882 F.3d 1157
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Airmotive Engineering Corp. and Engine Components International (Airmotive) manufacture PMA replacement cylinder assemblies (AEC63) for piston aircraft engines; FAA alleged higher failure rates and issued an airworthiness directive (AD) requiring phased removal and prohibiting future installation.
- FAA initiated notice-and-comment rulemaking (NPRM, supplemental NPRMs) after reports of head-to-barrel separations, cracked/leaking heads, and NTSB and inspector recommendations; an independent FAA team advised a less aggressive compliance schedule.
- FAA concluded AEC63 failures occur at a rate about 32 times higher than the original manufacturer and that failures can cause ~20% power loss, increased vibration, in-flight fire risk, asymmetric thrust on twins, and have been a factor in fatal accidents.
- Using FAA Order 8040.4A risk-matrix methodology, FAA rated severity as "hazardous" and likelihood as "remote," resulting in an overall "unacceptable" risk and requiring safety controls (removal).
- Airmotive petitioned for judicial review arguing the FAA misapplied the risk methodology, relied on insufficient/subpar evidence (comparative data, accident reports, in-flight fire evidence), inflated failure rates, and failed to consider risks of replacement itself.
- The court reviewed under the APA substantial-evidence/arbitrary-and-capricious standard and denied the petition, holding FAA applied its methodology properly and its findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | FAA’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA’s use of Order 8040.4A produced a reasoned risk assessment | FAA: Methodology misapplied; FAA should reassess risk | FAA: Properly applied Order 8040.4A to severity and likelihood | Court: FAA applied methodology properly; no remand required |
| Whether evidence supports "hazardous" severity finding | FAA mischaracterized 20% power loss; other FAA guidelines call partial loss "minor" | 20% power loss causes ~40% climb-rate loss and other hazardous effects | Court: Substantial evidence supports "hazardous" severity |
| Whether likelihood/failure-rate calculation is supported | FAA inflated failure rate; population/count errors | FAA relied on production/service reports, adjusted for removed units, and reconciled counts | Court: FAA’s calculation supported by record and Airmotive’s own report |
| Whether reliance on comparative data and non-AEC63 accident reports was permissible | Comparisons and non-AEC63 crashes are inadequate to show unsafe condition for AEC63 | Comparative data and crash reports are relevant for replacement parts and show dangerous consequences of cylinder failures | Court: Comparative and accident evidence reasonably relied upon; substantial evidence supports AD |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
- Clark Cty., Nev. v. FAA, 522 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (deference to agency technical judgments in aviation rulemaking)
- Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (definition of substantial evidence review in agency factfinding)
- S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence and arbitrary-and-capricious standards in rulemaking are equivalent)