## Facts

- Safe Extensions, Inc. manufactured adjustable runway light bases used to mount runway edge lights.
- The FAA regulates airport safety under 49 U.S.C. § 44701 and uses advisory circulars to set testing specifications for products eligible for an FAA-approved list.
- Airports receiving federal funding must purchase products from the FAA-approved list, effectively excluding unlisted products from most public-use airport markets.
- The FAA issued a series of advisory circulars (including AC 150/5345-42F) that required adjustable light bases—but not fixed light bases—to pass an intensified, freestanding torque test (not installed in concrete or grout).
- Commenters asserted that adjustable bases could not pass the freestanding test, that fixed bases would also fail if subjected to it, and that adjustable bases had no documented safety issues over decades of use.
- Safe Extensions alleged the testing change prevented its products from being listed as approved, causing direct economic harm by foreclosing sales to federally funded airports.

## Issues

1. Whether AC 150/5345-42F was a reviewable final FAA order (final agency action) despite being labeled “advisory.”
2. Whether Safe Extensions had standing (including prudential standing/zone of interests) to challenge the circular.
3. Whether the lack of a detailed administrative record barred judicial review.
4. Whether the FAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing a freestanding torque test on adjustable bases while exempting fixed bases.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the advisory circular was a reviewable final order because it had concrete legal and economic effects through the FAA-approved purchasing requirement tied to federal funding.
- The court found Safe Extensions had standing based on economic injury traceable to the circular and redressable by judicial relief, and its interests were arguably within the statute’s zone of interests.
- The court rejected the argument that an inadequate administrative record defeated jurisdiction, holding that record deficiencies go to remedy (such as remand), not reviewability.
- On the merits, the court held the FAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by singling out adjustable products for the freestanding torque test without substantial evidence or an adequate explanation.
- The court granted the petition for review and remanded to the FAA for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An agency document styled as “guidance” may be a reviewable final order when it imposes obligations, denies rights, or produces concrete legal consequences.
- Article III standing is satisfied by a direct economic injury caused by agency action that is likely to be redressed by vacatur or revision of the challenged action.
- The absence of an adequate administrative record does not defeat jurisdiction; it may require remand to permit the agency to supply a sufficient basis for review.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, an agency must provide a reasoned explanation supported by evidence and must address significant comments and contrary information in the record.
- Differential treatment of similar products requires an evidence-based explanation; unsupported factual assertions by agency staff are insufficient where the matter is capable of proof.

## Conclusion

The court treated the FAA advisory circular as a final, reviewable order because it effectively controlled access to federally funded airport markets, and it set the circular aside on remand because the FAA failed to justify, with evidence and reasoned analysis, its decision to impose a stricter freestanding torque test on adjustable runway light bases than on comparable fixed bases.


Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007)