864 F.3d 738
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Flyers Rights (Paul Hudson) petitioned the FAA (Aug. 26, 2015) to adopt minimum seat-size/spacing rules and a moratorium on further reductions, citing decreases in seat pitch/width and increases in passenger size that may impair emergency evacuation and cause health problems (e.g., DVT, soreness).
- FAA denied the petition (Feb. 1, 2016), concluding concerns were primarily health/comfort issues and asserting evacuation demonstrations show egress is possible at narrow pitches; FAA cited some internal studies and medical sources but did not place key evacuation tests in the public record.
- Flyers Rights sought court review, arguing (1) FAA lacked a plausible evidentiary basis to conclude reduced seat dimensions and larger passengers do not impair emergency egress, and (2) FAA wrongly declined to consider passenger health and comfort within its regulatory authority.
- The D.C. Circuit applied arbitrary-and-capricious review of an agency refusal to initiate rulemaking (a deferential but not toothless standard) and examined whether the FAA employed reasoned decisionmaking supported by the record.
- The court concluded the FAA failed to provide adequate record support for its egress-related conclusions (noting reliance on undisclosed/proprietary tests and studies that did not address seat dimensions or larger passengers) and remanded for further explanation or supplementation of the record.
- The court rejected Flyers Rights’ challenge to FAA’s declination to regulate routine comfort issues and upheld FAA’s decision not to initiate rulemaking on non-urgent health/comfort concerns (but recognized FAA does have statutory authority to address some passenger health matters when warranted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA reasonably concluded reduced seat pitch/width and larger passengers do not impair emergency egress | FAA’s denial lacks record support; seat dimensions and passenger size plausibly affect evacuation speed | Evacuation demonstrations and agency studies show egress is achievable even at 28–29" pitch; seat pitch alone not dispositive | FAA’s conclusion was unsupported: agency relied on studies/tests not in record or not addressing pitch/size; remand for adequate explanation/record support |
| Whether FAA may rely on undisclosed/proprietary evacuation tests in denying petition | Agency cannot defeat judicial review by citing unseen data it materially relied upon | Some CBI may be withheld, but FAA did not justify withholding or submit sealed/redacted materials | Court: cannot defer to undisclosed evidence the agency relies on; FAA must provide accessible support or rationale; remand ordered |
| Whether FAA must consider passenger health & comfort (e.g., DVT, soreness) when deciding to initiate rulemaking | Health (including DVT) is part of FAA’s safety/health mandate; FAA should address health/comfort concerns | Issues like routine comfort and non-immediate health risks fall outside immediate safety rulemaking priorities; FAA has discretion to allocate resources | Court: FAA may decline to initiate rulemaking on routine comfort or non-urgent health concerns; upheld FAA’s refusal as reasonable re: DVT/comfort, while noting FAA has authority to address some health issues when warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallaesa v. Federal Aviation Admin., 824 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir.) (FAA may promulgate regulations reasonably related to safety in flight)
- Bargmann v. Helms, 715 F.2d 638 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (FAA authority includes regulating safety aspects and certain passenger health matters)
- Safe Extensions, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing FAA action as arbitrary and capricious)
- WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 751 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (narrow review of agency refusal to act; courts ask whether agency employed reasoned decisionmaking)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (agency discretion in choosing how to marshal limited resources; narrow review of inaction)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (deference to agency refusal to institute rulemaking is high)
- United States Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 584 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (agency reliance on data not in record undermines reviewability)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency declarations of fact unsupported by evidence are insufficient)
- MD Pharm., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 133 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (permissible withholding of confidential business information in limited circumstances)
- Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (disclosure rules regarding intermingled exempt and non-exempt material)
- CTS Corp. v. EPA, 759 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (parties should present arguments in opening brief; courts review the agency record before it)
- WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (typical minimal record required when agency rejects a petition)
- American Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Lyng, 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (rare circumstances justify ordering agency to initiate rulemaking)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand appropriate when record does not support agency action)
- Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (necessity of disclosing technical studies in informal rulemaking)
- Air Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. FERC, 650 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1981) (official notice of unspecified internal information impedes review)