of increment or limitation. Virtually every dictionary we are aware of says that “to modify” means to change moderately or in minor fashion. See, e. g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1236 (2d ed. 1987) (“to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend”); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1452 (1981) (“to make minor changes in the form or structure of: alter without transforming”); 9 Oxford English Dictionary 952 (2d ed. 1989) (“[t]o make partial changes in; to change (an object) in respect of some of its qualities; to alter or vary without radical transformation”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1004 (6th ed. 1990) (“[t]o alter; to change in incidental or subordinate features; enlarge; extend; amend; limit; reduce”).

In support of their position, petitioners cite dictionary definitions contained in, or derived from, a single source, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1452 (1981) (Webster’s Third), which includes among the meanings of “modify,” “to make a basic or important change in.” Petitioners contend that this establishes sufficient ambiguity to entitle the Commission to deference in its acceptance of the broader meaning, which in turn requires approval of its permissive detariffing policy. See Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984). In short, they contend that the courts must defer to the agency’s choice among available dictionary definitions, citing National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 418 (1992).

But Boston & Maine does not stand for that proposition. That case involved the question whether the statutory term “required” could only mean “demanded as essential” or could also mean “demanded as appropriate.” In holding that the latter was a permissible interpretation, to which Chevron deference was owed, the opinion did not rely exclusively upon dictionary definitions, but also upon contextual indications, see 503 U. S., at 417-419 — which in the present cases, as we shall see, contradict petitioners’ position. Moreover, when the Boston & Maine opinion spoke of “alternative dictionary definitions,” ibid., it did not refer to what we have here: one dictionary whose suggested meaning contradicts virtually all others. It referred to alternative definitions within the dictionary cited (Webster’s Third, as it happens), which was not represented to be the only dictionary giving those alternatives. To the contrary, the Court said “these alternative interpretations are as old as the jurisprudence of this Court,” id., at 419, citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). See also Webster’s New International Dictionary 2117 (2d ed. 1934); 2 New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2557 (1993) (giving both alternatives).

Most cases of verbal ambiguity in statutes involve, as Boston & Maine did, a selection between accepted alternative meanings shown as such by many dictionaries. One can envision (though a court case does not immediately come to mind) having to choose between accepted alternative meanings, one of which is so newly accepted that it has only been recorded by a single lexicographer. (Some dictionary must have been the very first to record the widespread use of “projection,” for example, to mean “forecast.”) But what petitioners demand that we accept as creating an ambiguity here is a rarity even rarer than that: a meaning set forth in a single dictionary (and, as we say, its progeny) which not only supplements the meaning contained in all other dictionaries, but contradicts one of the meanings contained in virtually all other dictionaries. Indeed, contradicts one of the alternative meanings contained in the out-of-step dictionary itself — for as we have observed, Webster’s Third itself defines “modify” to connote both (specifically) major change and (specifically) minor change. It is hard to see how that can be. When the word “modify” has come to mean both “to change in some respects” and “to change fundamentally” it will in fact mean neither of those things. It will simply mean “to change,” and some adverb will have to be called into service to indicate the great or small degree of the change.

If that is what the peculiar Webster’s Third definition means to suggest has happened — and what petitioners suggest by appealing to Webster’s Third — we simply disagree. “Modify,” in our view, connotes moderate change. It might be good English to say that the French Revolution “modified” the status of the French nobility — but only because there is a figure of speech called understatement and a literary device known as sarcasm. And it might be unsurprising to discover a 1972 White House press release saying that “the Administration is modifying its position with regard to prosecution of the war in Vietnam” — but only because press agents tend to impart what is nowadays called “spin.” Such intentional distortions, or simply careless or ignorant misuse, must have formed the basis for the usage that Webster’s Third, and Webster’s Third alone, reported. It is perhaps gilding the lily to add this: In 1934, when the Communications Act became law — the most relevant time for determining a statutory term’s meaning, see Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42-45 (1979) — Webster’s Third was not yet even contemplated. To our knowledge all English dictionaries provided the narrow definition of “modify,” including those published by G. & C. Merriam Company. See Webster’s New International Dictionary 1577 (2d ed. 1934); Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 628 (4th ed. 1934). We have not the slightest doubt that is the meaning the statute intended.

Beyond the word itself, a further indication that the § 203(b)(2) authority to “modify” does not contemplate fundamental changes is the sole exception to that authority which the section provides. One of the requirements of §203 is that changes to filed tariffs can be made only after 120 days’ notice to the Commission and the public. § 203(b)(1). The only exception to the Commission’s § 203(b)(2) modification authority is as follows: “except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.” Is it conceivable that the statute is indifferent to the Commission’s power to eliminate the tariff-filing requirement entirely for all except one firm in the long-distance sector, and yet strains out the gnat of extending the waiting period for tariff revision beyond 120 days? We think not. The exception is not as ridiculous as a Lilliputian in London only because it is to be found in Lilliput: in the small-scale world of “modifications,” it is a big deal.

Since an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the meaning that the statute can bear, see, e. g., Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U. S. 105, 113 (1988); Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843, the Commission’s permissive detariffing policy can be justified only if it makes a less than radical or fundamental change in the Act’s tariff-filing requirement. The Commission’s attempt to establish that no more than that is involved greatly understates the extent to which its policy deviates from the filing requirement, and greatly undervalues the importance of the filing requirement itself.

To consider the latter point first: For the body of a law, as for the body of a person, whether a change is minor or major depends to some extent upon the importance of the item changed to the whole. Loss of an entire toenail is insignificant; loss of an entire arm tragic. The tariff-filing requirement is, to pursue this analogy, the heart of the common-carrier section of the Communications Act. In the context of the Interstate Commerce Act, which served as its model, see, e. g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F. 2d 30,38 (CADC 1990), this Court has repeatedly stressed that rate filing was Congress’s chosen means of preventing unreasonableness and discrimination in charges: “[T]here is not only a relation, but an indissoluble unity between the provision for the establishment and maintenance of rates until corrected in accordance with the statute and the prohibitions against preferences and discrimination.” Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 440 (1907); see also Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 222 U. S. 506, 508-509 (1912). “The duty to file rates with the Commission, [the analog to § 203(a)], and the obligation to charge only those rates, [the analog to § 203(c)], have always been considered essential to preventing price discrimination and stabilizing rates.” Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 126 (1990); see also Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U. S. 370, 384 (1932) (filing requirements “render rates definite and certain, and . . . prevent discrimination and other abuses”); Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 81 (1908) (elimination of filing requirement “opens the door to the possibility of the very abuses of unequal rates which it was the design of the statute to prohibit and punish”). As the Maislin Court concluded, compliance with these provisions “is ‘utterly central’ to the administration of the Act.” 497 U. S., at 132, quoting Regular Common Carrier Conference v. United States, 793 F. 2d 376, 379 (CADC 1986).

Much of the rest of the Communications Act subchapter applicable to Common Carriers, see 47 U. S. C. §§201-228, and the Act’s Procedural and Administrative Provisions, 47 U. S. C. §§401-416, are premised upon the tariff-filing requirement of §203. For example, §415 defines “overcharges” (which customers are entitled to recover) by reference to the filed rate. See § 415(g). The provisions allowing customers and competitors to challenge rates as unreasonable or as discriminatory, see 47 U. S. C. §§204, 206-208,406, would not be susceptible of effective enforcement if rates were not publicly filed. See Maislin, supra, at 132. Rate filings are, in fact, the essential characteristic of a rate-regulated industry. It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination of whether an industry will be entirely, or even substantially, rate-regulated to agency discretion — and even more unlikely that it would achieve that through such a subtle device as permission to “modify” rate-filing requirements.

Bearing in mind, then, the enormous importance to the statutory scheme of the tariff-filing provision, we turn to whether what has occurred here can be considered a mere “modification.” The Commission stresses that its detariffing policy applies only to nondominant carriers, so that the rates charged to over half of all consumers in the long-distance market are on file with the Commission. It is not clear to us that the proportion of customers affected, rather than the proportion of carriers affected, is the proper measure of the extent of the exemption (of course all carriers in the long-distance market are exempted, except AT&T). But even assuming it is, we think an elimination of the crucial provision of the statute for 40% of a major sector of the industry is much too extensive to be considered a “modification.” What we have here, in reality, is a fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from a scheme of rate regulation in long-distance common-carrier communications to a scheme of rate regulation only where effective competition does not exist. That may be a good idea, but it was not the idea Congress enacted into law in 1934.

Apart from its failure to qualify as a “modification,” there is an independent reason why the Commission’s detariffing policy cannot come within the § 203(b)(2) authority to modify. That provision requires that when the Commission proceeds “by general order” (as opposed to when it acts “in particular instances”) to make a modification, the order can only apply “to special circumstances or conditions.” Although that is a somewhat elastic phrase, it is not infinitely so. It is hard to imagine that a condition shared by 40% of all long-distance customers, and by all long-distance carriers except one, qualifies as “special” within the intent of this limitation.

Both sides of this dispute contend that Congress has manifested in later legislation agreement with their respective interpretations of the Communications Act. Petitioners point to the 1990 amendment of the Act to require operator service providers (OSP’s) to file informational tariffs, which can be phased out after four years, see Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990 (TOCSIA), 104 Stat. 990, 47 U. S. C. § 226(h) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). Petitioners reason that this must envision a background of permissive filing, since otherwise the permitted phaseout of informational tariffs would be a phase-in of even more rigorous requirements. AT&T, on the other hand, claims that Congress has manifested agreement with its position in the recent amendment of 47 U. S. C. § 332(c)(1)(A) that gives the Commission authority to limit the tariff-filing requirement for commercial mobile carriers — authority that would be unnecessary if the Commission’s view of §203 is correct. At most, these conflicting arguments indicate that Congress was aware of the decade-long tug of war between the Commission and the District of Columbia Circuit over the authority to relax filing requirements, and at different times proceeded on different assumptions as to who would win. We have here not a consistent history of legislation to which one or the other, interpretation of the Act is essential; but rather two pieces of legislation to which first one, and then the other, interpretation of the Act is more congenial. That is not enough to change anything.

Finally, petitioners earnestly urge that their interpretation of § 203(b) furthers the Communications Act’s broad purpose of promoting efficient telephone service. They claim that although the filing requirement prevented price discrimination and unfair practices while AT&T maintained a monopoly over long-distance service, it frustrates those same goals now that there is greater competition in that market. Specifically, they contend that filing costs raise artificial barriers to entry and that the publication of rates facilitates parallel pricing and stifles price competition. We have considerable sympathy with these arguments (though we doubt it makes sense, if one is concerned about the use of filed tariffs to communicate pricing information, to require filing by the dominant carrier, the firm most likely to be a price leader). The Court itself has policed trade associations and rate bureaus under the antitrust laws precisely because the sharing of pricing information can facilitate price fixing, see, e. g., Sugar Institute, Inc. v. United States, 297 U. S. 553 (1936); American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377 (1921), and the Court has protected regulated firms from some types of antitrust suits brought on the basis of their filed rates, see, e. g., Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409 (1986). As we noted earlier this Term, there is considerable “debate in other forums about the wisdom of the filed rate doctrine,” Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 511 U. S. 431, 440 (1994), and, more broadly, about the value of continued regulation of the telecommunications industry. But our estimations, and the Commission’s estimations, of desirable policy cannot alter the meaning of the federal Communications Act of 1934. For better or worse, the Act establishes a rate-regulation, filed-tariff system for common-carrier communications, and the Commission’s desire “to ‘increase competition' cannot provide [it] authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements,” Maislin, 497 U. S., at 135. As we observed in the context of a dispute over the filed-rate doctrine more than 80 years ago, “such considerations address themselves to Congress, not to the courts,” Armour Packing, 209 U. S., at 82.

We do not mean to suggest that the tariff-filing requirement is so inviolate that the Commission’s existing modification authority does not reach it at all. Certainly the Commission can modify the form, contents, and location of required filings, and can defer filing or perhaps even waive it altogether in limited circumstances. But what we have here goes well beyond that. It is effectively the introduction of a whole new regime of regulation (or of free-market competition), which may well be a better regime but is not the one that Congress established.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Souter join, dissenting.

The communications industry has an unusually dynamic character. In 1934, Congress authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to regulate “a field of enterprise the dominant characteristic of which was the rapid pace of its unfolding.” National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190,219 (1943). The Communications Act of 1934 (Act) gives the FCC unusually broad discretion to meet new and unanticipated problems in order to fulfill its sweeping mandate “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” 47 U. S. C. § 151. This Court’s consistent interpretation of the Act has afforded the Commission ample leeway to interpret and apply its statutory powers and responsibilities. See, e. g., United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 172-173 (1968); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 138 (1940). The Court today abandons that approach in favor of a rigid literalism that deprives the FCC of the flexibility Congress meant it to have in order to implement the core policies of the Act in rapidly changing conditions.

I

At the time the Act was passed, the telephone industry was dominated by the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) and its affiliates. Title II of the Act, which establishes the framework for FCC regulation of common carriers by wire, was clearly a response to that dominance. As the Senate Report explained, “[under existing provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act the regulation of the telephone monopoly has been practically nil. This vast monopoly which so immediately serves the needs of the peopie in their daily and social life must be effectively regulated.” S. Rep. No. 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1934).

The wire communications provisions of the Act address problems distinctly associated with monopoly. Section 201 requires telephone carriers to “furnish . . . communication service upon reasonable request therefor,” and mandates that their “charges, practices, classifications, and regulations” be “just and reasonable.” 47 U. S. C. §201. Section 202 forbids carriers to “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services ... or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality.” 47 U. S. C. § 202(a). The Commission, upon complaint or its own motion, may hold hearings upon, and declare the lawfulness of, proposed rate increases, § 204, and may prescribe just and reasonable charges upon a finding that a carrier’s actual or proposed charges are illegal, § 205. Persons damaged by a carrier’s violation of the statute have a right to damages, §§206-207, and any person may file with the Commission a complaint of violation of the Act, §208.

Section 203, modeled upon the filed rate provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, see 49 U. S. C. §§ 10761-10762; S. Rep. No. 781, swpra, at 4, requires that common carriers other than connecting carriers “file with the Commission and print and keep open for public inspection schedules showing all charges for itself and its connecting carriers.” 47 U. S. C. § 203(a). A telephone carrier must allow a 120-day period of lead time before a tariff goes into effect, and, “unless otherwise provided by or under authority of this chapter,” may not provide communication services except according to a filed schedule, §§ 203(c), (d). The tariff-filing section of the Act, however, contains a proviso that states:

“(b) Changes in schedule; discretion of Commission to modify requirements.
“(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.” 47 U. S. C. § 203(b)(2) (1988 ed., Supp. IV).

Congress doubtless viewed the filed rate provisions as an important mechanism to guard against abusive practices by wire communications monopolies. But it is quite wrong to suggest that the mere process of filing rate schedules-rather than the substantive duty of reasonably priced and nondiscriminatory service-is "the heart of the common-carrier section of the Communications Act." Ante, 229~

II

In response to new conditions in the communications industry, including stirrings of competition in the long-distance telephone market, the FCC in 1979 began re-examining its regulatory scheme. The Commission tentatively concluded that costly tariff-filing requirements were unnecessary and actually counterproductive as applied to nondominant carriers, i. e., those whose lack of market power leaves them unable to extract supracompetitive or discriminatory rates from customers. See Competitive Carrier Rulemaking, 77 F. C. C. 2d 308 (1979). Relaxing the regulatory burdens upon new entrants would foster competition into the telecommunications markets; at the same time, the forces of competition would ensure that firms without monopoly power would comply with the Act’s prohibitions on “unreasonable rates” and price discrimination. See id., at 334-338. As the Commission explained in 1981, tariff-filing obligations for nondominant firms were simultaneously “superfluous as a consumer protection device, since competition circumscribes the prices and practices of these companies” and inimical to “price competition and service and marketing innovation.” Deregulation of Telecommunications Services, 84 F. C. C. 2d 445, 478-479 (1981). Accordingly, in a series of rulings in the early 1980’s, the Commission issued orders progressively exempting specified classes of nondominant carriers from the obligation to file tariff schedules. See, e. g., Second Report and Order, 91 F. C. C. 2d 59 (1982); Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46791 (1983). The Commission’s Fourth Report and Order, 95 F. C. C. 2d 554 (1983), extended and reaffirmed its “permissive detariffing” policy, under which dominant long-distance carriers must file tariff schedules whereas non-dominant carriers, although subject to the Act’s prohibitions on unreasonable rates and price discrimination, may, but need not, file them.

In the instant In re Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, 7 FCC Red 8072 (1992), the FCC adhered to its policy of excusing nondominant providers of long-distance telephone service from the §203 filing requirement, and codified that longstanding forbearance policy. The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to “adapt . . . regulation of telecommunications common carriers to the changed circumstances of competition and to develop a regulatory approach that furthers the purposes of the Act while fostering innovation and the efficient development of the telecommunications industry,” id., at 8079, and explained once again why, in its view, permissive detariffing furthered these goals, id., at 8079-8080. As it had since its initial stages of detariffing, see 84 F. C. C. 2d, at 479-480, the Commission found principal statutory authority for detariffing in the “modify any requirement” language of § 203(b)(2). 7 FCC Red, at 8074-8075. “[AJctual experience under permissive detariffing,” including an increase in the number of long-distance carriers from 12 in 1982 to 482 a decade later, “further confirmed] the success of [the FCC’s] approach in furthering the statutory goals of the Communications Act.” Id., at 8079-8080.

Ill

Although the majority observes that further relaxation of tariff-filing requirements might more effectively enhance competition, ante, at 233-234, it does not take issue with the Commission’s conclusions that mandatory filing of tariff schedules serves no useful purpose and is actually counterproductive in the case of carriers who lack market power. As the Commission had noted in its prior detariffing orders, see, e. g., 84 F. C. C. 2d, at 479-480, if a nondominant carrier sought to charge inflated rates, “customers would simply move to other carriers.” 7 FCC Red, at 8079. Moreover, an absence of market power will ordinarily preclude firms of any kind from engaging in price discrimination. See, e. g., L. Sullivan, Law of Antitrust 89 (1977) (“A firm will not discriminate unless it has market power”); 9 P. Areeda, Antitrust Law ¶ 1711a, pp. 119-120 (1991). The Commission plausibly concluded that any slight enforcement benefits a tariff-filing requirement might offer were outweighed by the burdens it would put on new entrants and consumers. Thus, the sole question for us is whether the FCC’s policy, however sensible, is nonetheless inconsistent with the Act.

In my view, each of the Commission’s detariffing orders was squarely within its power to “modify any requirement” of § 203. Section 203(b)(2) plainly confers at least some discretion to modify the general rule that carriers file tariffs, for it spéaks of “any requirement.” Section 203(c) of the Act, ignored by the Court, squarely supports the FCC’s position; it prohibits carriers from providing service without a tariff “unless otherwise provided by or under authority of this Act” Section 203(b)(2) is plainly one provision that “otherwise provides,” and thereby authorizes, service without a filed schedule. The FCC’s authority to modify §203’s requirements in “particular instances” or by “general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions” emphasizes the expansive character of the Commission’s authority: modifications may be narrow or broad, depending upon the Commission’s appraisal of current conditions. From the vantage of a Congress seeking to regulate an almost completely monopolized industry, the advent of competition is surely a “special circumstance or condition” that might legitimately call for different regulatory treatment.

The only statutory exception to the Commission’s modification authority provides that it may not extend the 120-day notice period set out in § 203(b)(1). See § 203(b)(2). The Act thus imposes a specific limit on the Commission’s authority to stiffen that regulatory imposition on carriers, but does not confine the Commission’s authority to relax it. It was no stretch for the FCC to draw from this single, unidirectional statutory limitation on its modification authority the inference that its authority is otherwise unlimited. See 7 FCC Red, at 8075.

According to the Court, the term “modify,” as explicated in all but the most unreliable dictionaries, ante, at 225-228, and n. 3, rules out the Commission’s claimed authority to relieve nondominant carriers of the basic obligation to file tariffs. Dictionaries can be useful aides in statutory interpretation, but they are no substitute for close analysis of what words mean as used in a particular statutory context. Cf. Cabell v. Markham, 148 F. 2d 737, 739 (CA2 1945) (Hand, J.). Even if the sole possible meaning of “modify” were to make “minor” changes, ante, at 225, further elaboration is needed to show why the detariffing policy should fail. The Commission came to its present policy through a series of rulings that gradually relaxed the filing requirements for nondominant carriers. Whether the current policy should count as a cataclysmic or merely an incremental departure from the § 203(a) baseline depends on whether one focuses on particular carriers’ obligations to file (in which case the Commission’s policy arguably works a major shift) or on the statutory policies behind the tariff-filing requirement (which remain satisfied because market constraints on nondominant carriers obviate the need for rate filing). When §203 is viewed as part of a statute whose aim is to constrain monopoly power, the Commission’s decision to exempt nondominant carriers is a rational and “measured” adjustment to novel circumstances — one that remains faithful to the core purpose of the tariff-filing section. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1198 (3d ed. 1933) (defining “modification” as “A change; an alteration which introduces new elements into the details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter intact”).

The Court seizes upon a particular sense of the word “modify” at the expense of another, long-established meaning that fully supports the Commission’s position. That word is first defined in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 628 (4th ed. 1934) as meaning “to limit or reduce in extent or degree.” The Commission’s permissive detariffing policy fits comfortably within this common understanding of the term. The FCC has in effect adopted a general rule stating that “if you are dominant you must file, but if you are nondominant you need not.” The Commission’s partial detariffing policy— which excuses nondominant carriers from filing on condition that they remain nondominant — is simply a relaxation of a costly regulatory requirement that recent developments had rendered pointless and counterproductive in a certain class of cases.

A modification pursuant to § 203(b)(1), like any other order issued under the Act, must of course be consistent with the purposes of the statute. On this point, the Court asserts that the Act’s prohibition against unreasonable and discriminatory rates “would not be susceptible of effective enforcement if rates were not publicly filed.” Ante, at 231. That determination, of course, is for the Commission to make in the first instance. But the Commission has repeatedly explained that (1) a carrier that lacks market power is entirely unlikely to charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates, (2) the statutory bans on unreasonable charges and price discrimination apply with full force regardless of whether carriers have to file tariffs, (3) any suspected violations by non-dominant carriers can be addressed on the Commission’s own motion or on a damages complaint filed pursuant to §206, and (4) the FCC can reimpose a tariff requirement should violations occur. See, e. g., 7 FCC Red, at 8078-8079. The Court does not adequately respond to the FCC’s explanations, and gives no reason whatsoever to doubt the Commission’s considered judgment that tariff filing is altogether unnecessary in the case of competitive carriers, see, e. g., id., at 8073, 8079; the majority’s ineffective enforcement argument lacks any evidentiary or historical support.

The Court’s argument is also demonstrably incorrect. A contemporary cousin of the Communications Act of 1934— the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 13(a), 13a, 13b, enacted in 1936 — contains a much broader prohibition against price discrimination than does the Communications Act. That statute has performed its mission for almost 60 years without any counterpart to the filed rate doctrine. Indeed, the substantive requirements of Title II of the Communications Act itself apply to “connecting carriers” even though § 203(a) exempts such carriers from the § 203 tariff-filing provisions. See 47 U. S. C. § 152(b); National Assn. of Regulatory Utility Commr’s v. F. C. C., 737 F. 2d 1095, 1115, n. 23 (CADC 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1227 (1985). The small fraction of competitive carriers that existed in 1979 now represents about 40% of the market; this growth has occurred while the detariffing policy has been in effect without any indication that the absence of filed schedules has produced discriminatory or unreasonable pricing by nondominant carriers. Extolling the “enormous importance” of filed rates, ante, at 231, and resorting to dictionary definitions and colorful metaphors are unsatisfactory substitutes for a reasoned explanation of why the statute requires rate filing even when the practice serves no useful purpose and actually harms consumers.

The filed tariff provisions of the Communications Act are not ends in themselves, but are merely one of several procedural means for the Commission to ensure that carriers do not charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates. See 84 F. C. C. 2d, at 483. The Commission has reasonably concluded that this particular means of enforcing the statute’s substantive mandates will prove counterproductive in the case of nondominant long-distance carriers. Even if the 1934 Congress did not define the scope of the Commission’s modification authority with perfect scholarly precision, this is surely a paradigm, case for judicial deference to the agency’s interpretation, particularly in a statutory regime so obviously meant to maximize administrative flexibility. Whatever the best reading of § 203(b)(2), the Commission’s reading cannot in my view be termed unreasonable. It is informed (as ours is not) by a practical understanding of the role (or lack thereof) that filed tariffs play in the modern regulatory climate and in the telecommunications industry. Since 1979, the FCC has sought to adapt measures originally designed to control monopoly power to new market conditions. It has carefully and consistently explained that mandatory tariff-filing rules frustrate the core statutory interest in rate reasonableness. The Commission’s use of the “discretion” expressly conferred by § 203(b)(2) reflects “a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference: the regulatory scheme is technical and complex, the agency considered the matter in a detailed and reasoned fashion, and the decision involves reconciling conflicting policies.” Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 865 (1984) (footnotes omitted). The FCC has permissibly interpreted its § 203(b)(2) authority in service of the goals Congress set forth in the Act. We should sustain its eminently sound, experience-tested, and uncommonly well-explained judgment.

I respectfully dissent.

       The Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46791 (1983), extended the Competitive Carrier Rulemakings to carriers providing service to domestic points outside the continental United States, such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.

       Petitioners also cite Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 763 (1991), which includes among its definitions of “modify,” “to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end.” They might also have cited the eighth version of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 739 (1973), which contains that same definition; and Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 544 (1963), which contains the same definition as Webster’s Third New International Dictionary quoted in text. The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionaries, published by G. & C. Merriam Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, are essentially abridgments of that company’s Webster’s New International Dictionaries, and recite that they are based upon those lengthier works. The last New Collegiate to be based upon Webster’s Second New International, rather than Webster’s Third, does not include “basic or fundamental change” among the accepted meanings of “modify.” See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 541 (6th ed. 1949).

       That is not an unlikely hypothesis. Upon its long-awaited appearance in 1961, Webster’s Third was widely criticized for its portrayal of common error as proper usage. See, e. g., Follett, Sabotage in Springfield, 209 Atlantic 73 (Jan. 1962); Barzun, What is a Dictionary? 32 The American Scholar 176, 181 (spring 1963); Macdonald, The String Unwound, 38 The New Yorker 130,156-157 (Mar. 1962). An example is its approval (without qualification) of the use of “infer” to mean “imply”: “infer” “5: to give reason to draw an inference concerning: HINT (did not take part in the debate except to ask a question inferring that the constitution must be changed — Manchester Guardian Weekly).” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1158 (1961).

       The dissent misrepresents what we say in this sentence, see post, at 242, and addresses two paragraphs to an argument we have not made, post, at 242-244. We simply say, as did the Maislin Court, that eliminating the tariff-filing requirement would frustrate complaint proceedings; not that eliminating those requirements, or indeed even eliminating the complaint proceedings, would frustrate the ultimate purposes of the Act. Perhaps, as the dissent asserts, it would not; perhaps even eliminating the FCC would not do so. But we (and the FCC) are bound, not only by the ultimate purposes Congress has selected, but by the means it has deemed appropriate, and prescribed, for the pursuit of those purposes.

       The dissent suggests that we ignore § 203(c) of the Act, which prohibits carriers from providing service in the absence of a filed rate “unless provided by or under the authority of this Act.” The dissent asserts that that phrase must refer to the modification authority of § 203(b)(2). See post, at 239-240. Perhaps it does so — though that would not at all contradict our interpretation of § 203(b)(2), which we have acknowledged, see infra, at 234, might in some limited circumstances permit the Commission to waive the filing requirement. But § 203(c) could just as (in fact, more) easily be read as referring to §203(a)’s express exemption of connecting carriers, §§ 201(b) and 211’s authorization of services between carriers pursuant to contractual rates, §332(c)(l)(A)’s exemptions for mobile carriers, and other express statutory exemptions from filing requirements.

       See Investigation of the Telephone Industry in the United States, H. R. Doc. No. 340, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 145-146 (1939) (chronicling Bell System’s development of a “Nation-wide, unified system to monopolize the telephone part of the national communication field” through the “prevention and elimination of effective competition”). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1273, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. XXXI (1934) (“Telephone business is a monopoly — it is supposed to be regulated”).

       Section 203(b)(2) must do more than merely allow the Commission to dictate the form and contents of tariff filings, for § 203(b)(1) separately grants it that authority.

       As petitioner MCI points out, the revolutionary consent decree providing for the breakup of the Bell System was, per AT&T’s own proposal, entitled “Modification of Final Judgment.” See United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D. C. 1982), aff’d, 460 U. S. 1001 (1983).

       Because the statute imposes no limit on the Commission’s authority to shorten the interval between filing a tariff and bringing it into effect, and because there is no sign that anyone actually pays attention to tariffs filed by nondominant carriers, the additional step of eliminating the filing requirement is less important than the Court would have it. Even the Court appears to recognize that the Commission could sometimes excuse carriers from filing tariffs. See ante, at 234.

       See also 9 Oxford English Dictionary 952 (2d ed. 1989) (“2. To alter in the direction of moderation or lenity; to make less severe, rigorous, or decided; to qualify, tone down .... 1610 Donne Pseudo-martyr 184 ‘For so Mariana modefies his Doctrine, that the Prince should not execute any Clergy man, though hee deser[v]e it’ ”); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1236 (2d ed. 1987) (“5. to reduce or lessen in degree or extent; moderate; soften; to modify one’s demands")', Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1452 (1981) (“1: to make more temperate and less extreme: lessen the severity of; . . . ‘traffic rules were modified to let him pass’ ”); Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 739 (1973) (“1. to make less extreme; MODERATE”); Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 544 (1963) (same); Webster’s New International Dictionary 1577 (2d ed. 1934) (“2. To reduce in extent or degree; to moderate; qualify; lower; as, to modify heat, pain, punishment”); N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (“To moderate; to qualify; to reduce in extent or degree. Of his grace/ He modifies his first severe decree. Dryden”).

       The Court suggests that the Commission’s detarifñng policy disrupts the statutory scheme because 47 U. S. C. § 415(g) defines recoverable ‘“overcharges’” by reference to filed tariffs. See ante, at 230. Overcharge suits, by definition, depend on the presence of tariffs, but they are not the only means for aggrieved telephone customers to recover. Section 206 allows them to recover damages from carriers who have violated the Act and does not turn on the existence of a tariff. See also §§ 208, 415(b).

       The majority considers it unlikely that Congress would have conferred power on the Commission to exempt carriers from the supposedly pivotal rate-filing obligation. See ante, at 231-232. But surely such a delegation is not out of place in a statute that also empowers the FCC, for example, to decide what the “public convenience, interest, or necessity” requires, see, e. g., 47 U. S. C. § 303, and to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest,” § 201(b); see also §154(i). The Court’s rigid reading of § 202(b)(2) is out of step with our prior recognition that the 1934 Act was meant to be a “supple instrument for the exercise of discretion by the expert body which Congress has charged to carry out its legislative policy.” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 138 (1940).


author: Justice Blackmun

text:
    HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. v. NORRIS
    No. 92-2058.
    Argued April 28, 1994
    Decided June 20, 1994

      Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Kenneth B. Hipp argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were David J. Dezzani and Margaret C. Jenkins.

      Susan Oki Mollway argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Edward DeLappe Boyle, Marsha S. Berzon, Mark Schneider, and Laurence Gold.

      Richard H. Seamon argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, John F. Manning, and William Ranter,

      Together with Finazzo et al. v. Norris, also on certiorari to the same court (see this Court’s Rule 12.2).

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of New Jersey by Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney General, Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, and Eldad Philip Isaac, Deputy Attorney General; for the Air Transport Association of America by Charles A Shanor, John J. Gallagher, and Margaret H. Spurlin; and for the National Railway Labor Conference by Ralph J. Moore, Jr., I. Michael Greenberger, and David P. Lee.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Robert A Marks, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Steven

        S. Michaels, Deputy Attorney General, Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, Robert A Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of Illinois, Pamela Fanning Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, Michael E. Carpenter, Attorney General of Maine, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Tom Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, and Richard Weil, Acting Attorney General of the Northern Mariana Islands; for the Allied Educational Foundation by Bertram R. Gelfand and Jeffrey C. Dannenberg; for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Mary Ann B. Oakley, Janette Johnson, and Robert B. Fitzpatrick; and for the Railway Labor Executives’ Association by John O’B. Clarke, Jr.

   Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action involves the scope of federal pre-emption under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. The RLA, which was extended in 1936 to cover the airline industry, see Act of Apr. 10, 1936, ch. 166, 49 Stat. 1189; 45 U. S. C. §§ 181-188, sets up a mandatory arbitral mechanism to handle disputes “growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions,” 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (i). The question in this case is whether an aircraft mechanic who claims that he was discharged for refusing to certify the safety of a plane that he considered unsafe and for reporting his safety concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration may pursue available state-law remedies for wrongful discharge, or whether he may seek redress only through the RLA’s arbitral mechanism. We hold that the RLA does not pre-empt his state-law causes of action.

I

' Respondent Grant Norris is an aircraft mechanic licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). His aircraft mechanic’s license authorizes him to approve an airplane and return it to service after he has made, supervised, or inspected certain repairs performed on that plane. See Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight Crewmembers, 14 CFR §§ 65.85 and 65.87 (1987). If he were to approve any aircraft on which the repairs did not conform to FAA safety regulations, the FAA could suspend or revoke his license. See Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration, 14 CFR §43.12 (1992).

On February 2, 1987, respondent was hired by petitioner Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (HAL). Many of the terms of his employment were governed by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated between the carrier and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Under the CBA, respondent’s duties included inspecting and repairing all parts of a plane and its engine. On July 15, 1987, during a routine preflight inspection of a DC-9 plane, he noticed that one of the tires was worn. When he removed the wheel, respondent discovered that the axle sleeve, which should have been mirror smooth, was scarred and grooved. This damaged sleeve could cause the landing gear to fail. Respondent recommended that the sleeve be replaced, but his supervisor ordered that it be sanded and returned to the plane. This was done, and the plane flew as scheduled. At the end of the shift, respondent refused to sign the maintenance record to certify that the repair had been performed satisfactorily and that the airplane was fit to fly. See 14 CFR § 43.9(a) (1992). The supervisor immediately suspended him pending a termination hearing. Respondent immediately went home and called the FAA to report the problem with the sleeve.

Respondent then invoked the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA, and a “Step 1” grievance hearing was held on July 31, 1987. Petitioner HAL accused respondent of insubordination, claiming that his refusal to sign the record violated the CBA’s provision that an aircraft mechanic “may be required to sign work records in connection with the work he performs.” Respondent relied on the CBA’s guarantees that an employee may not be discharged without just cause and may not be disciplined for refusing to perform work that is in violation of health or safety laws. The hearing officer terminated respondent for insubordination.

Still conforming to the CBA procedures, respondent appealed his termination, seeking a “Step 3” grievance hearing. Before this hearing took place, HAL offered to reduce respondent’s punishment to suspension without pay, but warned him that “any further instance of failure to perform [his] duties in a responsible manner” could result in discharge. Respondent did not respond to this offer, nor, apparently, did he take further steps to pursue his grievance through the CBA procedures.

On December 18, 1987, respondent filed suit against HAL in Hawaii Circuit Court. His complaint included two wrongful-discharge torts — discharge in violation of the public policy expressed in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and implementing regulations, and discharge in violation of Hawaii’s Whistleblower Protection Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 378-61 to 378-69 (1988). He also alleged that HAL had breached the CBA. HAL removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, which dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as pre-empted by the RLA, and remanded the other claims to the state trial court. The trial court then dismissed respondent’s claim of discharge in violation of public policy, holding that it, too, was pre-empted by the RLA’s provision of exclusive arbitral procedures. The state court certified its order as final to permit respondent to take an immediate appeal.

In the meantime, respondent had filed a second lawsuit in state court, naming as defendants three of HAL’s officers who allegedly directed, confirmed, or ratified the claimed retaliatory discharge. He again sought relief for, among other things, discharge in violation of public policy and of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act. The Hawaii trial court dismissed these two counts as pre-empted by the RLA and certified the case for immediate appeal.

The Supreme Court of Hawaii reversed in both cases, concluding that the RLA did not pre-empt respondent’s state tort actions. Norris v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 74 Haw. 235, 842 P. 2d 634 (1992); 74 Haw. 648, 847 P. 2d 263 (1993). That court concluded that the plain language of § 153 First (i) does not support pre-emption of disputes independent of a labor agreement, 74 Haw., at 251, 842 P. 2d, at 642, and interpreted the opinion in Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 491 U. S. 299 (1989) (Conrail), to limit RLA pre-emption to “disputes involving contractually defined rights.” 74 Haw., at 250, 842 P. 2d, at 642. The court rejected petitioners’ argument that the retaliatory discharge claims were pre-empted because determining whether HAL discharged respondent for insubordination, and thus for just cause, required construing the CBA. The court pointed to Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U. S. 399 (1988), a case involving § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 29 U. S. C. § 185, in which the Court held that a claim of wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a state worker’s compensation claim did not require interpretation of a CBA, but depended upon purely factual questions concerning the employee’s conduct and the employer’s motive. Because the same was true in this action, said the Supreme Court of Hawaii, respondent’s state tort claims were not pre-empted.

We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases, 510 U. S. 1083 (1994).

II

A

Whether federal law pre-empts a state law establishing a cause of action is a question of congressional intent. See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 208 (1985). Pre-emption of employment standards “within the traditional police power of the State” “should not be lightly inferred.” Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 21 (1987); see also Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 715 (1985) (a federal statute will be read to supersede a State’s historic powers only if this is “‘the clear and manifest purpose of Congress’ ”).

Congress’ purpose in passing the RLA was to promote stability in labor-management relations by providing a comprehensive framework for resolving labor disputes. Atchison, T.& S. F. R. Co. v. Buell, 480 U. S. 557, 562 (1987); see also 45 U. S. C. § 151a. To realize this goal, the RLA establishes a mandatory arbitral mechanism for “the prompt and orderly settlement” of two classes of disputes. 45 U. S. C. § 151a. The first class, those concerning “rates of pay, rules or working conditions,” ibid., are deemed “major” disputes. Major disputes relate to “‘the formation of collective [bargaining] agreements or efforts to secure them.’” Conrail, 491 U. S., at 302, quoting Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 723 (1945). The second class of disputes, known as “minor” disputes, “gro[w] out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” 45 U. S. C. § 151a. Minor disputes involve “controversies over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement in a particular fact situation.” Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30, 33 (1957). Thus, “major disputes seek to create contractual rights, minor disputes to enforce them.” Conrail, 491 U. S., at 302, citing Burley, 325 U. S., at 723.

Petitioners contend that the conflict over respondent’s firing is a minor dispute. If so, it must be resolved only through the RLA mechanisms, including the carrier’s internal dispute-resolution processes and an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions. See 45 U. S. C. § 184; Buell, 480 U. S., at 563; Conrail, 491 U. S., at 302. Thus, a determination that respondent’s complaints constitute a minor dispute would pre-empt his state-law actions.

B

The Court’s inquiry into the scope of minor disputes begins, of course, with the text of the statute. Petitioners point out that the statute defines minor disputes to include “disputes . . . growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of [CBA’s].” Petitioners argue that this disjunctive language must indicate that “grievances” means something other than labor-contract disputes, else the term “grievances” would be superfluous. Accordingly, petitioners suggest that “grievances” should be read to mean all employment-related disputes, including those based on statutory or common law. Evén if we were persuaded that the word “or” carried this weight, but cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 732 (1993) (reading “error or defect” to create one category of “error”), citing United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 15, n. 12 (1985); McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 358-359 (1987) (second phrase in disjunctive added simply to make the meaning of the first phrase “unmistakable”), petitioners’ interpretation produces an overlap not unlike the one it purports to avoid. Their expansive definition of “grievances” necessarily encompasses disputes growing out of “the interpretation or application” of CBA’s. Thus, in attempting to save the term “grievances” from superfluity, petitioners would make the phrase after the “or” mere surplusage.

We think it more likely that “grievances,” like disputes over “the interpretation or application” of CBA’s, refers to disagreements over how to give effect to the bargained-for agreement. The use of “grievance” to refer to a claim arising out of a CBA is common in the labor-law context in general, see, e. g., Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U. S. 29, 36 (1987), and it has been understood in this way in the RLA context. See H. R. Rep. No. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1934) (referring to RLA settlement of “minor disputes known as ‘grievances,’ which develop from the interpretation and/or application of the contracts between the labor unions and the carriers”). Significantly, the adjustment boards charged with administration of the minor-dispute provisions have understood these provisions as pertaining only to disputes invoking contract-based rights. See, e.g., NRAB Fourth Div. Award No. 4548 (1987) (function of the National Rail Adjustment Board (Board) is to decide disputes in accordance with the controlling CBA); NRAB Third Div. Award No. 24348 (1983) (issues not related to the interpretation or application of contracts are outside the Board’s authority); NRAB Third Div. Award No. 19790 (1973) (“[T]his Board lacks jurisdiction to enforce rights created by State or Federal Statutes and is limited to questions arising out of interpretations and application of Railway Labor Agreements”); Northwest Airlines/Airline Pilots Assn., Int’l System Bd. of Adjustment, Decision of June 28, 1972, p. 13 (“[B]oth the traditional role of the arbitrator and admonitions of the courts require the Board to refrain from attempting to construe any of the provisions of the [RLA]”); United Airlines, Inc., 48 LA 727, 733 (BNA) (1967) (“The jurisdiction of this System Board does not extend to interpreting and applying the Civil Rights Act”).

Accordingly, we believe that the most natural reading of the term “grievances” in this context is as a synonym for disputes involving the application or interpretation of a CBA. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1585 (1986) (the word “or” may be used to indicate “the synonymous, equivalent, or substitutive character of two words or phrases”). Nothing in the legislative history of the RLA or other sections of the statute undermines this conclusion. But even accepting that § 151a is susceptible of more than one interpretation, no proposed interpretation demonstrates a clear and manifest congressional purpose to create a regime that broadly pre-empts substantive protections extended by the States, independent of any negotiated labor agreement.

C

Our case law confirms that the category of minor disputes contemplated by § 151a are those that are grounded in the CBA. We have defined minor disputes as those involving the interpretation or application of existing labor agreements. See, e. g., Conrail, 491 U. S., at 805 (“The distinguishing feature of [a minor dispute] is that the dispute may be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing [CBA]”); Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 491 U. S. 490, 496, n. 4 (1989) (“Minor disputes are those involving the interpretation or application of existing contracts”); Trainmen, 358 U. S., at 33 (minor disputes are “controversies over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement”); Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, 243 (1950) (RLA arbitral mechanism is meant to provide remedies for “adjustment of railroad-employee disputes growing out of the interpretation of existing agreements”).

Moreover, we have held that the RLA’s mechanism for resolving minor disputes does not pre-empt causes of action to enforce rights that are independent of the CBA. More than 60 years ago, the Court rejected a railroad’s argument that the existence of the RLA arbitration scheme preempted a state statute regulating the number of workers required to operate certain equipment. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U. S. 249, 258 (1931) (“No analysis or discussion of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 is necessary to show that it does not conflict with the Arkansas statutes under consideration”). Not long thereafter, the Court rejected a claim that the RLA pre-empted an order by the Illinois Commerce Commission requiring cabooses on all trains; the operative CBA required cabooses only on some of the trains. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis v. Train men, 318 U. S. 1 (1943). Although the Court assumed that a railroad adjustment board would have jurisdiction under the RLA over this dispute, id., at 6, it concluded that the state law was enforceable nonetheless:

“State laws have long regulated a great variety of conditions in transportation and industry, such as sanitary facilities and conditions, safety devices and protections, purity of water supply, fire protection, and innumerable others. Any of these matters might, we suppose, be the subject of a demand by work[ers] for better protection and upon refusal might be the subject of a labor dispute which would have such effect on interstate commerce that federal agencies might be invoked to deal with some phase of it. . . . But it cannot be said that the minimum requirements laid down by state authority are all set aside. We hold that the enactment by Congress of the [RLA] was not a preemption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves ....” Id., at 6-7.

Thus, under Norwood, substantive protections provided by state law, independent of whatever labor agreement might govern, are not pre-empted under the RLA.

Although Norwood and Terminal Railroad involved state workplace safety laws, the Court has taken a consistent approach in the context of state actions for wrongful discharge. In Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 406 U. S. 320 (1972), the Court held that a state-law claim of wrongful termination was pre-empted, not because the RLA broadly pre-empts state-law claims based on discharge or discipline, but because the employee’s claim was firmly rooted in a breach of the CBA itself. He asserted no right independent of that agreement:

“Here it is conceded by all that the only source of [Andrews’] right not to be discharged, and therefore to treat an alleged discharge as a ‘wrongful’ one that entitles him to damages, is the [CBA]____[T]he disagreement turns on the extent of [the railroad’s] obligation to restore [Andrews] to his regular duties following injury in an automobile accident. The existence and extent of such an obligation in a case such as this will depend on the interpretation of the [CBA]. Thus [Andrews’] claim, and [the railroad’s] disallowance of it, stem from differing interpretations of the [CBA]. . . . His claim is therefore subject to the Act’s requirement that it be submitted to the Board for adjustment.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added).

Here, in contrast, the CBA is not the “only source” of respondent’s right not to be discharged wrongfully. In fact, the “only source” of the right respondent asserts in this action is state tort law. Wholly apart from any provision of the CBA, petitioners had a state-law obligation not to fire respondent in violation of public policy or in retaliation for whistle-blowing. The parties’ obligation under the RLA to arbitrate disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of the CBA did not relieve petitioners of this duty.

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Buell, 480 U. S. 557 (1987), confirms that “minor disputes” subject to RLA arbitration are those that involve duties and rights created or defined by the CBA. In Buell, a railroad employee sought damages for workplace injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., which provides a remedy for a railroad worker injured through an employer’s or co-worker’s negligence. The railroad argued that, because the alleged injury resulted from conduct that was subject to the CBA, the employee’s sole remedy was through RLA arbitration. The Court unanimously rejected this argument, emphasizing that the rights derived from the FELA were independent of the CBA:

“The fact that an injury otherwise compensable under the FELA was caused by conduct that may have been subject to arbitration under the RLA does not deprive an employee of his opportunity to bring an FELA action for damages. . .. The FELA not only provides railroad workers with substantive protection against negligent conduct that is independent of the employer’s obligations under its collective-bargaining agreement, but also affords injured workers a remedy suited to their needs, unlike the limited relief that seems to be available through the Adjustment Board. It is inconceivable that Congress intended that a worker who suffered a disabling injury would be denied recovery under the FELA simply because he might also be able to process a narrow labor grievance under the RLA to a successful conclusion.” 480 U. S., at 564-565.

It likened Buell to other cases in which the Court had concluded that “notwithstanding the strong policies encouraging arbitration, ‘different considerations apply where the employee’s claim is based on rights arising out of a statute designed to provide minimum substantive guarantees to individual workers,’” id., at 565, quoting Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728, 737 (1981), and distinguished it from Andrews, which involved a state wrongful-discharge claim “based squarely” on an alleged breach of a CBA, 480 U. S., at 566.

D

The pre-emption standard that emerges from the line of cases leading to Buell — that a state-law cause of action is not pre-empted by the RLA if it involves rights and obligations that exist independent of the CBA — is virtually identical to the pre-emption standard the Court employs in cases involving § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U. S. C. § 185. In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), the Court applied § 301 pre-emption to a state-law claim for bad-faith handling of a worker’s compensation claim because the duties the employer owed the employee, including the duty of good faith, were rooted firmly in the CBA. Its pre-emption finding was based on the fact that “the right asserted not only derives from the contract, but is defined by the contractual obligation of good faith, [so that] any attempt to assess liability here inevitably will involve contract interpretation.” Id., at 218.

It cautioned, however, that other state-law rights, those that existed independent of the contract, would not be similarly pre-empted:

“Of course, not every dispute concerning employment, or tangentially involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement, is pre-empted by §301 or other provisions of the federal labor law. ... Nor is there any suggestion that Congress, in adopting §301, wished to give the substantive provisions of private agreements the force of federal law, ousting any inconsistent state regulation.... Clearly, § 301 does not grant the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law. In extending the pre-emptive effect of §301 beyond suits for breach of contract, it would be inconsistent with congressional intent under that section to pre-empt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.” Id., at 211-212.

In a case remarkably similar to the case before us now, this Court made clear that the existence of a potential CBA-based remedy did not deprive an employee of independent remedies available under state law. In Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U. S. 399 (1988), an employee covered by a labor agreement was fired for filing an allegedly false worker’s compensation claim. After filing a grievance pursuant to her CBA, which protected employees against discharge except for “proper” or “just” cause, she filed a complaint in state court, alleging that she had been discharged for exercising her rights under Illinois worker’s compensation laws. The state court had held her state-law claim preempted because “the same analysis of the facts” was required in both the grievance proceeding and the state-court action. This Court reversed.

It recognized that where the resolution of a state-law claim depends on an interpretation of the CBA, the claim is preempted. Id., at 405-406, citing Lueck, supra; Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962). It observed, however, that “purely factual questions” about an employee’s conduct or an employer’s conduct and motives do not “requir[e] a court to interpret any term of a collective-bargaining agreement.” 486 U. S., at 407. The state-law retaliatory discharge claim turned on just this sort of purely factual question: whether the employee was discharged or threatened with discharge, and, if so, whether the employer’s motive in discharging her was to deter or interfere with her exercise of rights under Illinois worker’s compensation law.

While recognizing that “the state-law analysis might well involve attention to the same factual considerations as the contractual determination of whether Lingle was fired for just cause,” id., at 408, the Court disagreed that

“such parallelism rendered] the state-law analysis dependent upon the contractual analysis. For while there may be instances in which the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts state law on the basis of the subject matter of the law in question, § 301 pre-emption merely ensures that federal law will be the basis for interpreting collective-bargaining agreements, and says nothing about the substantive rights a State may provide to workers when adjudication of those rights does not depend upon the interpretation of such agreements. In other words, even if dispute resolution pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, on the one hand, and state law, on the other, would require addressing precisely the same set of facts, as long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for §301 pre-emption purposes.” Id., at 408-410.

The Court’s ruling in Lingle that the LMRA pre-empts state law only if a state-law claim is dependent on the interpretation of a CBA is fully consistent with the holding in Buell, 480 U. S., at 564-565, that the RLA does not pre-empt “substantive protection ... independent of the [CBA],” with the holding in Terminal Railroad, 318 U. S., at 7, that the RLA does not pre-empt basic “protection . . .. laid down by state authority,” with the conclusion in Andrews, 406 U. S., at 324, that a state-law claim is pre-empted where it “depend[s] on the interpretation” of the CBA, and with the description in Conmil, 491 U. S., at 305, of a minor dispute as one that can be “conclusively resolved” by reference to an existing CBA. Lingle, in fact, expressly relied on Buell, see 486 U. S., at 411-412, just as earlier RLA cases have drawn analogies to LMRA principles, see, e. g., Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372 U. S. 682, 692 (1963). Given this convergence in the pre-emption standards under the two statutes, we conclude that Lingle provides an appropriate framework for addressing pre-emption under the RLA, and we adopt the Lingle standard to resolve claims of RLA pre-emption.

E

In reaching this conclusion, we reject petitioners’ suggestion that this contract-dependent standard for minor disputes is inconsistent with two of our prior cases, Elgin, J & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711 (1945), and Conrail, 491 U. S., at 302. Burley was not a pre-emption case. Rather, it concerned the authority of union officials to settle railroad workers’ individual claims for damages for alleged violations of the CBA. The railroad urged that the union representative, who had the authority to negotiate CBA’s in major disputes, enjoyed similar authority to settle individual claims in minor disputes. In the course of rejecting this claim, the Court described minor disputes as including the “omitted case,” that is, one “founded upon some incident of the employment relation, or asserted one, independent of those covered by the collective agreement, e. g., claims on account of personal injuries.” 325 U. S., at 723.

This language is sweeping, but its effect is limited. The conflict in Burley, which the parties agreed was a minor dispute, concerned the terms of a CBA, and not some other “incident of the employment relationship,” or any “omitted case.” These references, therefore, are dicta. Moreover, even the “omitted case” dictum logically can refer to a norm that the parties have created but have omitted from the CBA’s explicit language, rather than to a norm established by a legislature or a court. Finally, Burley’s one specific example of an “omitted case” — claims for personal injury that do not depend on the contract — was found in Buell to be outside the RLA’s exclusive jurisdiction. Nonetheless, to avoid any confusion, we expressly disavow any language in Burley suggesting that minor disputes encompass state-law claims that exist independent of the CBA.

Conrail, like Burley, involved no pre-emption analysis. The parties agreed that the dispute — a workers’ challenge to the railroad’s drug-testing policies — was governed by the RLA, because Conrail’s policy of conducting physical examinations was an implied term of the CBA. 491 U. S., at 301. The only question before the Court was whether the employer’s drug-testing policy constituted an attempt to add a new term to the existing agreement, making it a major dispute subject to a “protracted process” of bargaining and mediation, id., at 303, or whether the testing reflected the employer’s interpretation and application of an implied term of the existing contract, producing a minor dispute subject to a less onerous process of arbitration. We concluded that the dispute was minor, stating that “[t]he distinguishing feature of [a minor dispute] is that the dispute may be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing [CBA].” Id., at 305, citing Garrison, The National Railroad Adjustment Board: A Unique Administrative Agency, 46 Yale L. J. 567, 568, 576 (1937). Obviously, to say that a minor dispute can be “conclusively resolved” by interpreting the CBA is another way of saying that the dispute does not involve rights that exist independent of the CBA.

Petitioners, however, pin their hopes on the observation that “[w]here an employer asserts a contractual right to take the contested action, the ensuing dispute is minor if the action is arguably justified by the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.” 491 U. S., at 307 (emphasis added). They argue that this action involves a minor dispute because the termination of respondent was “arguably justified” by the CBA’s provision permitting termination for “just cause.” This “arguably justified” standard, however, was employed only for policing the line between major and minor disputes. Recognizing that accepting a party’s characterization of a dispute as “minor” ran the risk of undercutting the RLA’s prohibition “against unilateral imposition of new contractual terms,” id., at 306, the Court held that a dispute would be deemed minor only if there was a sincere, nonfrivolous argument that it turned on the application of the existing agreement, that is, if it was “arguably justified” by . that agreement. Obviously, this test said nothing about the threshold question whether the dispute was subject to the RLA in the first place.

Ill

Returning to the action before us, the question under Lingle is whether respondent’s state-law wrongful-discharge claims are independent of the CBA. Petitioners argue that resort to the CBA is necessary to determine whether respondent, in fact, was discharged. This argument is foreclosed by Lingle itself. Lingle teaches that the issue to be decided in this action — whether the employer’s actions make out the element of discharge under Hawaii law — is a “purely factual questio[n].” 486 U. S., at 407.

Nor are we persuaded by petitioners’ contention that the state tort claims require a determination whether the discharge, if any, was justified by respondent’s failure to sign the maintenance record, as the CBA required him to do. Although such a determination would be required with regard to respondent's separate allegation of discharge in violation of the CBA, the District Court dismissed that count as preempted by the RLA, and respondent does not challenge that dismissal. The state tort claims, by contrast, require only the purely factual inquiry into any retaliatory motive of the employer.

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court of Hawaii that respondent’s claims for discharge in violation of public policy and in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act are not pre-empted.by the RLA, and we affirm that court’s judgment.

It is so ordered.

       In response, the FAA initiated a comprehensive investigation, proposed a civil penalty of $964,000 against HAL, proposed the revocation of the license of the supervisor who terminated respondent, and ultimately settled all charges for a substantial fine.

       The Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act forbids an employer to “discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee . . . because . . . [t]he employee . . . reports or is about to report to a public body ... a violation or a suspected violation of a law or rule adopted pursuant to law of this State, a political subdivision of this State, or the United States, unless the employee knows that the report is false.” § 378-62(1). The Act authorizes an employee to file a civil action seeking injunctive relief and actual damages. §378-63(a).

       These managerial officers, petitioners here, are Paul J. Finazzo, Howard E. Ogden, and Hatsuo Honma.

       During the debates surrounding the RLA’s enactment in 1926, floor statements that, in isolation, could support a broader interpretation of “grievances” were counterbalanced by other statements — some even by the same legislators — that equated grievances with contract interpretation. Compare 67 Cong. Rec. 4517, 8807 (1926), with id., at 4510, 8808. This inconclusive debate hardly calls for fashioning a broad rule of preemption. Moreover, in 1934 when Congress amended the RLA to make arbitration mandatory for minor disputes, the accompanying House Report stated that the bill was intended “to provide sufficient and effective means for the settlement of minor disputes known as ‘grievances,’ which develop from the interpretation and/or application of the contracts between the labor unions and the carriers, fixing wages and working conditions.” H. R. Rep. No. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1934).

       Petitioners cite the statute’s reference to the parties’ general duties as including “settl[ing] all disputes, whether arising out of the application of [collective bargaining] agreements or otherwise.” 45 U. S. C. § 152 First. This provision, which is phrased more broadly than the operative language of § 153 Frst (i), does not clearly refer only to minor disputes. But even if this provision is read to require parties to try to settle certain issues arising out of the employment relationship but not specifically addressed by the CBA, this does not compel the conclusion that all issues touching on the employment relationship must be resolved through arbitration or that all claims involving rights and duties that exist independent of the CBA are thereby pre-empted. Our precedents squarely reject this pervasive pre-emption.

        Buell, of course, involved possible RLA preclusion of a cause of action arising out of & federal statute, while this case involves RLA pre-emption of a cause of action arising out of state law and existing entirely independent of the CBA. That distinction does not rob Buell of its force in this context. See Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U. S. 399, 412 (1988) (Buell principles applicable to determine whether federal labor law pre-empts a state statute). Principles of federalism demand no less caution in finding that a federal statute pre-empts state law. See Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 21 (1987) (pre-emption of state statute “should not be lightly inferred in this [labor] area, since the establishment of labor standards falls within the traditional police power of the State”).

       Section 301(a) provides federal-court jurisdiction over controversies involving CBA’s and “authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal lav? for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U. S. 448, 451 (1957).

       The Court applies these principles in Livadas v. Bradshaw, in which we reject the claim that an employee’s state-law right to receive a penalty payment from her employer was pre-empted under §301 because the penalty was pegged to her wages, which were determined by the governing CBA. The Court states that “when the meaning of contract terms is not the subject of dispute, the bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation plainly does not require the claim to be extinguished.” Ante, at 124, citing Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U. S., at 413, n. 12. In addition, it reaffirms that “§ 301 cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law.” Ante, at 123.

       It is true, as petitioners observe, that the RLA and the LMRA are not identical in language, history, and purpose. The LMRA, unlike the RLA, does not mandate arbitration, nor does it prescribe the types of disputes to be submitted to arbitration under bargaining agreements. Nonetheless, the common purposes of the two statutes, the parallel development of RLA and LMRA pre-emption law, see, e. g., Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372 U. S. 682, 691-692 (1963); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 210 (1985), and the desirability of having a uniform common law of labor law pre-emption, cf. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 383-384 (1969), support the application of the Lingle standard in RLA cases as well.
      Lower courts, too, have recognized the appropriateness of the Lingle standard to RLA pre-emption analysis. See, e. g., Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc., 2 F. 3d 590, 595 (CA5 1993) (applying Lingle to analyze RLA pre-emption); Davies v. American Airlines, Inc., 971 F. 2d 463, 466-467 (CA10 1992) (same), cert. denied, 508 U. S. 950 (1993); O’Brien v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 972 F. 2d 1, 4 (CA1 1992) (same), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 1054 (1993); Maher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N. J. 455, 472-473, 593 A. 2d 750, 758 (1991) (same). But see, e. g., Hubbard v. United Airlines, Inc., 927 F. 2d 1094, 1097 (CA9 1991) (Lingle does not govern in RLA cases); Lorenz v. CSX Transp., Inc., 980 F. 2d 263, 268 (CA4 1992) (same).

       See Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 396 U. S. 142,164-155 (1969) (“Where a condition is satisfactorily tolerable to both sides, it is often omitted, from the agreement, and it has been suggested that this practice is more frequent in the railroad industry than in most others”) (emphasis added); Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 491 U. S. 299, 311-312 (1989) (recognizing that CBA’s include implied terms arising from “ ‘practice, usage and custom’”); see also Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U. S. 574, 578-579 (1960) (a CBA is “more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draft[ers] cannot wholly anticipate”).