Hudson v. Federal Aviation Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
192 F.3d 1031 (1999)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (defendant) is charged with prescribing minimum safety standards for aircraft. The FAA has authority to establish tests to ensure compliance with these standards. If the FAA determines that the design of an aircraft meets these standards, the manufacturer is issued a type certificate that permits production of the aircraft. In 1978, the FAA promulgated a rule requiring an actual demonstration of compliance with standards for evacuating an aircraft, unless a combination of analysis and testing would provide data equivalent to an actual demonstration. This rule was a revision of the previous rule, promulgated in 1967, which required actual demonstrations when the design of an aircraft was altered to increase passenger capacity by more than 5 percent. In 1989, the FAA issued an advisory circular that provided guidance on compliance with this requirement. The guidance indicated that designs increasing passenger capacity by more than 5 percent should conduct an actual demonstration to show compliance with evacuation requirements. The FAA revised this guidance in 1998 to note that sufficient methodologies had been developed to provide sufficient data in some cases, which could take the place of the actual demonstration. This latest guidance (1) provided that actual demonstrations would still be required if sufficient data was not available, (2) solicited public comment on the change, and (3) indicated that the guidance might be refined for future projects. The Boeing Company sought and received approval for the Boeing 777-300 aircraft. The FAA determined that sufficient data existed to determine that timely evacuation requirements were satisfied. The FAA then issued a type certificate for the Boeing 777-300. Paul Hudson (plaintiff) and Aviation Consumer Action Project (plaintiff), an international group of air travelers, airline pilots, and flight attendants, petitioned the court of appeals for review of the FAA’s decision, claiming that the FAA had not followed the proper rulemaking process and that the type certificate for the Boeing 777-300 was invalid.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Silberman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.