Safe Extensions, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
379 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 509 F.3d 593 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency's factual judgments are not supported by substantial evidence. An agency's unsupported assertions, particularly when capable of exact proof, do not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to justify a decision.

Facts:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates two types of runway light bases: 'adjustable' products, manufactured by Safe Extensions, Inc., and 'fixed' products made by competitors.
From 1970 to 2005, both types of bases were subject to the same torque test performed on the products after being installed in concrete or grout.
In April 2005, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 42D, which required only adjustable products to pass the torque test.
In May 2006, Advisory Circular 42E made the test for adjustable products significantly more stringent by requiring it to be conducted on a 'freestanding' basis, not installed in concrete as it would be in the field.
Several companies complained to the FAA that the new freestanding test was impossible to pass and would eliminate the use of adjustable products.
FAA officials communicated to industry members, including Safe Extensions, that the agency was revising AC-42E and that they should wait for the new version, AC-42F.
The FAA then issued a draft of AC-42F that maintained the stringent freestanding torque test for adjustable products while continuing to exempt fixed products.
In an internal response to industry comments, an FAA employee asserted without evidence that fixed products have inherent anti-rotational devices while adjustable ones do not, and that there were 'known examples' of failures with adjustable products.

Procedural Posture:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Advisory Circular 150/5345-42F (AC-42F) on October 17, 2006.
Safe Extensions, Inc. filed a petition for review of AC-42F in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 15, 2006.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) engage in arbitrary and capricious agency action by imposing a stringent freestanding torque test on 'adjustable' runway light bases while exempting competing 'fixed' light bases, when its justifications for the differential treatment are based on unsupported factual assertions?

Opinions:

Majority - Tatel, J.

Yes. The FAA's decision to treat adjustable and fixed products differently is arbitrary and capricious because it is not supported by substantial evidence. An agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious if its factual judgments are not supported by substantial evidence. Here, the FAA offered three justifications for the differential treatment: 1) that adjustable products are newer, 2) that they lack anti-rotational features found in fixed products, and 3) that there were reports of field failures. However, the FAA provided no evidence to support the first claim, only an employee's unsupported assertion for the second, and its third claim was contradicted by comments from industry installers who reported no field issues. An agency's unsupported declaration of fact, especially when capable of proof, is insufficient to survive judicial review under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Analysis:

This case strongly reaffirms the principle that agency expertise is not a substitute for evidence. The court clarifies that even in informal adjudications, like the issuance of an advisory circular, an agency's factual conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence to withstand an 'arbitrary and capricious' challenge. The decision serves as a significant check on agency power, preventing agencies from making decisions with major economic impacts on regulated parties based on mere assertions or internal beliefs. It establishes that courts will not defer to an agency's unsubstantiated claims and will require a reasoned explanation grounded in evidence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Safe Extensions, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"