Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01963/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01963-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Aviation Administration
Respondent
Trans States Airlines
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1963

___________

Trans States Airlines, Inc., *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Petition for Review of an 

v. * Order of the Federal Aviation

* Administration.

Federal Aviation Administration, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: March 8, 2006 

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Trans States Airlines, Inc. petitions to review the Federal Aviation

Administration's order that Trans States failed to maintain current flight, duty, and rest

time records for its pilots. Having jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, this court

upholds the FAA's decision and denies the petition for review.

Trans States, a certified air carrier, employs "line" pilots, as well as

"management" pilots. Line pilots fly a published monthly schedule and are paid by

the hour. Management pilots, who are salaried, do not fly a predetermined schedule,

but fly to stay qualified, or when not enough line pilots are available. 

Appellate Case: 05-1963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018335
-2-

The Federal Aviation Regulations provide that air carriers shall "[m]aintain

current records of each crewmember . . . that show whether the crewmember . . .

complies with the applicable sections of this chapter, including . . . flight, duty, and

rest time records." 14 C.F.R. § 121.683(a)(1). For its line pilots, Trans States uses a

computer program that automatically updates their schedules as airplanes arrive and

depart. In contrast, management pilots (typically) update their schedules immediately

before their next flight assignment, by completing a "Daily Crew Status Report" and

submitting it to the Trans States scheduling department.

On September 7 and 14, 1999, an FAA inspector requested Trans States's flight,

duty, and rest time records. Trans States gave the inspector what purported to be

"current" records for its pilots during August 1999. After comparing these records

with payroll data, the inspector determined that the records were inaccurate because

they did not reflect the August duty time of seven management pilots.

After a hearing, the FAA found that Trans States had failed to maintain current

flight, duty, and rest time records, and assessed a $25,000 civil penalty. The decision

was upheld by the FAA decisionmaker. Trans States appeals, arguing that the FAA

erred in interpreting 14 C.F.R. § 121.683(a)(1). In particular, Trans States asserts that

the FAA construed too strictly the requirement that the records be "current."

This court reviews the FAA's interpretation of its aviation regulations with

deference. See King v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 362 F.3d 439, 444 (8th Cir. 2004).

The FAA's decision is upheld unless “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law." Id., citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Watkins v.

NTSB, 178 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 1999). "The Supreme Court has cautioned courts

to be 'hesitant to substitute an alternative reading for the [agency]'s unless that

alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's plain language or by other

indications of the [agency]'s intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation.'"

Appellate Case: 05-1963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018335
-3-

Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2003), quoting Gardebring

v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988).

According to Trans States, under the FAA's interpretation, "at one minute after

the 'management' pilot had worked his usual hours, the inspector could review the

records and find that Trans States is in violation." Similarly, Trans States claims that

the FAA's interpretation is unconstitutionally vague because the FAA "cannot

reasonably infer that the regulation was clear enough to give Trans States notice that

the statute required up to the minute records for every management pilot."

Trans States exaggerates. The Trans States records were not out of date by only

one minute. Rather, its records were out of date for periods ranging from at least

seven days, to over a month. The FAA did not abuse its discretion in determining that

the Trans States records were not "current" within the plain language of the regulation.

See Edwards v. F.A.A., 367 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2004). Equally, the FAA's

interpretation is not unconstitutionally vague, because an ordinary person would know

what the regulation requires. See Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir.

1996).

Trans States emphasizes the distinction between management pilots and line

pilots. It says that it "understood the system to be that 'line' [pilots'] records would be

kept up to date automatically by the computer while the 'management' pilots with

irregular schedules would update their records prior to accepting any flight

assignment." (emphasis in original). Trans States believes this satisfies the

regulation's purpose of ensuring compliance with flight-time limits.

The regulation, however, makes no distinction between line and management

pilots. Rather, it says that current records must be maintained for "each

Appellate Case: 05-1963 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018335
1

For this reason, the FAA did not err in excluding evidence that would have

further described the distinction between management pilots and line pilots.

-4-

crewmember," which includes both kinds of pilots. Because the regulation makes no

such distinction, this court finds that the FAA did not abuse its discretion in not

recognizing one.1

Finally, Trans States argues that the FAA erred in relying on payroll data to

determine that the pilot records were inaccurate. According to Trans States, the FAA

should not have relied on the payroll data because the data were inaccurate and

incomplete.

However, Trans States has not identified even a single example of how an

inaccuracy in the payroll data caused the FAA to reach an incorrect determination.

As the FAA decisionmaker found, "none of Trans States' witnesses contested the

accuracy of any of the payroll or flight check records used by [Inspector] Harristhal."

In the Matter of Trans States Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 2005-2, 2005 WL

916048, *5 n.10 (March 8, 2005).

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1963 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018335