.. 

JEFFREY HARPER 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 

FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

'/1117 

(~ t: t 1,.. 21 1: 2b 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

At!CEIVED 

SEP ~'I 'Di2 

H.!JAA,NJO DOCKET 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060011 

DMS No.: FAA-2011-0485 

In the Matters of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060010 

DMS No.: FAA-2011-0486 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060033 

DMS No. FAA-2011-0779 

FAADocketNo. CPllSWOOOO 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION. TO TAKE 

JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Complainant moves pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.218 and Federal Rule of Evidence 201 that 

you take judicial notice of the following contents of the following publications: 

1. FAA Weight & Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8038-1A, Chapter 1, Pages 1-4. 

2. Advisory Circular 120-27E, Pages ii, 1, 5 and Appendix 1, Page 1. 

3. FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7. 

4. FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Pages B-1 to B-3 and B-12. 

Copies of the relevantpages ofthese publications are attached. 

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of September, 2012. 

J. )?.'Harper 

~(~,~ 

FAA Attorney 

JMH/ds 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Take Judicial Notice has been served via 

facsimile and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

Sky West Airlines 

444 S. River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: ( 435) 634-3530 

FAX: ( 435) 634-3505 

Michael Dworkin, Esq. 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

465 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: (415) 421-2500 

FAX: (435) 421-2560 

DATED this 20th day of September, 2012. 

MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Sky West Airlines 

iSana ~~ Stephenson -

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2164 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 

DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, FAA-2011-0486, FAA-2011-0779 

Page 2 of2 
Weight and Balance Control 

Chapter 0 

There are many factors that lead to efficient and safe 

operation of aircraft. Among these vital factors is proper 

weight and balance control. The weight and balance 

system commonly employed among aircraft consists of 

three equally important elements: the weighing of the 

aircraft, the maintaining of the weight and balance records, 

and the proper loading of the aircraft. An inaccuracy in any 

one of these elements nullifies the purpose of the whole 

system. The final loading calculations will be meaningless 

if either the aircraft has been improperly weighed or the 

records contain an error. 

Improper loading cuts down the efficiency of an aircraft 

from the standpoint of altitude, maneuverability, rate 

of climb, and speed. It may even be the cause of failure 

to complete the flight, or for that matter, failure to start 

the flight. Because of abnormal stresses placed upon the 

structure of an improperly loaded aircraft, or because of 

changed flying characteristics of the aircraft, loss of life 

and destruction of valuable equipment may result. 

The responsibility for proper weight and balance control 

begins with the engineers and designers, and extends to the 

aircraft mechanics that maintain the aircraft and the pilots 

who operate them. 

Modem aircraft are engineered utilizing state-of-the-art 

technology and materials to achieve maximum reliability 

and performance for the intended category. As much 

care and expertise must be exercised in operating and 

maintaining these efficient aircraft as was taken in their 

design and manufacturing. 

The designers of an aircraft have set the maximum weight, 

based on the amount of lift the wings or rotors can provide 

under the operation conditions for which. the aircraft 

is designed. The structural strength of the aircraft also 

limits the maximum weight the aircraft can safely carry. 

The ideal location of the center of gravity (CG) was very 

carefully determined by the designers, and the maximum 

deviation allowed from this specific location has been 

calculated. 

The manufacturer provides the aircraft operator with the 

empty weight of the aircraft and the location of its emptyweight center of gravity (EWCG) at the time the certified 

aircraft leaves the factory. Amateur-built aircraft must have 

this information determined and available at the time of 

certification. 

The airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanic or 

repairman who maintains the aircraft keeps the weight and 

balance records current, recording any changes that have 

been made because of repairs or alterations. 

The pilot in command of the aircraft has the responsibility 

on every flight to know the maximum allowable weight 

of the aircraft and its CG limits. This allows the pilot to 

determine on the preflight inspection that the aircraft is 

loaded in such a way that the CG is within the allowable 

limits. 

Weight Control 

Weight is a major factor in airplane construction and 

operation, and it demands respect from all pilots and 

particular diligence by all A&P mechanics and repairmen. 

Excessive weight reduces the efficiency of an aircraft 

and the safety margin available if an emergency 

condition should arise. 

When an aircraft is designed, it is made as light as the 

required structural strength will allow, and the wings or 

rotors are designed to support the maximum allowable 

weight. When the weight of an aircraft is increased, 

the wings or rotors must produce additional lift and the 

structure must support not only the additional static loads, 

but also the dynamic loads imposed by flight maneuvers. 

For example, the wings of a 3,000-pound airplane must 

support 3,000 pounds in level flight, but when the airplane 

is turned smoothly and sharply using a bank angle of 60°, 

the dynamic load requires the wings to support twice this, 

or 6,000 pounds. 

Severe uncoordinated maneuvers or flight into turbulence 

can impose dynamic loads on the structure great enough 

1-1 
to cause failure. In accordance with Title 14 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CPR) part 23, the structure of a 

normal category airplane must be strong enough to sustain 

a load factor of 3.8 times its weight. That is, every pound 

of weight added to an aircraft requires that the structure 

be strong enough to support an additional3.8 pounds. 

An aircraft operated in the utility category must sustain a 

load factor of 4.4, and acrobatic category aircraft must be 

strong enough to withstand 6.0 times their weight. 

The lift produced by a wing is determined by its airfoil 

shape, angle of attack, speed through the air, and the air 

density. When an aircraft takes off from an airport with a 

high density altitude, it must accelerate to a speed faster 

than would be required at sea level to produce enough 

lift to allow takeoff; therefore, a longer takeoff run is 

necessary. The distance needed may be longer than the 

available runway. When operating from a high-density 

altitude airport, the Pilot's Operatiilg Handbook.(POH) 

or Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) must be consulted to 

determine the maximum weight allowed for the aircraft 

under the conditions of altitude, temperature, wind, and 

runway conditions. 

Effects of Weight 

Most modem aircraft are so designed that if all seats 

are occupied, all baggage allowed by the baggage 

compartment is carried, and all of the fuel tanks are 

full, the aircraft will be grossly overloaded. This type of 

design requires the pilot to give great consideration to the 

requirements of the trip. If maximum range is required, 

occupants or baggage must be left behind, or if the 

maximum load must be carried, the range, dictated by the 

amount of fuel on board, must be reduced. 

Some of the problems caused by overloading an aircraft 

are: 

• the aircraft will need a higher takeoff speed, which 

results in a longer takeoff run. 

• both the rate and angle of climb will be reduced. 

• the service ceiling will be lowered. 

• the cruising speed will be reduced. 

• the cruising range will be shortened. 

• maneuverability will be decreased. 

• a longer landing roll will be required because the 

landing speed will be higher. 

• excessive loads will be imposed on the structure, 

especially the landing gear. 

1-2 

The POH or AFM includes tables or charts that give the 

pilot an indication of the performance expected for any 

weight. An important part of careful preflight planning 

includes a check of these charts to determine the aircraft is 

loaded so the proposed flight can be safely made. 

Weight Changes 

The maximum allowable weight for an aircraft is 

determined by design considerations. However, the 

maximum operational weight may be less than the 

maximum allowable weight due to such considerations as 

high-density altitude or high-drag field conditions caused 

by wet grass or water on the runway. The maximum 

operational weight may also be limited by the departure or 

arrival airport's runway length. 

One important preflight consideration is the distribution 

of the load in the aircraft. Loading the aircraft so the gross 

weight is less than the maximum allowable is not enough. 

This weight must be distributed to keep the CG within the 

limits specified in the POH or AFM. 

If the CG is too far forward, a heavy passenger can 

be moved to one of the rear seats or baggage can be 

shifted from a forward baggage compartment to a rear 

compartment. If the CG is too far aft, passenger weight or 

baggage can be shifted forward. The fuel load should be 

balanced laterally: the pilot should pay special attention 

to the POH or AFM regarding the operation of the fuel 

system, in order to keep the aircraft balanced in flight. 

Weight and balance of a helicopter is far more critical 

than for an airplane. With some helicopters, they may be 

properly loaded for takeoff, but near the end of a long 

flight when the fuel tanks are almost empty, the CG may 

have shifted enough for the helicopter to be out of balance 

laterally or longitudinally. Before making any long flight, 

the CG with the fuel available for landing must be checked 

to ensure it will be within the allowable range. 

Airplanes with tandem seating normally have a limitation 

requiring solo flight to be made from the front seat in 

some airplanes or the rear seat in others. Some of the 

· smaller helicopters also require solo flight be made from a 

specific seat, either the right, left, or center. These seating 

limitations will be noted by a placard, usually on the 

instrument panel, and they should be strictly adhered to. 

AB an aircraft ages, its weight usually increases due to 

trash and dirt collecting in hard-to-reach locations, and 

moisture absorbed in the cabin insulation. This growth in 

weight is normally small, but it can only be determined by 

accurately weighing the aircraft. 
Changes of fixed equipment may have a major effect upon 

the weight of the aircraft. Many aircraft are overloaded by 

the installation of extra radios or instruments. Fortunately, 

the replacement of older, heavy electronic equipment with 

newer, lighter types results in a weight reduction. This 

weight change, however helpful, will probably cause the 

CG to shift and this must be computed and annotated in 

the weight and balance record. 

Repairs and alteration are the major sources of weight 

changes, and it is the responsibility of the A&P mechanic 

or repairman making any repair or alteration to know the 

weight and location of these changes, and to compute the 

CG and record the new empty weight and EWCG in the 

aircraft weight and balance record. 

If.the newly calculated EWCG should happen to fall 

outside the EWCG range, it will be necessary to perform 

adverse loading check. This will require a forward and 

rearward adverse~ loading check, and a maximum weight 

check. These weight and balance extreme conditions 

represent the maximum forward and rearward CG position 

for the aircraft. Adverse loading checks are a deliberate 

attempt to load an aircraft in a manner that will create the 

most critical balance condition and still remain within 

the design CG limits of the aircraft. If any of the checks 

fall outside the loaded CG range, the aircraft must be 

reconfigured or placarded to prevent the pilot from loading 

the aircraft improperly. It is sometimes possible to install 

fixed ballast in order for the aircraft to again operate within 

the normal CG range. 

The A&P mechanic or repairman conducting an annual or 

condition inspection must ensure the weight and balance 

data in the aircraft records is current and accurate. It 

is the responsibility of the pilot in command to use the 

most current weight and balance data when operating the 

aircraft. 

hands off the controls. Longitudinal stability is maintained 

by ensuring the CG is slightly ahead of the center of lift. 

This produces a fixed nose-down force independent of 

the airspeed. This is balanced by a variable nose-up force, 

which is produced by a downward aerodynamic force on 

the horizontal tail surfaces that varies directly with the 

airspeed. [Figure 1-1] 

Lift 

Fixed 

nose-down force 

independent of 

airspeed 

Variable 

nose-up force 

dependent upon 

airspeed 

Figure 1-1. Longitudinal forces acting on an airplane in flight. 

If a rising air current should cause the nose to pitch up, the 

airplane will slow down and the downward force on the 

tail will decrease. The weight concentrated at the CG will 

pull the nose back down. If the nose should drop in flight, 

the airspeed will increase and the increased downward tail 

load will bring the nose back up to level flight. 

As long as the CG is maintained within the allowable 

limits for its weight, the airplane will have adequate 

longitudinal stability and control. If the CG is too far aft, 

it will be too near the center of lift and the airplane will 

be unstable, and difficult to recover from a stall. [Figure 

1-2] If the unstable airplane should ever enter a spin, the 

spin could become flat and recovery would be difficult or 

impossible. 

Lift 

,, ............ . . . . ' 

Stability-and-Balance- Gontrol- -· ··- ------ --~--­ · lnsufficie'nt- -- : 

elr'iator / 

Balance control refers to the location of the CG of an 

aircraft. This is of primary importance to aircraft stability, 

which determines safety in flight. 

The CG is the point at which the total weight of the aircraft 

is assumed to be concentrated, and the CG must be located 

within specific limits for safe flight. Both lateral and 

longitudinal balance are important, but the prime concern 

is longitudinal balance; that is, the location of the CG , 

along the longitudinal or lengthwise axis. 

An airplane is designed to have stability that allows it to 

be trimmed so it will maintain straight and level flight with 

................... ;' ..... 

Nose-down 

force 

Figure 1-2.lf the CG is too far aft at the low stall airspeed, there 

might not be enough elevator nose-down authority to get the nose 

down for recovery. 

If the CG is too far forward, the downward tail load will 

have to be increased to maintain level flight. This increased 

tail load has the same effect as carrying additional weight; 

1-3 
the aircraft will have to fly at a higher angle of attack, and 

drag will increase. 

A more serious problem caused by the CG being too far 

forward is the lack of sufficient elevator authority. At slow 

takeoff speeds, the elevator might not produce enough 

nose-up force to rotate and on landing there may not be 

enough elevator force to flare the airplane. [Figure 1-3] 

Both takeoff and landing runs will be lengthened if the CG 

is too far forward. 

Lift 

nose-up 

CG too far force 

forward fu!~~ik·+£~~~~~4fi#iii&•~~iAiaii~~ 

Figure 1-3.lfthe CG is too far forward, there will not be enough 

elevator nose-up force. to flare the airplane for landing. 

The basic aircraft design assumes that lateral symmetry 

exists. For each item of weight added to the left of the 

centerline of the aircraft (also known as buttock line 

zero, or BL-0), 'there is generally an equal weight at a 

corresponding location on the right. 

The lateral balance can be upset by uneven fuel loading 

or bnrnoff. The position of the lateral CG is not normally 

computed for an airplane, but the pilot must be aware 

of the adverse effects that will result from a laterally 

unbalanced condition. [Figure 1-4] This is corrected by 

using the aileron trim tab until enough fuel has been used 

from the tank on the heavy side to balance the airplane. 

The deflected trim tab deflects the aileron to produce 

additional drag, and the airplane flies inefficiently. 

1-4 

Empty 

Additional 

weight 

Additional 

lift and drag 

t 

Figure 1-4. Lateral imbalance causes wing heaviness, which may 

be corrected by deflecting the aileron. The additional lift causes 

additional drag and the airplane flies inefficiently. 

Helicopters are affected by lateral imbalance more than 

airplanes. If a helicopter is loaded with heavy occupants 

and fuel on the same side, it could be out of balance 

enough to make it unsafe to fly. It is also possible that if 

external loads are carried in such a position to requite large 

lateral displacement of the cyclic control to maintain level 

flight, the fore-and-aft cyclic control effectiveness will be 

limited. 

Sweptwing airplanes are more critical due to fuel 

imbalance because as the fuel is used from the outboard 

tanks, the CG shifts forward, and as it is used from the 

inboard tanks, the CG shifts aft. [Figure 1-5] For this 

reason, fuel-use scheduling in sweptwing airplanes 

operation is critical. 

Inboard fuel: 

nose heavy 

Outboard fuel: 

tail heavy 

Figure 1-5. Fuel in the tanks of a sweptwing airplane affects both 

.lateral and longitudinal balance. As fuel is used from an outboard 

tank; the CG shifts forward. 
AC 120-27E 6/10/05 

3. What documents does this AC cancel? 

I This AC cancels AC 120-27D, Aircraft Weight and Balance Control, dated August 11, 2004. 

4. What should an operator consider while reading this AC? 

a. Accurately calculating an aircraft's weight and CG before flight is essential to comply 

with the certification limits established for the aircraft. These limits include both weight and CG 

limits. By complying with these limits and operating under the procedures established by the 

manufacturer, an operator is able to meet the weight and balance requirements specified in the 

aircraft flight manual (AFM). Typically, an operator calculates takeoff weight by adding the 

1 operational empty weight (OEW) of the aircraft, the weight of the passenger, cargo payload, and 

the weight of fuel. The objective is to calculate the takeoff weight and CG of an aircraft as 

accurately as possible. 

I 

I 

b. When· using average weights for passengers and bags, the operator must be vigilant to 

ensure that the weight and balance control program reflects the reality of aircraft loading. The 

FAA will periodically review the guidance in this AC and update this AC if average weights of 

the traveling public should change or if regulatory requirements for carry-on bags or personal 

items should change. Ultimately, the operator is responsible for determining if the procedures 

described in this AC are appropriate for use in its type of operation. 

5. Who should use this AC? 

a. This document provides guidance to both passenger and cargo operators that are either 

required to have an approved weight and balance control program under parts 121 and 125, or 

choose to use actual or average aircraft, passenger, or baggage weights when operating under 

part 91, subpart K of part 91, or part 135. The guidance in this AC is useful for anyone involved 

in developing or implementing a weight and balance control program. 

b. As shown in Table 1, the FAA has divided aircraft into three categories for this AC to 

provide guidance appropriate to the size of the aircraft. 

TABLEt. AIRCRAFTCABINSIZE 

··-For-this-AG,-an-aircr-aft-origina-lly-type-certificat.ed-with---Is-considered--------

71 or more passenger seats A large-cabin aircraft. 

30 to 70 passenger seats A medium-cabin aircraft. 

5 to 29 passenger seats A small-cabin aircraft. 

NOTE: Aircraft with fewer than five passenger seats must use actual passenger 

and baggage weights. 

6. Who can use standard average or segmented weights? 

a. Standard Average Weights. Use of standard average weights is limited to operators of 

multiengine turbine-powered aircraft originally type-certificated for five or more passenger seats 

Page ii 
I 

I 

I 

6/10/05 AC 120-27E 

CHAPTER!. AIRCRAFT WEIGHTS AND LOADING SCHEDULES 

Section 1. Establishing Aircraft Weight 

100. How does an operator establish the initial weight of an aircraft? 

Prior to being placed into service, each aircraft should be weighed and the empty weight and CG 

location established. New aircraft are normally weighed at the factory and are eligible to be 

placed into operation without reweighing if the weight and balance records were adjusted for 

alterations and modifications to the aircraft unless some other modification to the aircraft 

warrants that the aircraft be weighed (e.g., paragraph 1 03c ). Aircraft transferred from one 

operator that has an approved weight and balance program, to another operator with an approved 

program, does not need to be weighed prior to use by the receiving operator unless more than 

36 calendar-months have elapsed since last individual or fleet weighing, or unless some other 

modification to the aircraft warrants that the aircraft be weighed (e.g., paragraph 1 03c ). Aircraft 

transferred, purchased, or leased from an operator without an approved weight and balance 

program, and that have been unmodified or only minimally modified, can be placed into service 

without being reweighed if the last weighing was accomplished by an acceptable method (for 

example, manufacturer's instructions or AC 43.13-1, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and 

Practices-Aircraft Inspection and Repair, current edition) within the last 12 calendar-months 

and a weight and balance change record was maintained by the operator. See paragraph 103c for 

a discussion of when it may be potentially unsafe to fail to reweigh an aircraft after it has been 

modified. 

101. How does an operator document changes to an aircraft's weight and balance? 

The weight and balance system should include methods, such as a log, ledger, or other equivalent 

electronic means, by which the operator will maintain a complete, current, and continuous record 

of the weight and CG of each aircraft. Alterations and changes affecting either the weight and/or 

balance of the aircraft should be recorded in this log. Changes in the amount of weight or in the 

location of weight in or on the aircraft should be recorded whenever the weight change is at or 

exceeds the weights listed inTable 1-1. 

TABLE 1-1. INCREMENTAL WEIGHT CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE RECORDED 

IN A WEIGHT AND BALANCE CHANGE RECORD 

- --- - ·-- -- ·-- ----------- - ·------ - --·-·-. --"---·-·-· ---- ------- ~·. -· -

In the weight change record of An operator should record any weight changes 

a- ofLarge-cabin aircraft +/- 10 lb or greater. 

Medium-cabin aircraft +/- 5 lb or greater. 

Small-cabin aircraft +I- 1 lb or greater. 

102. How does the operator maintain the OEW? 

The loading schedule may utilize the individual weight of the aircraft in computing operational 

weight and balance, or the operator may choose to establish fleet empty weights for a fleet or 

group of aircraft. 

Par 100 Page 1 
6/10/05 AC 120-27E 

Section 2. Aircraft Loading Schedules 

105. What is a loading schedule? 

a. The loading schedule is used to document compliance with the certificated weight and 

balance limitations contained in the manufacturer's AFM and weight and balance manual. 

b. The loading schedule is developed by the operator based on its specific loading 

calculation procedures and provides the operational limits for use with the operator's weight and 

balance program approved under this AC. These approved operational limits are typically more 

restrictive but may not exceed the manufacturer's certificated limits. This is because the loading 

schedule is generally designed to check only specific conditions (e.g., takeoff and zero fuel) 

known prior to takeoff, and must account for variations in weight and balance in flight. It must 

also account for factors selected to be excluded, for ease of use, from the calculation process. 

Loading the aircraft so that the calculated weight and balance is within the approved limits will 

maintain the actual weight and balance within the certificated limits throughout the flight. 

c. Development of a loading schedule represents a trade-off between ease of use and loading 

flexibility. A schedule can provide more loading flexibility by requiring more detailed inputs, or 

it can be made easier to use by further limiting the operational limits to account for the 

uncertainty caused by the less detailed inputs. 

d. Several types of loading schedules are commonlyused, including computer programs as 

well as "paper" schedules, which can be either graphical, such as an alignment ("chase around 

chart") system, slide rule, or numerical, such as an adjusted weight or index system. 

e. It is often more convenient to compute the balance effects of combined loads and to 

display the results by using "balance units" or "index units." This is done by adding the 

respective moments (weight times arm) of each item. Graphing the moments results in a "fan 

grid" where lines of constant balance arms (BA) or percent MAC are closer together at lower 

weights and further apart at higher weights. Direct graphical or numerical addition of the 

balance effects are possible using these moment values. 

f. To make the magnitude of the numbers more manageable, moments can be converted to 

an index unit. For example: 

• A • weight x (BA- datum) K 

muexunzt= + 

M 

NOTE: Where datum is the reference BA that will plot as a vertical line on 

the fan grid, M and K are constants that are selected by the operator. M is 

used to scale the index values, and K is used to set the index value of the 

reference BA. 

106. How should an operator determine the weight of each fluid used aboard the aircraft? 

An operator should use one of the following: 

Par 105 Page 5 
6/10/05 AC 120-27E 

Appendix 1 

APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS 

1. Basic empty weight. The aircraft empty weight, adjusted for variations in standard items. 

2. Cargo. As used in this advisory circular (AC), cargo refers to everything carried in the cargo 

compartments of the aircraft. This includes bags, mail, freight, express, and company material. 

It also includes live animals, dangerous goods, and hazardous materials as subcategories of the 

above. 

3. Carry-on bag. A bag that the operator allows the passenger to carry onboard. It should be of 

a size and shape that will allow it to be stowed under the passenger seat or in a storage 

compartment. The operator establishes the exact dimensional limits based on the particular 

aircraft stowage limits. 

4.·. Certificated weight and CG limits. Weight and center of gravity (CG) limits are established 

at the time of aircraft certification. They are specified in the applicable aircraft flight manual 

(AFM). 

5. Checked bags. Checked bags are those bags placed in the cargo compartment of the aircraft. 

This includes bags that are too large to be placed in the cabin of the aircraft or those bags that are 

required to be carried in the cargo compartment by regulation, security program, or company 

policy. For bags checked plane-side, see the definition for plane-side loaded bags. 

6. Curtailment. Creating an operational loading envelope that is more restrictive than the 

manufacturers' CG envelope, to assure the aircraft will be operated within limits during all 

phases of flight. Curtailment typically accounts for, but is not limited to, in-flight movement, 

gear and flap movement, cargo variation, fuel density, fuel bum-off, and seating variation. 

I 7. Fleet operational empty weight (FOEW). Average operational empty weight (OEW) used 

for a fleet or group of aircraft of the same model and configuration. 

8. Freight. Cargo carried for hire in the cargo compartment that is not mail or passenger bags. 

9. Heavy bags. Heavy bags are considered any bag that weighs more than 50 pounds but less 

than 100 pounds. Bags that are 100 pounds or more are considered freight. 

I 10. Large cabin aircraft. Aircraft originally type-certificated with a maximum seating capacity 

of 71 or more passenger seats. 

11. Loading envelope. Weight and CG envelope used in a loading schedule. Loading the 

aircraft within the loading envelope will maintain the aircraft weight and CG within the 

manufacturer's type-certificated limits throughout the flight. 

12. Loading schedule. Method for calculating and documenting aircraft weight and balance 

prior to taxiing, to ensure the aircraft will remain within all required weight and balance 

limitations throughout the flight. 

Page 1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Chapter 7. Sanction Guidance Policies 

1. Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA's policies for determining an appropriate sanction 

once FAA enforcement personnel decide that legal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter 

contains the general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types of sanctions, ranges of 

sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts-to impose in legal enforcement actions 

for typical violations of the FAA's statute and regulations. This guidance covers the parameters 

both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the informal procedures. The 

guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106,44709, 44710, 

44726, 44924, 46111, 46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are 

addressed in Appendix C. 

2. General Guidelines. 

a: Certificate Suspension Action and Civil Penalty Action: Sanctions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(1) General. If a certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period of time commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, however,'the FAA considers the adverse impact 

that a certificate suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which 

may adversely affect the public. Nevertheless, whenthe FAA determines that safety · 

considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate of any type of certificate holder. 

In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same 

violations. The FAA generally does not take civil penalty action and punitive certificate action 

(that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period of time) against a certificate holder for the same 

conduct. If unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this practice, legal counsel consult 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily does not change the type of sanction unless additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. If the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. 

(1) Indefmite certificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending demonstration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual does not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

See chapter 5. 

(2) Certificate revocation - general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise 

of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to safety in air 

commerce or air transportation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a 

certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a certificate. Orders of 

revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a pra~tical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

does not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismissal of charges under 49 C.P.R. § 821.33, 

the NTSB 's stale complaint rule. 

(3) Certificate revocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificate or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involye grossly careless or reckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates of a 

person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. 

( 4) Certificate revocation - entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a 

certificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the statute or regulations or falsifies 

records. Revocation also is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has committed the 

same or similar violations in the recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44710, the FAA is required to 

revoke the certificates of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or state 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

· ---· -- ---o-ff-ens-e-and the-airman--served--as- an-ai-FFFJ:an,-er-w-as-abea-ffi-the--aife-raft-,-in-eeooeet-ie-n-with------------------· ------

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the commission of the offense. Even when there 

has been no conviction, revocation is required when an airman has knowingly carried out an 

activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if 

a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will 

facilitate law enforcement purposes. See 49 U.S.C. § 44710(f). Under 49 U.S.C. § 44106, the 

FAA also must revoke the registration certificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44 726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of a violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

intent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The 

Administrator may waive that sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather 

than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44726(f) and (g). 

(6) Mandatory certificate action for security concerns. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46111, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any 

P AA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the 

request of the Under Secretary ofBTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station certificates in 

connection with security audits. 

~. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) in Appendix B provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII 

and 14 C.P.R. parts 1-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.P.R. chapter Ill. 

Once the agency has determined that legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, P AA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of this chapter, as well as any other 

sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanction. The matters described in 

chapter 7, subparagraphs 3a. -d. are some types of agency action that fall outside the scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table. 

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices or Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a fmding of violation. P or that reason, P AA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. 

b. The FAA's Exercise ofProsecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The P AA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney, 4 70 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

--·-- -------~Raz.a-Fdeus-M-ate-:Fials-¥ielatiens. Actions itwolving v:io.latio.IlS-Gf.~~-hazafd.ou&s ------

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department of Transportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary ofthe department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46101 (b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, 

however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not 

7-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a. through m. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a violation and for 

selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also 

described. These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for 

violations specifically listed in the table as well as those not specifically listed. All the factors 

and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that 

are relevant to a violation are considered in determining a sanction for the violation. This list of 

factors and elements is not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be relevant as well. 

a. Nature of the Violation. Three elements defme the nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(1) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges of that certificate, the natural consequence of that act should be loss of privileges for a 

period of time commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate 

actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The 

potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood does not 

alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type of sanction. 

(2) Entities. The FAA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificate-holding 

entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would be a substantial adverse 

impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is 

not outweighed by safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, 

when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any 

certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to 

question the qualifications of any certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefmite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of 14 C.P.R. § 91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.F .R. § 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.F .R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others. 

7-4 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

When calculating the amount of sanction baselon this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is 

residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher 

sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconduct is an aggravating circumstance and 

includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumstances indicating intent to 

commit a violation. 

(2) Inadvertence. An act is inadvertent when it is the result of both inattention and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies at an incorrect 

altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's instruments; however, it is not an inadvertent act 

when a pilot flies at an incorrect altitude as a result of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instruments or choosing not to use other available means to verifY altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether the conduct, not the factual or legal consequences, is inadvertent and unintended. 

Ferguson v. National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F.2d 821, 828-829 (9th Cir. 1982). 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience. 

(1) Level of experience refers primarily to the type of certificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard tl;lan commercial pilots. 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with: the certificate hotder'rl-evel of experience. A significant deviation ftom the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may warrant a more 

aggravated sanction. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(1) A good compliance attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. 

A prior violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is 

an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to 

statutory or regulatory requirements after receiving notice through a prior administrative action 

or counseling that such conduct is in violation of those requirements might well be regarded as 

having a poor compliance disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, the FAA does not 

7-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to 

a letter of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing the attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration 

of an emergency to air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not of the person's 

own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 C.P.R.§ 91.3(b). However, this situation is 

distinct from the situation where a declaration of emergency is not exculpatory but is a factor that 

might be appropriate to consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA 

views declaring an emergency to air traffic control as a sign ofgoodjudgment and a constructive 

attitude. When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations committed, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

e. Degree of Hazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of the interplay of the operational 

environment(for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to safety (to the life or property of another, including those in the aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduct. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply with an 

airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond the required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) The sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph S.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extreme 

departures from required altitudes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of 

persons at 50 feet 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and 

whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

(1) Employment discipline. Where the violation would normally call for a certain type 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the same conduct, local, state, or federal 

prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor 

7-6 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

does it preclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive enforcement action. For cases where 

federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial 

enforcement action if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation history 

record. If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the 

criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings 

in determining the appropriate amount of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action. 

g. Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the severity of the sanction. Air carriers 

are held to the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged in air transportation are 

held to the highest safety standard. 

h. Violation History. 

(1) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not 

a mitigating factor. Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compliance disposition or of a pattern of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justify imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It might 

also justify revocation rather than suspension if the pattern of violation reflects a lack of 

qualification. In addition, a violation history might justify a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length of time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. 

(2) The following actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become fmal: orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contah1ed in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court. In 

addition, a party may agree as part of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. 

i. Decisional Law~ Decisions of the FAA decisionmaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts with FAA 

decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedesthose decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after 

7-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the issuance of this document that conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document 

and are controlling. 

j. Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive sanctions 

should not be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanction should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to 

established safety standards. While the FAA does not allow financial circumstances to excuse 

any violation, it does consider a carrier's size and fmancial strength in choosing the appropriate 

sanction amount. The difference in the penalties fixed in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier might compel a small air carrier to go out ofbusiness. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air 

carrier that violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set forth in part one of the table. For all entities and individuals, 

the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a 

person's ability to continue in business to the extent it knows such information. 

k. Consistency of Sanction. One of the agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in 

imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues this objective to assure 

fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree of deterrent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions. 

I. Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily. 

(1) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations 

and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met. These programs include 

the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the 

aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement 

consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her report of 

another's violations, voluntarily discloses his or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enfmcernent action is requited. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one of these programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation to the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing 

of the corrective action, that is, how extensive was the corrective action and how quickly was it 

taken. Implementing new procedures that are above those required under the FAA's regulations 

7-8 
10/01/07 2150.38 

to prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an 

appropriate sanction. Corrective action taken after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action that is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice of the FAA's 

enforcement action. Corrective action taken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person 

into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of 

sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic 

disadvantage competitors who have expended the resources necessary to maintain compliance. 

5. Use of the Table of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along a 

spectrum of gravity. Ultimately, the circumstances of each case are evaluated in terms of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

b. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. 

(1) Part II ofthe table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA ordinarily seeks 

to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time violation that is generally 

inadvertent (the table includes ranges of sanctions for several violations that usually are 

intentional, for example, interference with a crewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, 

the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law 

and to remedy any noncompliance and that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

table solely based on the inadvertence of the violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be found in the facts and circumstances of the violation itself. 

(3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a 

sanction should be imposed, the FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i, j, k, and m of 

paragraph 4 (that is, nature of the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use of certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency of the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extentthey are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement 

personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

(4) Deviating from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based on justifiable mitigation under factors j, I, and m of paragraph 4 

(that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, voluntary reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

7-9 
10/01/07 2150.38 

impose sanctions above the normal ranges when the following circumstances, relating to factors 

b, d, e, and h of paragraph 4 are present: the violation is other than inadvertent\ the violator has 

a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree of hazard, or the violator has a 

poor compliance disposition. The ranges also may be exceeded when the case involves multiple 

violations. (See chapter 7, paragraphs 6 and 7). 

· c. Types of Sanction. 

(1) General. The FAA ordinarily does not initiate punitive civil penalty and punitive 

certificate actions (that is, fixed-period certificate suspensions) against a certificate holder for the 

same offense. While electing to impose one sanction is not a legal bar to a concurrent 

proceeding to impose another, pursuing both actions solely for punitive purposes usually is not 

necessary. The FAA takes remedial and punitive actions in the same case, however, when 

warranted. 

(2) Selecting types of sanctions. Except in exceptional circumstances, the FAA uses the 

type of sanction recommended in the table. The FAA must impose any sanction mandated by 

statute (for example, revocation under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106(b), 44710(b), and 44726(b) unless 

waived by the Administrator). 

6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations. 

a. Description of Multiple Violations. Enforcement actions often involve multiple 

violations: multiple violations of a single regulation; a single violation of multiple regulations; 

or multiple violations of multiple regulations. In addition, under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(2), if a 

violation is a continuing one, each day the violation continues, or each flight for which the 

violation was committed, constitutes a separate offense. 

b. General Sanction Guidance. Multiple violations ordinarily result in high sanction 

amounts. Such sanction amounts ordinarily are not determined by simply adding up the 

individual penalties for multiple violations set forth in the table, however. Simply adding up the 

individual penalties for each violation could result in compounding a sanction in a 

disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. Conversely, multiple violations may 

be so serious in their consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty 

greater than the sum of the recommended amoum of penalty provided for in the table for eaeh 

violation. 

c. Single Act of Noncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations. When a single 

instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of general and specific regulations 

involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to 

reflect the amount of sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. In 

calculating the amount of sanction for multiple violations, FAA enforcement personnel consider 

4 When the violation is one that is generally inherently deliberate (e.g., interference with crewmember or smoking 

violations), factor b. is not considered in determining whether the sanction should be above the range in the table. 

The ranges in the table for such violations already have taken into consideration the inherently deliberate nature of 

the violation. 

7-10 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the totality of circumstances relating to the multiple violations, including the alleged violator's 

degree of culpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessful, to 

prevent the violations. 

d. Type of Legal Enforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the type of legal 

enforcement action for a single violation, the FAA ordinarily selects the same type of sanction 

for multiple violations of a similar nature. The seriousness of multiple violations, however, may 

require changing what is normally a civil penalty action to a certificate action or, sometimes, a 

punitive certificate suspension to a remedial revocation action. 

7. Special Considerations for Numerous Multiple Violations Resulting From an Initial Act 

or Omission. To determine penalties for numerous multiple violations that result from an initial 

act or omission, the FAA applies the special considerations and guidance in chapter 7, 

subparagraphs 7 .a. through e. These cases involve such a high number of multiple violations that 

ifF AA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts of penalty for each 

flight or day''that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount could be 

disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

a. Determining Proposed Penalty. To determine an appropriate civil penalty in a case 

involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act or omission (for example, an 

aircraft operated on a dozen or more flights after being improperly returned to service), FAA 

enforcement personnel: 

(1) Identify each initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations 

(for example, improper maintenance plus improper return to service; failure to maintain a quality 

control system). 

(2) Consult the table in Appendix B and the general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount of penalty appropriate for each 

initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations (for example, in 

airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act of improper maintenance or inspection; in 

manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act of failing to maintain a quality control system). 

(3) Determine the amount of penalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying 

the guidance m chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Of particular importance hr determining 

an appropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree of the alleged violator's 

culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree of culpability is present when the alleged 

violator neither knew nor was likely to discover the continuing violations. For example, once 

improper maintenance was done there were no signs of it from such things as discrepancies 

reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have led to its discovery were scheduled. A 

more significant degree of culpability is present when factors such as the following are present: 

• the initial act or omission was entered in records that should have led to 

immediate detection and correction; 

• the initial act or omission remained undetected and continued through required 

inspections or checks designed to reveal such discrepancies; 

7-11 
10/01/07 2150.38 

• the alleged violator was not following maintenance or inspection procedures the 

FAA had approved or accepted; 

• the level of the alleged violator's organization that was aware of, or involved in 

the noncompliance included management (for example, management implemented policies that 

contributed to the violations), although an alleged violator's culpability does not require 

management involvement; 

• the alleged violator has a history of similar violations or a history of systemic 

deficiencies. 

Knowing and willful violations connote the highest degree of culpability. 

(4) Add the penalties arrived at for the initial violation to the penalty for the multiple 

violations. 

b. Limitations on Total Civil Penalty Amounts for Numerous Multiple Violations. 

(1) In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from 

a single act or omission, that is, not one that is covered by chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.c. or 7.d., 

the total civil penalty for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the ranges provided in 

either Figure 7-1 or 7-2. The group classifications are defmed in part I of Appendix B. 

(2) The term isolated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instance of an 

employee's failure to follow a statutory or regulatory requirement, contrary to the company's 

own practice or procedure. A case may involve a number of isolated and unrelated violations. 

Each group of the multiple violations resulting from each isolated violation ordinarily is subject 

to the isolated, inadvertent ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2. 

(3) Inadvertent failures are considered systemic if they are repetitive or otherwise 

demonstrate an underlying deficiency in the alleged violator's system, practices, or procedures. 

Systemic failures generally warrant more substantial penalties and indicate a need for corrective 

action. 

(4) The aggravating or mitigating factors and elements in chapter 7, paragraph 4. are 

considered to determine an appropriate civil penalty within the applicable range in Figure 7-1 or 

7-2, for the multiple violations resulting from the initial act or omission. Of particular 

importance is an evaluation of the seriousness of the potential hazard caused by the violation and 

the degree of culpability of the alleged violator for the multiple violations. 

7-12 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Figure 7-1. Ranges of Penalties for Air Carriers, Commercial Operators, Part 125 Operators 

Type of Group I Group I Group II Group II or Group III Group IV 

Violations Large Small or Part Part 125 

Business Business 125 Large Small 

Business Business 

Inadvertent, $200,000- $100,000- $150,000- $100,000- $75,000- $50,000-

Isolated $400,000 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 

Violations 

Inadvertent, $300,000- $200,000- $250,000- $150,000- $100,000- $75,000-

Systemic $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $150,000 

Violations 

Figure 7-2. Ranges of Penalties for Air Agencies, Airports, Manufacturers 

Type of Air Air Airport Airport Manufacturing Manufacturing 

Violations Agency Agency Operator Operator Large Business Small Business 

Large Small Large Small 

Business Business Business Business 

Inadvertent, $150,000- $100,000- $200,000- $100,000- $200,000- $100,000-

Isolated $300,000 $200,000 $400,000 $300,000 $400,000 $300,000 

Violations 

Inadvertent, $250,000- $150,000- $300,000- $200,000- $300,000- $200,000-

Systemic $400,000 $300,000 $500,000 $400,000 $500,000 $400,000 

Violations 

c. Penalties Outside the Ranges. 

(1) Penalties lower than the ranges. It may be appropriate to select a civil penalty amount 

below the ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2 if the degree of culpability is minimal, the degree of 

potential hazard is extremely low, and there are no other aggravating circumstances. 

(2) Penalties higher than the ranges. It may be appropriate to select a civil penalty higher 

than the ranges, up to the statutory maximums: 

• If the alleged violator was significantly culpable in permitting the initial act or omission; 

• If the violations involve significant safety risks; 

• If there was an absence of corrective action by the alleged violator over an extended 

period of time; 

• Where it is necessary ·to provide an economic disincentive for regulatory noncompliance; 

or. 

• If the alleged violator has a poor compliance disposition or history. 

d. Intentional Violations. When there is substantial and reliable evidence that the alleged 

violator knew of the violations resulting from the initial act or omission and allowed them to 

7-13 

Individual 

$50,000-

$100,000 

$75,000-

$150,000 
10/01/07 2150.38 

occur, the ranges set forth in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 do not apply. For example, operation of an 

aircraft when there is evidence the operator knew the aircraft or flight was not in compliance 

with statutory or regulatory requirements, yet deliberately operated it anyway, is most serious, 

and apart from civil penalties, requires consideration of remedial certificate action. For multiple 

violations in these circumstances, any civil penalties sought may be up to the statutory maximum 

penalty for each violation, regardless of the number of violations. 

e. Civil Complaints. The guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 7 does not limit the amount of 

civil penalties that may be sought in a civil complaint filed in U.S. district court. 

8. Modification. 

a. Type of Sanction. Except when the FAA exercises its prosecutorial discretion to settle 

an enforcement action, the FAA generally does not modify orders suspending or revoking a 

. certificate to provide for a civil penalty. The FAA also generally does not modify orders 

assessing a civil penalty to provide for a certificate action. The FAA modifies the type of 

·sanction only in those cases involving extraordinary circumstances (beyond the normal 

aggravating or mitigating factors and elements listed in chapter 7, paragraph 4). New facts 

discovered after the original order has been issued may provide a basis for modifying the amount 

of sanction, but would not ordinarily provide a basis for modifying the type of sanction. 

However, if newly discovered facts raise new issues, such as the alleged violator's qualifications 

to hold a certificate, or if they implicate a statutorily-mandated penalty, the FAA modifies the 

type of sanction. 

b. Amount of Sanction. The FAA does not apply the factors listed in chapter 7, paragraph 

4. in a manner that would double their effect. Once the FAA has fairly considered the relevant 

mitigating and aggravating circumstances, it generally does not modify the amount of sanction. 

The FAA modifies the amount of sanction normally only when new information indicates the 

factors or elements were not fairly applied, or when other clear and compelling reasons are 

articulated. 

9. Special Emphasis Enforcement Programs. At times special situations arise that dictate the 

need for more effective enforcement action through increased sanctions or other measures in a 

particular regulated area or segment of industry. When these circumstances arise, the FAA may 

set up a special emphasis enforcement program, designed to focus on a partiCular area of 

noncompliance on a national or local geographical basis. 

10. Small Entities. 

a. General. 

(1) Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

the FAA is required to have a policy or program to provide for the reduction, and under 

appropriate circumstances waiver, of civil penalties for statutory or regulatory violations by 

small entities. Under the law, such a policy is to contain certain conditions. Those suggested by 

Congress are: requiring the small entity to correct the violation within a reasonable correction 

period; limiting the applicability to violations discovered through participation in a compliance 

7-14 
10/01/07 2150.38 

assistance or audit program operated or supported by the agency; excluding small entities that 

have been subject to multiple enforcement actions by the agency; excluding violations involving 

willful or criminal conduct; excluding violations that pose serious health, safety or 

environmental threats; and requiring a good faith effort to comply with the law. The SBREF A 

also provides that under appropriate circumstances, the FAA may consider ability to pay in 

determining the penalty to assess a small entity. 

(2) Congress intended that agencies have the discretion to develop the limits of their 

enforcement policies for small entities and the specific circumstances under which penalty 

reductions or waivers would be granted. Because the statute requires an agency, subject to the 

requirements and limitations of other statutes, to place conditions or exclusions on its 

enforcement policy under SBREF A, it does not appear Congress intended agencies to reduce or 

waive penalties solely because an alleged violator is a small entity. Rather, the statute 

contemplateS that certain criteria be met before an agency reduces or waives a penalty against a 

small entity. Although the SBREF A imposes a requirement on agencies to establish penalty 

reduction and waiver programs for small entities, Congress recognized that some agencies 

already have formal or informal policies or programs that would meet this requirement. 

b. FAA's Policy under the SBREFA. 

(1) The FAA's compliance and enforcement program includes several policies that meet 

the requirements of, and are consistent with the intent of, SBREF A. Taken together, these 

policies constitute the FAA's policy mandated by SBREF A. 

(2) Under the FAA's compliance and enforcement program, for example, FAA 

investigative personnel have the discretion to address alleged violations by any person, 

including small entities, with lesser enforcement action than a civil penalty, that is, 

administrative action, provided the criteria in chapter 5 are met. There are two forms of 

administrative action: a warning notice and a letter of correction. A warning notice brings to the 

attention of the regulated person or entity the facts and circumstances that indicate that a 

violation has occurred, identifies the regulatory provision at issue, and requests future 

compliance. A letter of correction is similar but is intended for use when there is an agreement . 

with the regulated party that corrective action acceptable to the FAA has, or within a reasonable 

period will be, taken. Administrative actions are less onerous than a waiver of penalty in that 

they neither carry a sanction nor result in a finding of \liolation. 

(3) Under the agency's voluntary disclosure reporting program, the FAA takes 

administrative action instead of civil penalty action against most regulated entities, including 

small entities that voluntarily report certain apparent violations to the FAA, complete corrective 

action satisfactory to the FAA to prevent their recurrence, and meet certain other criteria. 

( 4) The FAA's sanction policies have historically provided for reductions of civil 

penalties in appropriate cases based on the mitigating factors listed in chapter 7, subparagraph 4., 

which include ability to pay and whether a penalty would prevent the entity from continuing in 

business. 

7-15 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(5) For air carriers and commercial operators, the FAA also takes company size into 

consideration in determining the appropriate amount of civil penalty. The sanction ranges in Part 

I. Definitions and Abbreviations of the table for single, inadvertent, first-time violations by U.S. 

air carriers and U.S. commercial operators differentiate among various sizes of such entities as a 

means of providing a relatively equivalent deterrent for the same violation against each air 

carrier and commercial operator. While the FAA has not specified such sanction ranges for other 

certificate holding entities, it is the FAA's policy to seek penalties generally relative to the size 

and revenue of the operation for repair stations, manufacturers, airports, and other entities 

holding certificates. 

(6) Although the FAA does not reduce or waive the penalty of an alleged violator solely 

because it is a small entity, the FAA appropriately reduces a civil penalty, or elects to take 

administrative action rather than legal enforcement action, against a small entity if appropriate 

under the policies described in chapter 7, subparagraphs 10.b.(1)-(5). 

c. The Small Business Ombudsman. 

(1) The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 

Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about 

federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman annually evaluates the enforcement 

activities and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. 

(2) Each FAA employee who conducts an inspection of a small business concern that is 

regulated by the FAA provides the small business concern with an information sheet. The 

information sheet informs that entity that it may submit complaints or comments regarding unfair 

FAA regulatory enforcement to the National Ombudsman. The information sheet contains the 

following language: 

Our objective is to ensure a fair regulatory enforcement environment. If you feel that you 

have been treated unfairly or unprofessionally, you may contact the FAA by calling the 

FAA's Office ofRulemaking at (202)-267-3404 or by mailing your comments or 

complaints to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofRulemaking, 800 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C., 20591. You also have a 

right to contact the Small Business Administration's National Ombudsman at 1- 888-

REG-FAJR (1-888-734-3247), or www.sba.gov/ombudsman regarding the fairness of the 

compliance and enforcement activity of the FAA. The FAA strictly forbids retaliatory 

acts by its employees. As such, you should feel confident that you will not be penalized 

for expressing your concerns about the FAA's compliance and enforcement activities. 

11. Remedial Sanction Guidance Policy. 

a. General. 

( 1) The FAA statute requires the Administrator to promote "safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce .... " 49 U.S.C. § 4470l(e). As one means of achieving this goal, the statute 

specifically authorizes the Ac4ninistrator to issue various certificates. These certificates include 

7-16 
10/01/07 2150.38 

airman certificates, type certificates, production certificates, airworthiness certificates, air carrier 

operating certificates, airport operating certificates, air agency certificates, and air navigation 

facility certificates. 49 U.S.C. § 44702(a). For most of these certificates, the statute requires the 

Administrator to investigate and make appropriate findings regarding qualifications to hold the 

certificate applied for before the certificate is issued. For example, the Administrator is required 

to investigate and make fmdings that persons applying for airman certificates are qualified to 

hold those certificates; that aircraft and aircraft engine parts are properly designed and 

manufactured, perform properly, and meet the regulations and minimum standards prescribed 

before issuing a type certificate, and so forth. 49 U.S.C. §§ 44702-44706. Once the 

Administrator fmds the applicant is qualified for the certificate applied for, the Administrator is 

required to issue the certificate in question. 

(2). Because the Administrator's responsibility to promote safety in air commerce and air 

transportation is constant, the Administrator must also take appropriate action when the 

Administrator finds, or has reason to believe, the certificate holder no longer possesses the 

qualifications required to hold a certificate. Thus, the statute provides that the Administrator 

"may·reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation 

facility, ot air agency or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of 

this title," and that the Administrator "may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending or 

revoking ... any part of a certificate issued under [chapter 44 7 of the statute] if ... the 

Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that 

safety in air commerce or air transportation requires that action." 49 U.S.C. §§ 44709(a) and (b) 

(1) (A). 

(3) Revocation is the appropriate remedy for conduct that' demonstrates that a certificate 

holder lacks either the technical proficiency or the degree of care, judgment, and responsibility, 

required for the certificate and ratings held. The proper standard for revocation is not whether 

specific violations demonstrate a failure to exercise the necessary qualifications of a certificate 

holder, but rather whether the violations demonstrate that the holder has never possessed or no 

longer possesses such qualifications. Similarly, suspension until demonstration of qualification 

is appropriate when the agency has reason to believe the certificate holder may lack the required 

competence to hold a certificate and generally when the certificate holder fails or refuses to be 

reexamined. In either case, using the factors normally applied to select a sanction in punitive 

suspension cases is neither required nor appropriate. 

b. Misconduct Generally Warranting Revocation. 

(1) The FAA has concluded that by their nature, some acts of misconduct are so 

egregious as to demonstrate the certificate holder never possessed or no longer possesses the 

qualifications required to hold any airman certificate and other certificates. Therefore, such acts 

of misconduct warrant revocation of all airman certificates and other certificates held by the 

certificate holder. Such acts include: making a fraudulent or intentionally false statement; 

operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or with an alcohol 

concentration of .04 percent or above, or within 8 hours of consuming alcohol, in violation of 

14 C.P.R. § 91.17(a); operating a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that 

narcotic drugs, marijuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances as defined in federal 

7-17 
10/01/07 2150.38 

or state statutes are carried in the aircraft, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19(a); refusing to submit 

to a drug or alcohol test; and conviction for the violation of any federal or state statute relating 

to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or 

importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, depressant or stimulant drugs or substances involving 

the use of an aircraft, the exercise ofthe privileges of the alleged violator's airman certificate to 

further the prohibited conduct, or more than one drug conviction of any kind within the scope of 

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.15(a), 63.12(a), or 65.12(a).5 

(2) Except for cases under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106,44710,44726, and 46111, there may be 

unique circumstances for which a sanction other than revocation is warranted. Because 

of the serious implications for aviation safety raised by these cases, however, FAA legal counsel 

coordinates any decision to seek a sanction other than revocation with the Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Enforcement. In addition, legal counsel documents the basis for that decision in the 

case file. 

c. Intentionally False or Fraudulent Statements. 

(1) In general, the FAA considers the making of intentionally false or fraudulent 

statements so serious an offense that it results in revocation of all certificates held by the 

certificate holder. See, for example, Administrator v. Twomey, 5 NTSB 1258 (1986), aff'd 

821 F.2d 63 (1st Cir. 1987) (violation of 14 C.F.R. § 67.20(a)). Falsification has a serious effect 

on the integrity ofthe records on which the FAA's safety oversight depends. If the reliability of 

these records is undermined, the FAA's ability to promote aviation safety is compromised. 

(2) The FAA has handled differently one area of intentional falsification - omitting 

information related to alcohol- or drug-related convictions, and other similar convictions, from 

applications for airman medical certification. In FAA Order 2150.3A, Compliance and 

Enforcement (C & E) Bulletin No. 90-2, issued on February 6, 1990, the agency's policy called 

for the following sanctions: revoking the alleged violator's current medical certificate, if any, 

and suspending any airman or ground instructor certificates for 60 days when the falsification 

involved omitting from the application for medical certification information on a single driving 

while intoxicated or driving under the influence (DUI) conviction; revoking any current medical 

certificate and suspending any airman or ground instructor certificates for 180 days when the· 

falsification involved omitting information on a single drug conviction for simple possession 

from the application for medical certification; and revoking any current medical and any ainna:n 

or ground instructor certificates when the falsification involved omitting information on more 

than one DUI conviction, or a conviction for more than simple possession, or more than two drug 

convictions of any type. 

(3) The FAA has reevaluated the sanction guidance contained inC & E Bulletin 

5 A drug conviction within the scope of 14 C.P.R.§§ 61.15(a), 63.12(a), or 65.12(a) that does not involve the use of 

an aircraft or the exercise of the privileges of the alleged violator's certificate also can warrant revocation in some 

circumstances. Revocation is appropriate where the totality of the circumstances underlying the conviction indicates 

that the alleged violator lacks the judgment, responsibility, and compliance attitude required of an airman. This 

determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. 

7-18 
10/01/07 2150.38 

No. 90-2, and has concluded that the sanction guidance for fraudulent or intentional falsification 

should be the same regardless of the type of case involved. The FAA has determined that 

falsification in the cases described inC& E Bulletin No. 90-2 has the same potentially adverse 

consequences for aviation safety as does falsification of any other record. In essence, a person 

who fraudulently or intentionally falsifies these records demonstrates the same lack of care, 

judgment, and responsibility as a person who falsifies any other aviation safety-related records. 

To correct the anomaly created by C & E Bulletin No. 90-2, the FAA rescinds the sanction 

guidance regarding intentionally false or fraudulent statements in that bulletin and withdraws the 

Notice ofEnforcement Policy found at 54 Fed. Reg. 15144 (1989). 

12. General Guidance for Using the Sanction Guidance Table for Unruly Passenger 

Conduct Under 49 U.S.C. § 46318. 

a. General Purpose and Policy. 

(1) The table at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p provides the suggested sanction ranges 

for a single act of unruly conduct by a passenger subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 46318. 

See also Crew Interference (Unruly Passengers), chapter 4, paragraph 14. They provide general 

guidance only about how to apply the agency's civil penalty authority under 49 U.S.C. § 46318. 

The sanction guidance tables do not supplant the agency's judgment or its prosecutorial 

discretion in evaluating a particular case for enforcement action. 

(2) Whether a particular passenger's unruly act warrants a sanction within or outside the 

sanction range, or in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion a decision not to proceed with 

enforcement action depends on the totality of the circumstances in a particular case. Where the 

mitigating and aggravating factors described in chapter 7, paragraph 4 are also present in a 

49 U.S.C. § 46318 case, FAA enforcement personnel applying the sanction ranges at Appendix 

B, part II, Figure B-3-p consider those factors in selecting an appropriate sanction within or 

outside the range. The variety of conduct subject to 49 U.S. C. § 46318 and the varied facts and 

circumstances within which unruly conduct may occur, may also warrant consideration of other 

mitigating and aggravating factors uniqueto unruly passenger conduct. Some of these additional 

factors are set forth in chapter 7, subparagraphs 12.b. and c. 

b. Additional Aggravating Factors to Consider. In addition to the factors described in 

chapter '/, paragraph 4, FAA enforcement personnel consider other potentially aggravating 

factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 12.b.(l)-(7) in the selection of an appropriate sanction within 

or outside the sancti~:m range. 

(1) The severity of the unruly conduct. The severity of the conduct may be indicated by 

several factors, including: 

• The physical characteristics of the individual committing the unruly conduct 

contrasted with those of the victim. 

• The nature of the conduct itself. 

• The extent of any injury inflicted. 

7-19 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(2) Whether the unruly conduct occurred when the aircraft was in flight or while 

passengers were boarding or deplaning. Certain unruly conduct that occurs during flight or on a 

crowded boarded flight may be more aggravating than the same conduct that occurs while 

passengers are deplaning. 

(3) Whether the unruly conduct was directed at a crewmember or a passenger. Because 

a crewmember has safety duties to perform on a flight, unruly conduct against a crewmember 

may be more aggravating than the same unruly conduct directed at an individual wb,o does not 

have any safety duties to perform on the flight. 

( 4) Whether the unruly passenger provoked the situation that resulted in the unruly 

conduct. For instance, a passenger who instigates a confrontation, or a passenger who mixes 

alcohol with prescribed or over-the-counter drugs that the passenger claims precipitated the 

unruly conduct. 

(5) Whether the unruly conduct necessitated that the flight be diverted from its intended 

destination. 

(6) Whether the unruly conduct necessitated that the flight crew call ahead for law 

enforcement to meet the flight on arrival. 

(7) Whether the unruly conduct was inflicted with malice or in anger. 

c. Additional Mitigating Factors to Consider. The factors listed in chapter 7, 

subparagraphs 12.c.(l)-(3) may justify a sanction below the sanction range, or in the agency's 

prosecutorial discretion, may justify a decision not to prosecute a passenger's unruly conduct. 

(1) Whether the unruly passenger has already served a criminal sentence for the same 

conduct or has already made monetary restitution in the context of a criminal prosecution for the 

same conduct. 

(2) Whether the passenger's unruly conduct was caused by a diagnosed medical or 

. mental condition for which the passenger was receiving medical treatment ..... 

(3) Whether the umuly conduct was a reasonable response to a provocation by another. 

However, a passenger's use of unreasonable force in response to a provocation by another 

individual on the aircraft would not constitute a mitigating factor. 

d. When to Apply the Sanction Range for Acts Posing an "Imminent Threat" to Safety 

of the Aircraft or Others on Board the Aircraft. 

(1) The sanction range at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p for an act that poses an 

imminent threat to safety of aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft applies when there is an 

imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or to the collective safety of others on board the 

aircraft. For example, a passenger attempting to open an emergency exit door would be an 

imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft. If the imminent threat to safety is directed to 

7-20 
10/01/07 2150.38 

specific individuals on the aircraft, then the sanction range for physical assault or threatened 

physical at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p applies. 

(2) In selecting an appropriate sanction within or outside the sanction range for an act 

posing an imminent safety threat, FAA enforcement personnel consider whether the resultant 

imminent threat was the unintended consequence of the passenger's careless or reckless act or 

whether the passenger intended the consequences. The former would justify a sanction toward 

the low end of the range, while the latter would justify a sanction toward the maximum range. 

e. Applicable Sanction Ranges for Security Officers or Others Assigned a Law 

Enforcement Function on a Flight (for example, Federal Air Marshals Assigned to the 

Flight). ·FAA enforcement personnel apply the sanction range applicable to physical assaults or 

threatened physical assaults on crewmembers (Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p ). 

,: f. Applying Unruly Passenger Sanction Guidance Tables to Multiple Acts. 

When applying the table to multiple acts by an unruly passenger, FAA enforcement personnel 

consider not only the individual unruly acts committed, but also the collective consequences of 

all the unruly behavior. FAA enforcement personnel do not .approach the sanction determination 

for multiple acts as a mechanical exercise of multiplying the number of separate acts of unruly 

behavior by a sanction amount in the range for a single act. Instead, they use the guidance in the 

table and exercise their judgment as to the seriousness of the conduct, given the totality of 

circumstances, to determine an appropriate sanction amount that will deter future violations by 

the unruly passenger and others similarly situated. 

7-21 
10/01/07 

AppendixB 

Table of Sanctions 

All Enforcement Programs 

Except Hazardous Materials 

Part One - Abbreviations and Definitions 

2150.38 

1. Applicability. This table of sanctions applies to violations that occurred on or after 

October 1, 2007. For violations occurring before October 1, 2007, FAA enforcement personnel 

apply the sanction guidance principles in FAA Order 2150.3A using up to the statutory 

maximum sanction amount in effect at the time of the violation. 

2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: 

AP IS means approved production inspection system 

AIW means airworthiness 

A WC means airworthiness certificate 

BTS means Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

IA means inspection authorization 

LE means law enforcement 

PC means production certificate 

STC means supplemental type certificate 

TC means type certificate 

TFR means Temporary Flight Restriction 

TSA means Transportation Security Administration 

3. Definitions: 

a. A continuing violation arises when a specific violation occurs over more than one day 

or over more than one flight. It also may involve a violation that is ongoing,jor example, an 

ongoing refusal to provide required records to the FAA for inspection. Punitive sanctions are 

.. appropriate-for ·coritiritiirig violations thafare.riot currently ongoing. Sanction guidance for 

these violations is set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 (multiple acts or multiple violations) of 

chapter 7. A combination of punitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing 

violations are ongoing. 

b. Violation committed by a small business concern. Section 503 of Vision 100---Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended 49 U.S.C. § 46301 to change the civil 

penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations that occur on or after December 12, 2003; 

the law sets different limits on the civil penalties the FAA may seek for violations by small 

business concerns, as opposed to violations by other entities. Vision 100 CARA gives small 

business concern the same meaning as in the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 632). Section 

632 defines small business concern as an enterprise "which is independently owned and 

operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The Small Business 

Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and define business concern as 

B-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

"a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the U.S., and which 

operates primarily within the U.S. or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. 

economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor." 13 

C.F .R. § 121.105. The SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, 

describing each kind of entity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for 

small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number of employees. (The size limits generally 

are established under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).) For the 

complete list, see 13 C.P.R. § 121.201 or the SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Thus, if a person 

meets the defmition of business concern and has annual receipts or the number of employees 

within the applicable SBA limit, it is a small business concern, and the FAA will determine the 

civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in 

numbers of employees, unless otherwise noted). 

Manufacturing 

Aircraft- 1,500 employees 

Aircraft engine and part- 1,000 employees 

Other aircraft part and equipment- 1,000 employees 

Air transportation 

Scheduled passenger- 1,500 employees 

Scheduled freight- 1 ,5 00 employees 

Nonscheduled passenger- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine passenger- $25.5 million annual receipts 

Nonscheduled freight-1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine freight- $25.5 million annual receipts 

Other nonscheduled - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Support activities - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Flight Training- $23.5 million annual receipts 

Airport operations 

Airport operator, organized for profit- $6.5 million annual receipts 

Other openitioris, exdudiri.g air traffic control - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Note that the following guidance uses large business concern for some civil penalty ranges. 

That is not a statutory or regulatory term for purposes ofF AA enforcement. It includes each 

business concern that exceeds the maximum limit for small business concern, as well as any 

other entity that does not meet the definition of "small business concern." 

c. Civil Penalty Ranges. For the purpose of this table, when civil penalty action is 

recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, or Maximum, the penalty ranges are 

defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) of this paragraph. Note that the middle of each 

recommended sanction range would be for a single violation without aggravating or mitigating 

factors. 

B-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(1) VIOLATION COM:MITTED BY U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR U.S. COMMERCIAL 

OPERATOR. 

CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CARRIER AND OPERATOR 

GROUP I- Each air carrier operating under part 121 or part 135, with an annual operating 

revenue of $100,000,000 or more. Operating revenue is determined by reference to DOT's 

"Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." See 

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html, and click on "Airline Financial Review." 

GROUP II- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 with an annual 

operating revenue ofless than $100,000,000, or under part 135 with an annual operating 

revenue ofless than $100,000,000, if the 135 operator has 50 or more pilots and 25 or more 

aircraft on its operations specifications. Operating revenue is determined by reference to 

DOT's "Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." 

GROUP III- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with 6 to 49 

pilots or 6 to 24 aircraft. 

GROUP IV- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with no more 

than 5 pilots and no more than 5 aircraft. 

GROUP I -large business concern 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$18,750-$25,000 

$10,000-$18,749 

$2,000-$9,999 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximllin 

Moderate 

Minimum 

. $8,250-$11,000 

$4,400-$8,249 

$1,100-$4,399 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$850-$1,100 

$650-$849 

$500$649 

GROUP II-large business concern: 

B-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

11. All individuals and entities: Failure to Surrender Certificate, Authorization, or Other 

Approval. 

Fig. B-11. 

1. U.S. AIR CARRIERS, U.S. COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, PART 125 OPERATORS, AND 

PART 129 OPERATORS. 

Fig. B-1-a. Maintenance Manual Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Failure to maintain current manual Minimum Up to 7-day 

suspension 

(2) Failure to provide adequate Moderate to Maximum 

instructions and procedures in 

manual 

_{_3) Failure to distribute manual to appropriatepersonnel Minimum to Moderate 

( 4) Release of aircraft without required equipment Moderate to Maximum Up to 7-day 

s~ension 

Fig. B-1-b. AJW Directive Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Failure to comply Moderate to Maximum 

Fig. B-1-c. Operations Specifications Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Exceed inspection or overhaul time limitation Moderate Up to 7-day 

suspension 

(2) Operation contrary to ops specs- technical Minimum 

noncompliance 

(3) Operation contrary to ops specs -likely potential or actual Moderate to Maximum 

adverse effect on safe operation 

Fig. B-1:-d~ Facilit~es a.ild F:q~ipnient .. Civi!~~J1alty .. Certificate .. .. . .. ... ,--. '"'"'·'- ·- ·- --~··· -·--· . .- -----

Action 

(l) Failure to provide adequately for proper seniicing, Maximum Indefinite 

maintenance, repair, or inspection of facilities and equipment Suspension 

until proper 

servicing, 

maintenance, 

repair and 

inspection of 

facilities and 

equipment is 

provided to 

Revocation 

B-12 

.... ... ...