Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. Transportation Security Administration
405 U.S. App. D.C. 112
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- TSA promulgates TFSSPs for twelve-five operations (aircraft >12,500 lbs carrying passengers and/or cargo).
- Suburban operates under an approved TFSSP, including Sections 6.2 (ID verification) and 8.1 (custody and control of cargo).
- October 6, 2009, a TSA inspector observed a Suburban flight at Richmond loading DHL shipments; pilot was unaccompanied by Suburban personnel for ID checks.
- DHL employees escorted the pilot into the secured area; the pilot claimed he verified his own ID and did not continuously supervise loading.
- TSA charged Suburban with violations of ID-check and custody-and-control provisions; an ALJ imposed an $18,000 fine, which the TSA Administrator affirmed.
- Suburban argued TFSSP did not apply because DHL shipments lacked a specific air waybill; TSA found DHL shipments accounted for on air waybills in general practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did TFSSP apply to the October 6 flight? | Suburban: no cargo = no TFSSP applicability due to no air waybill. | TSA: DHL shipments are accounted for on air waybills; TFSSP applies to twelve-five operations. | TFSSP applied; cargo was accounted for on an air waybill. |
| Whether Section 6.2's ID-check applies to a single-pilot operation | ID-check cannot reasonably cover a sole pilot; 'crewmember' can't mean one person. | TFSSP defines crewmember to include solo pilots; an authorized representative could perform checks. | TFSSP reasonable to include single-pilot operations; compliance possible via an authorized representative. |
| Whether Suburban violated Section 8.1 by failing to supervise custody of cargo | DHL personnel were handling cargo under their own security agreement; Suburban supervision unnecessary. | TFSSP requires Suburban employees/representatives to maintain custody; pilot supervision is required. | Suburban violated Section 8.1; pilot supervision of cargo is required even if DHL screened cargo. |
| Fair notice of TSA’s interpretations of TFSSP provisions | Suburban lacked notice of the interpretations applied to Sections 6.2 and 8.1. | TFSSP language was clear and Suburban had prior discussions and opportunity to dispute at hearing. | No fair-notice violation; due process satisfied; deference maintained to agency interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. TSA, 588 F.3d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (deference to agency's regulatory interpretations under APA review)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (deference to agency interpretations when reviewing regulations)
- General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (fair notice and reasonableness in agency interpretations)
- Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (fair notice and enforcement actions)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (change in agency interpretation and notice considerations)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (notice and agency interpretation concerns)
- FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P. v. FERC, 430 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (deference to tariff interpretations by specialized agencies)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 247 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (deference to agency interpretations of regulatory documents)