## Facts

- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Notice N8900.240 on October 31, 2013, addressing expanded in-flight use and stowage of passenger portable electronic devices (PEDs), including during taxi, takeoff, and landing.
- The Notice functioned as internal guidance to FAA aviation safety inspectors on how to evaluate air carriers’ PED-related policies and programs.
- Under 14 C.F.R. § 121.589, each air carrier must maintain an FAA-approved carry-on baggage program ensuring carry-on items are properly stowed and passenger carry-on is limited; carriers define “carry-on baggage” within their approved programs.
- The Association of Flight Attendants–CWA, AFL–CIO (AFA) petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit, asserting the Notice effectively amended § 121.589 without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- AFA invoked jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), which authorizes court of appeals review of certain FAA “order[s].”
- The FAA moved to dismiss, arguing the Notice was not a reviewable final order or final agency action.

## Issues

1. Whether FAA Notice N8900.240 qualifies as a reviewable “order” under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a).
2. Whether the Notice constitutes “final agency action” under the two-part finality test for agency action.
3. Whether an internal FAA guidance document that lacks binding legal effect can be treated as an effective amendment to 14 C.F.R. § 121.589 for purposes of appellate review.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that Notice N8900.240 was not a final order and did not constitute final agency action.
- The court concluded the Notice was internal guidance for inspectors, did not carry the force and effect of law, and did not determine rights or obligations or produce legal consequences.
- Because jurisdiction under § 46110(a) extends only to review of final FAA orders, the court did not reach AFA’s APA notice-and-comment arguments.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) is limited to review of final FAA “order[s].”
- An agency action is final only if (1) it marks the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process and (2) it determines rights or obligations or produces legal consequences.
- Internal agency guidance directed to staff, without binding effect on regulated parties and without legal consequences, is not final agency action and is not reviewable as an agency order.
- A document that neither amends regulatory text nor imposes binding requirements cannot be treated as a reviewable effective amendment solely because it may influence operational practices.

## Conclusion

The petition was dismissed because the FAA’s PED Notice was nonbinding internal guidance that lacked legal consequences and therefore was not a final, reviewable order or final agency action within the court’s jurisdiction.


Ass'n of Flight Attendants–CWA, AFL–CIO v. Huerta, 785 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2015)