Association of Flight Attendan v. Michael Huerta
415 U.S. App. D.C. 111
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- FAA issued Notice N8900.240 (Oct 31, 2013) guiding PED use and carry-on baggage stowage to inspectors and airlines
- AFA filed petition for review (Dec 30, 2013) alleging APA notice-and-comment violation and finality issue
- FAA contends Notice is non-final, non-binding guidance, lacking final agency action for §46110(a) jurisdiction
- Court applies finality test: consummation of decisionmaking and creation of rights/obligations; Notice fails both
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n confirms interpretive rules lack force of law and need not follow APA notice-and-comment
- Notice remains nonbinding guidance; does not require airline policy change and leaves inspector discretion intact
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Notice N8900.240 is final agency action | AFA argues final action exists under §46110(a) | FAA argues notice is not final action | No final agency action; jurisdiction lacks |
| Whether Notice is a legislative rule or binding | AFA contends it effectively changes regulations | FAA says it's nonbinding policy/interpretive rule | Not a legislative rule; nonbinding guidance |
| Whether Notice conflicts with existing regulations | AFA claims inconsistency with 14 C.F.R. § 121.589 | FAA maintains no conflict; consistent with regime | No irreconcilable conflict; no amendment to regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) (interpretive rules lack force of law; need not follow notice-and-comment)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (finality requires consummation and legal consequences)
- Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (policy statements inform discretion; not binding)
- Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (binding vs non-binding; language and context matter)
- Auto Safety Consultants v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (guidance that is not binding)
- Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 716 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1983) (smog of guidance vs binding rule; factor of agency discretion)
- Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (substantive rule has force of law when binding)