Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

These consolidated petitions concerned proposed alternatives to security procedures mandated by the TSA. Amerijet requested alternative cargo screening procedures at various foreign airports it services and the TSA largely denied these requests. Amerijet petitioned for review, arguing that TSA's denials failed for want of reasoned decisionmaking and that TSA's actions violated Amerijet's right to equal protection of the law. The court concluded that, even under a highly deferential standard of review, TSA's denials were arbitrary and capricious as to most of Amerijet's requests where TSA failed to adequately explain most of its denials. Because the court had no meaningful basis to evaluate TSA's decisionmaking, the court remanded, excluding two issues. Accordingly, Amerijet's equal protection claim is unripe and the court dismissed the claim without prejudice.View "Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. Pistole" on Justia Law

Lilliputian, manufacturer of micro fuel cells powered by butane, challenged the prohibition in a final rule against airline passengers and crew carrying butane fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage. Lilliputian argued that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious in light of the dissimilar treatment of other products that were not subject to the rigorous safety specifications imposed on fuel cell cartridges. The court concluded that the Safety Administration failed to provide the required "reasoned explanation and substantial evidence" for the disparate treatment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Safety Administration to provide further explanation for the prohibition, including its response to Lilliputian's comments. View "Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FAA's no hazard determinations in 2012 for proposed wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The court concluded that the FAA could reasonably view its Handbook procedures implementing the Secretary's regulations to establish a threshold finding necessary to trigger a further "adverse effects" analysis; given the record evidence and the level of FAA expertise involved in drawing factual conclusions from the reports, conducting the aeronautical study, and responding to comments, petitioners failed to show that the FAA findings were unsupported by substantial evidence; and petitioners' contention that the FAA was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332, to perform or participate in an analysis of the environmental impacts of its no hazard determinations was based on a flawed premise. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Town of Barnstable, MA v. FAA" on Justia Law

HAI challenged the FAA's issuance of a rule requiring helicopter pilots to use a route one mile off the north shore of Long Island, New York for the purpose of noise abatement in residential areas. The court concluded that under the plain text of 49 U.S.C. 40103, the FAA had authority to prescribe air traffic regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and HAI pointed to no express limitations on the FAA's general authority in such matters; HAI's contentions that the FAA's finding that there was noise problem was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Final Rule was an impermissible deviation from longstanding FAA authority; and the court rejected HAI's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court denied HAI's petition for review. View "Helicopter Assoc. Int'l v. FAA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in Adams v. United States challenged the nonretroactivity and protection-for-compliance provisions of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act of 2007 (FTEPA), Pub. L. No. 110-135, 121 Stat. 1450, as well as the FAA's implementation of these provisions. These provisions repealed the "Age 60 Rule" and extended the maximum age for piloting commercial flights by five years. Plaintiffs in Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc., supplemented their constitutional objections with state and federal claims against their employer, United, and their union, ALPA, for advancing allegedly discriminatory interpretations of the nonretroactivity provision they knew to be incorrect. The court concluded that the FTEPA passed constitutional muster and should be interpreted as the Emory defendants have done. Therefore, the court affirmed the district courts' judgments as to all claims not dismissed as moot. View "Emory v. United Airlines, Inc. " on Justia Law

This is an appeal from the denial of attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(1). After commencing an administrative civil penalties proceeding, the FAA withdrew its complaint and the ALJ before whom the complaint had been pending dismissed the proceedings with prejudice. Nonetheless, the FAA Administrator ruled that the subject of the complaint was not a "prevailing party" as that term had been interpreted in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res. Because the dismissal with prejudice had res judicata effect and ended the proceedings, the court granted the petition and remanded the case to the Administrator to determine whether the filing of the complaint was substantially justified, and if not, to award fees. View "Green Aviation Mgmt Co., LLC v. FAA" on Justia Law

American Airlines (American) petitioned for review of the TSA's denial of a request for reimbursement of American's expenditures on an "in-line" baggage-screening system in its new terminal at JFK International Airport. American argued that the TSA failed to comply with Congress's requirements for the agency's reimbursement determinations. Because the TSA either failed to base its reimbursement decision on the prioritization list mandated in 49 U.S.C. 44923 or failed to create a suitable prioritization list in the first place, the court granted American's petition and remanded to the TSA for further proceedings. View "American Airlines, Inc. v. TSA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the NTSB's order affirming emergency revocation of his airman and medical certificates, which was based on the conclusion that he made an intentionally false statement on his medical certificate application when he failed to disclose an arrest for an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident. Petitioner contended that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) failed to prove intent because he had reported the arrest and suspension to the FAA almost two years earlier and hence lacked any motive to falsify his answer on the application. The NTSB ruled that petitioner's admitted failure to read the question before answering it constituted willful disregard for truth or falsity, and he thus had intentionally made a false statement in his application. The court held that because the willful disregard standard articulated in Administrator v. Boardman, and endorsed by the FAA was a reasonable interpretation of the regulation, the NTSB's deference to the FAA's interpretation of its regulation was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cooper v. NTSB, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FAA's issuance of 130 Determinations of No Hazard for each of the proposed wind turbines in the area of Nantucket Sound. Petitioners argued that the FAA violated its governing statute, misread its own regulations, and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to calculate the dangers posed to local aviation. The FAA claimed that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the FAA's determinations and that their merits claims were faulty. The court found that petitioners had standing and that the FAA misread its regulations, leaving the challenged determinations inadequately justified. Accordingly, the petitions for review were granted and the FAA's determinations were vacated and remanded. View "Town of Barnstable, MA v. Federal Aviation Admin." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act ("FTEPA"), 49 U.S.C. 44729, which allowed some pilots, but not him, to take advantage of Congress's decision to raise the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. Plaintiff also alleged that his former employer and former union violated a state law banning age discrimination in employment by failing to place him in a position at work that would have allowed him the benefit of the new retirement age. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's state age discrimination claims. The court concluded that plaintiff did not make clear in his complaint that he was suing his former employer for its failure to demote him to a status that might help him take advantage of the new age limit in the FTEPA and his complaint never alleged that he requested a demotion, that he was qualified for such a position, or that such positions were available, all facts he would need to prove to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination for failure to demote under the state discrimination statute. Accordingly, the court declined to pass on the merits of an argument the district court had no chance to consider and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's suit.