Professional Pilots Federation v. Federal Aviation Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1997 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawADEAAPAFAAAge 60 Rulerulemaking denialarbitrary and capriciousair safety

Facts

The FAA adopted the Age 60 Rule in 1959 under its statutory air-safety authority, requiring pilots in Part 121 operations to retire at age 60. After a 1993 Hilton study found no increase in accident rates as pilots neared age 60, the FAA solicited comments and received proposals to repeal the rule, replace it with individualized testing, or allow a selected group of over-60 pilots to continue flying for data collection. In December 1995 the FAA declined to repeal or modify the rule, concluding that the safety concerns underlying it had not been invalidated, and it also extended Part 121 coverage to certain commuter operations, thereby subjecting them to the Age 60 Rule. Petitioners argued that the rule conflicted with the ADEA and that retaining and expanding it was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Issue

Does the ADEA limit the FAA's authority to impose a mandatory retirement age for pilots when the FAA acts as a safety regulator rather than as an employer? And did the FAA act arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by retaining the Age 60 Rule and extending it to certain commuter operations?

Rule

The ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination, addressed to employers, does not by implication restrict the FAA's specifically granted authority to regulate air safety under 49 U.S.C. § 44701 when the FAA acts as a regulator rather than as an employer. Under APA review, the FAA must provide a reasoned explanation for its action, respond to relevant and significant comments, and give adequate consideration to reasonable alternatives; where the agency's decision rests on the merits of an existing safety rule rather than pragmatic nonenforcement considerations, ordinary arbitrary-and-capricious review applies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Rail Safety Bureau issues a nationwide safety regulation barring locomotive engineers over age 62 from operating overnight passenger trains in interstate service. A union challenges the rule in the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids forcing rail companies to retire engineers based on age.

How should the court rule on the ADEA claim under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that the ADEA addresses employers, including agencies when acting as employers, but does not substantively restrict an agency acting under a specific statutory grant of safety-regulatory authority. A general anti-discrimination statute should not be read by implication to override a specific safety mandate. Because the agency here acted as regulator, the ADEA challenge fails without reaching any bona fide occupational qualification issue. (Derived from Professional Pilots Federation v. Federal Aviation Administration (n.d.).)