William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 5 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND 

MEMORANDUM FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

COMES NOW Respondent, William A. Curtright, DBA respectfully files and submits 

this Reply to clarify the issues before this court and to focus on the issues in this matter. 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on 

November 3, 2016. Contrary to Complaint's characterization, of the Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Complaint's response was filed pursuant to § 13.218 (f) (2) stating that it was the 

same as bringing a Motion for Summary Judgment under FRCP56, when it clearly is not the 

same as a Motion for Summary Judgment because §13.218(£)(2) is for a specific Motion to 

Dismiss. This is just another example of Complainant's Attorney being non-responsive, and 

trickery on Respondent. Respondent brought Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment 

against Complaint FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration (the "Administrator" or Complainant") and moves for summary judgment on all 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-201S-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 1 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (S03)48S-0812 
of the claims in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56), Respondent, respectfully moves this Court for entry of an Order granting summary 

judgment in his favor. 

Complainant has not met his burden in overcommg Complainant's motion for summary 

judgment. Not only has complainant failed to establish the law applicable to his claims, he has 

failed to come forward with admissible evidence of material facts to support the essential 

elements of his claims against Respondent. In his response, Complainant has done nothing more 

than attempt to create a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts and has merely recited sound 

bites of law in his attempt to persuade this Court that he should prevail. This Court must not be 

so persuaded. 

In re Anderson v. Libertv Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) Complainant "must present affirmative 

evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment."1 Respondent 

replies that the Complaint has not met the standard of evidentiary conflict and that mere denials 

or conclusory statements are insufficient." 2

" SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp of Am., 775 F. 

2d 1107,1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane) citing Barmag Barmer Machinenfabrik AG v. Murata 

Mach., Ltd., 731 F. 2d 

Complaint bears the burden of proving each element of his claims. Celotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986i In his response, Complainant fails to identify specific facts, material to 

the elements of his claims, that are in dispute. Rather, he asserts conclusions he believes the 

1 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. 477 U.S. 242 (1986) 2 SRI Int'1 v. Matsushita E1ec. Corp of Am., 775 F. 2d 1107,1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane) citing Bannag Banner 

Machinenfubrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F. 2d 

3 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA·201S-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 2 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
court should reach based upon his twist of the facts. Complaint's twist, however, misrepresents 

the facts, takes them out of context or only provides half of the facts. Additionally, he attempts 

to present conclusory statements and immaterial matters that do not support the elements of his 

Complaint. 

Respondent replies that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted based 

on the evidence supporting Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, 

Respondent would further show the court that during discovery it has been discovered by 

Respondent that Complainant has not disclosed section B or C of the EIR which will show the 

court what recommendations came from the Oregon NTSB office of their the written statements. 

Which according to the FAA 2150.3B Order Evidence section a. The Complainant would need 

to produce Sections B and C of the EIR in order to enter it into Evidence. Rather than claiming 

that Section B & C are privilege, has not given respondent any case law in support of such a 

claim and tries to hide the fact from the court and respondent that it is merely the interview and 

recommendations from the local NTSB office. Further, Respondent would reply that according 

to FAA 2150.3B Types of Evidence. Section C (8) "interviews are to interview mainly the 

alleged violator to give them an opportunity to tell their side of the story and to help establish 

all pertinent facts and circumstance." 

Respondent again would state that the FAA attorney David Shayne ignored when documents 

were produced to him for compliance of production of Respondents log books. FAA attorney, 

David Shayne has ignored when local authorities in Oregon told him that Respondent was in 

compliance. Respondent replies that the Complainant has not followed their own Rules and 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 3 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209·7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Regulations that have been established with ORDER 2150.3B. Respondent replies that pursuant 

to ORDER 2150.3B page 2-3g. Fairness states the following: 

"To be effective, the agency's compliance and enforcement program must be fair and reasonable and 

should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulations..... It also requires good faith efforts to 

understand the apparent violator's position and take it into account, as well as to apprise the 

apparent violator of the agency's position in a timely manner." (Herein attached as Exhibit 1) 

Respondent further replies that Complainant is in violation of their own Rules and Regulations 

ORDER 2150.3B because Complainant failed to give proper notice to Respondent in 2014. The 

notice sent by Complainant was not signed by any one and is therefore not proper notice of an 

alleged violation. Further, the alleged violation was not signed by an attorney and no bar number 

was used in the Complaint filed with the United States of America Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearing in Washington, D.C., which is in violation of the FAA ORDER 2150.3B 

section 15 Legal Enforcement Actions. (Herein attached as Exhibit 2). 

A. Respondent hereby incorporates it's Motion for Summary Judgment , reqmres the 

Complainant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidences, a prima facie case that: (I) 

respondent did not produce or make the Log Books available for inspection by the 

Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB). Respondent would state that the FAA has not identified grounds that will show a 

genuine issue of material fact 4 

4 Celotex Com. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317,323-24 (1986) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page4 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax(503)485-0812 
B. Respondent replies to the conrt that the records themselves were produced to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and that the records themselves do not need to, and 

arguably should not be, stored on the aircraft, but must be produced for inspection in a 

reasonable amount of time when requested by the FAA, NTSB or law enforcement. (RM&MSJ 

page 4 item B). 

I. Elements that cannot be proven by the Complainant 

The Federal Aviation Administration Complaint cannot demonstrate a tribal issue of fact as to 

Sections 4630l(a) and (d) of Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) (Transportation) (49 

U.S.C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d)), alleging that Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of 

$11,000.00 as being appropriate for the alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c). 5 

A. Respondent moves for summary judgment on his claim that the Federal Aviation 

Administration complaint alleging that respondent is in violation of Section 14 C.F .R. 

91.417(c) and charging under Sections 46301 (a) and (d) of Title 49 of the United States 

code (U.S.C. (Transportation) (49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a) and (d) a civil penalty in the 

amount of $11,000.00 violates his rights under the Eight Amendment. In addition, 

Respondent vindicating his Eight Amendment rights of the United States Constitution 

which is the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government 

from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. 

(RM&MSJ page 6 items 2 & 2A.) 

B. Respondent moves for summary judgment on his claim that the Federal Aviation 

Administration failed to disclose the entire letter of investigation, dated September 4, 2014 

5

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317 323-24 (1986) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 5 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
to William Ames Curtright in its entirety. The FAA letter of Investigation has no 

signature page, or page 2. The document is page 1 and 3. The document is not an official 

letter, and is not authentic without a signature, or served and is not an entire document 

either served or produced by the FAA without the signature6 which the door was opened 

by Complainant to bring to the attention of this court that FAA ORDER 2150.3B has not 

been followed by Complainant. (Herein attached as Exhibit 3 is ORDER 2150.3B section 

9. Letter of Investigation) 

C. Respondent would argue and reply that because the FAA letter of investigation was 

unsigned and incomplete and was not produced or served in its entirety and therefor is not 

an authentic document. The FAA cannot rely on it for filing their initial Complaint and 

the entire Complaint filed by the FAA should be dismissed and Summary Judgment relief 

be granted to Respondent. 

D. In addition, Respondent would argue that the FAA Letter, dated September 4, 2014 is 

for .... "documentation of your compliance with the flight review requirement of 14 C.F.R. 

DOT 61.56(c);" However, in the FAA's complaint that was filed with the Department of 

Transportation Office of Hearings in Washington, D.C. on or about May 191

h 2015 the 

FAA alleges that Respondent was in violation of 14 CFR Section 91.417 (c) and does not 

include any allegations that Respondent was in violation of Section 14 C.F.R. DOT 61.56 

(c), which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 91.417(c). Section 14 C.F.R. DOT 61.56(c) 

states the following: ... 

6 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 6 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
"Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot 

in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24'h calendar month before the 

month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has ..... " (RM&MFSJ page 8 

item C) 

On or about January 14, 2015 the FAA through its attorney David J. Shayne sent a letter to 

William A. Curtright stating in item #2. "On or about July 1, 2014 an Aviation Safety Inspector 

(ASI) from the Portland Flight Standards District Office wrote you a letter demanding that you 

provide aircraft weight and balance, and aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks for N949JP ." 

(RM&MFSJ page 8 item E). 

E. On or about May 19, 2015 the FAA through its attorney David J. Shayne filed a 

complaint; however, attorney David J. Shayne never signed the complaint, and did not list 

his attorney bar number to the complaint.7 Respondent would request the court to impose 

sanctions against attorney David J. Shayne in the amount of$11,000.00 for failure to sign 

and include his state bar number on the complaint. 8 Respondent replies to the court 

according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ll(a) (Fed.R.Civ. P. ll(a) provides 

instructional guidance and Rule 11 (a) states, in part: "The court must strike an unsigned 

paper" ... )

9 (RM&MFSJ page 8 item F) 

F. Respondent replies the court that the FAA has never given an explanation of why they are 

proposing an $11.000.00 fine as the civil penalty, and what forms the basis for the maximum 

7 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 8 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(c) 9 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 7 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
amount allowed. Respondent would further show the court that in the Complaint that was filed the 

FAA alleges that Respondent is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000.00 pursuant to 49 

U.S. C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d). (Hereto attached as Exhibit 9 is Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 

46301 (a) and (d). Respondent replies this court that under Title 49 U.S.C. § 46301-Civil penalties 

(A) states the following: "(1) A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil 

penalty of not more than $25,000 (or $1,100 is the person is an individual .... " The FAA did 

not bring the civil penalty allegation under the proper U.S.C. code of title 49 U.S.C.§ 46301 (d)(2), 

and (7)(a)) Respondent would request the court to grant summary judgment relief to Respondent 

on this matter for lack of explanation, jurisdiction, and incorrect citing of law for the maximum 

amount allowed in a civil penalty case. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is page 32lines 18-25 of 

the transcript of the telephone conference of August 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative law Judge.) 

G. Respondent replies the court that the FAA has never given an explanation of why they are 

proposing an $11,000.00 fme as the penalty, and what forms the basis for the maximum amount 

allowed. Respondent would request the court to grant summary judgment for lack of explanation, 

and basis of the maximum amount allowed. (Attached hereto as Exhibit I 0 is page 32 Lines 18-25 

of the transcript of the telephone conference of August 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge.) 

H. Respondent replies to the court that the FAA has not met the burden of proof as the moving party 

bringing this action before the court against Respondent because of lack of proving that the 

imposed fine of $11,000.00 truly reflects the magnitude and scope of time period where the 

records were lost and not available to the FAA for inspection. Respondent replies to the court that 

in Complainant's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to the ALI's Order of August 10, 2016 and FRCP 

26(1(a) that document 2014NM090046 clearly states that on July 7, 2014 and August 28, 2014 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 8 
Respondent sent copies of the documents that were requested of him to the FAA. (Attached hereto 

as Exhibit 11 is document 20 14NM090046 with lines f, and h, j.) 

I. Respondent replies to the court that the FAA hindered this case by not disclosing to Martin G. 

Conroy that the documents were produced on July 7, 2014 as stated in the letter from Dr. W. Ames 

Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 RE: EIR Number 2014NM090046 with 

attachments. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is the letter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. 

Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 with attached documents: Oregon Aircraft Registration 

Certificate and Memorandum from Ben W. Davidson to William Ames Curtright, dated 

8/26/2014; Memorandum dated July 7, 2014 from William A. Curtright to Conray, Marty with 

attachments.) Respondent would request that this court grant summary judgment for lack of 

evidence of violation of Section 14 C.F.R. 91.417( c) against Respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

Complainant has failed to meet his burden of coming forward with specific admissible evidence 

to support each element of his claims for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. In 

opposing Summary judgment, Complainant has done nothing more than attempt to create a 

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts of this case. Further, he has not grounded his claims 

in the applicable law, Rules and Regulations of the FAA. 

WHEREFORE, It is appropriate for this Court to grant Respondent's motion for summary 

judgment. 

Respectfully submitted this lOth day of November 2016 

(

·. (\ c:-----

=---'""'~c='r=·~----,----,-C=-;;_--.,::..,~:-:··--:---~- \._____._.~, ---

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 9 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified First Class Mail) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2WIOOO 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

ONE COPY 

Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 10 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209·7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
10/01/07 2150.38 

seeks civil penalties primarily under 49 U.S.C. § 46301; seizes aircraft under 49 U.S.C. § 46304; 

and issues judicially enforceable orders under 49 U.S. C. § 40113. FAA enforcement personnel 

also refer apparent violations to foreign governments or to the Department ofDefense (DOD) for 

appropriate handling, and in cases where there is possible criminal conduct, to the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) for criminal investigation. Generally, under 49 U.S.C. § 40113, FAA 

enforcement personnel take actions believed necessary to carry out the Administrator's statutory 

safety duties and responsibilities. Regulations governing the transportation of hazardous 

materials are enforceable by civil and criminal penalties, orders directing compliance, and 

equitable judicial relief (49 U.S.C. §§ 5121, 5122, 5123, and 5124). Regulations governing 

commercial space transportation are enforceable by civil penalties and licensing actions ( 49 

u.s. c. §§ 70107, 70115). 

(2) Purposes. FAA enforcement personnel take compliance and enforcement action to 

prevent future actions that would violate the regulations (for example, immediate corrective 

action after counseling or a letter of correction; cease and desist orders; injunctions). They also 

take enforcement actions for remedial purposes (for example, administrative remedial trainiog; 

immediate corrective action and comprehensive fixes under the voluntary disclosure reporting 

programs; certificate suspension pending demonstration of qualifications; or revocation for lack 

of qualification or competency). They also take enforcement actions to deter future violations by 

the subject of the enforcement action and those similarly situated (for example, punitive 

certificate actions or civil penalties). 

g. Fairness. To be effective, the agency's compliance and enforcement program must be 

fair and reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulation. This does not ._ 

and should not imply an unwillingness to apply the full force of statutory sanctions where 

warranted. It does encompass the right of an apparent violator to be given objective, evenhanded 

consideration of all circumstances surrounding the allegations before final action is taken. It also 

requires good faith efforts to understand the apparent violator's position and take it into accoun~ 

as well as to apprise the apparent violator of the agency's positi()n in a timely manner. 

h. Timeliness. 

( 1) The agency's discovery of, and response to, violations should be timely. Delays in 

investigation or processing of enforcement investigative reports can adversely affect the 

effectiveness of the agency's compliance and enforcement program in several ways. Delays may 

let an unsafe condition continue if prompt corrective action is not taken. Delays also may 

de-emphasize the seriousness of a given violation and lessen the deterrent value of any 

enforcement action taken. The deterrent quality of enforcement action, and effective hriklrig of 

the enforcement sanction to objective change in compliance behavior, can be best realized if the 

FAA investigates diligently and promptly and administers the appropriate sanction within a 

reasonable time period. If the allegations of violation are not sustained, any unwarranted delay 

in processing the case may impose an unjustified hardship. The time needed for investigation 

andprocessing-wiUvarydepending on the complexity of each case. Certain cases, because of 

their effect on safety, including the need for emergency action, will sometimes demand 

immediate involvement of the entire investigative and legal team to effect timely agency action, 

sometimes in only a matter of hours or a few days. 

2-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

letters to airmen, pilot forums, and even press releases may be appropriate. The program office 

maintains a tracking method to evaluate the effectiveness of the special emphasis enforcement 

program on a continuing basis until termination of the program. 

7. Formal Complaints. 

a. Authority To Investigate Violations of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Part A. Under 

49 U.S.C. § 46101(a)(l), a person may file a written complaint with the Administrator about 

violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, part A, or a requirement prescribed under part A. Under 49 

U.S.C. § 46101(a)(2), the Administrator, on his or her initiative, may investigate, if the 

Administrator determines that reasonable grounds exist regarding a person's violation. If the 

Administrator determines the complaint does not state facts that warrant an investigation or 

further action, the Administrator may dismiss the complaint without a hearing (49 U.S.C. 

§ 46101 (a)(3)). The Administrator, after notice and opportunity for hearing, must issue an order 

to compel compliance with part A if he or she finds, after the investigation, that a person is 

violating part A (49 U.S.C. § 46101(4)). 

b. Procedures. 14 C.F.R. § 13.5 prescribes procedures for persons filing formal 

complaints. Under that section, any person may file a complaint with the Administrator about 

anything done or not done by any person in contravention of any provision of any statute, or 

regulation or order issued under it about matters within the jurisdiction of the Administrator. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.5, however, does not apply to complaints against the Administrator or any 

employee of the FAA acting within the scope of his or her employment 

c. Contents of the Formal Complaint. Formal complaints are sent to the FAA, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington D. C. 20591. The Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement or his or her delegate 

determines whether the complaint meets the criteria for being docketed as a formal complaint. 

Complaints that do not meet the criteria set forth below are not docketed as a formal complaint. 

Rather, the FAA treats them as reports under 14 C.F.R. § 13.1. Complaints that meet the criteria 

set forth below are docketed, and a copy is mailed to each person named in the complaint Each 

formal complaint must: 

(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed for the purpose of seeking 

an appropriate order or other enforcement action. 

(2) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who is the subject of the 

complaint and, for each person, thespecificTermsofthestafU.fe;·regwiinon~-or ord'"'er"'tfi=e~per=so=nc---­

violated. 

(3) Contain a concise statement of the facts relied on to substantiate each allegation. 

( 4) State the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing the complaint. 

That person or a duly authorized representative sigos the complaint. 

d. Response to the Complaint. Within 20 days after service of the complaint, the person 

named in the complaint must file an answer. 

2-11 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

(2) To promote the prompt and diligent processing of enforcement cases, the FAA has 

timeliness goals for completing investigations and associated EJRs and processing legal 

enforcement actions. The timeliness goals for completing investigations and EIRs are in chapter 

4, subparagraph 4.e. The timeliness goals for processing legal enforcement actions are in chapter 

6, paragraph 25. 

i. Recommendations of Inspectors, Special Agents, Field Offices, and Regional Offices. 

FAA investigative personnel recommend initially the appropriate type of response to address an 

apparent violation. Often, they are in the best position to evaluate various subjective 

considerations, such as the apparent violator's compliance attitude and whether an alternative to 

legal enforcement action may be sufficient to achieve compliance. If FAA investigative 

personnel prepare an enforcement investigative report (EIR), program office management 

reviews it to determine consistency with agency compliance and enforcement policy. In this 

review, field and regional program office personnel consider the recommendations of FAA 

investigative personnel, if they properly justify and explain their recommendations. FAA legal 

counsel who reviews the EIR considers the recommendations of the program office. 

j. FAA Legal Enforcement Actions; Sanction Guidance Policy. After determining that 

legal enforcement action is necessary, FAA enforcement personnel consult the sanction guidance 

policies in chapter 7 and tables of sanctions in Appendix B or C to determine the appropriate 

sanction. FAA enforcement personnel must fully explain and justify in the EIR deviations from 

the sanction guidance policy. 

4. Responsibility for Determining Legal Enforcement Action. 

a. General. IfF AA enforcement personnel select legal enforcement action (for example, 

certificate action or civil penalty action), they determine the type and amount of sanction under 

agency sanction guidance policy. The program office and legal counsel jointly determine the 

type and amount of sanction sought in a legal enforcement action. The roles of the various 

enforcement personnel with regard to sanction determination are outlined below. Disagreements 

within a program office or between legal counsel and the program office are generally resolved 

following discussion among, as appropriate, the inspector or other investigative personnel; field 

office, regional, or Washington headquarters program office personnel; and legal counsel. 

b. Responsibilities ofF AA Investigative Personnel. 

(l) In all legal enforcement actions except those recommended by the security and 

hazardous materials program office, FAA investigative personnel recommend only the type of 

legal enforcement action (for example, civil penalty action, fixed-period suspension (for 

example, 30-day suspension)), indefinite suspension, revocation.) that should be taken. Except in 

security or hazardous materials EIRs, FAA investigative personnel do not recommend a specific 

amount of sanction (that is, specific number of dollars or days) or a range of sanction in cases 

that warrant either civil penalty action or a fixed-period certificate suspension. Fouecurityand 

hazardous materials EIRs, FAA special agents recommend a range of sanction and a specific 

amount of sanction in cases that warrant legal enforcement action. 

2-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

8. Principles for Applying Investigative Findings to Regulations Believed Violated. 

a. Enforceable Regulations. An enforceable regulation generally contains either 

mandatory language, that is, shall or must or prolubitory language, for example, no person may 

or a person may not. Regulations that contain words such as no person may, except or no 

person may, unless are enforceable only in instances that are not covered by exceptions. If the 

situation covered by the exception exists, the requirement or prohibition does not apply. For 

example, the minimum safe altitudes in 14 C.F.R. § 91.119, apply "except when necessary for 

takeoff or landing." Some regulations written in the question and answer format under plain 

language principles may be enforceable even though they do not contain mandatory language. 

For example, 14 C.F.R. § 39.7 provides that a person is in violation of the regulations if they do 

not meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive (AD). Although the regulation does not 

use the word must, it places a requirement on persons to comply with ADs by explicitly stating 

that they are in violation if they operate a product that does not meet AD requirements. 

b. Elements of Regulations. Regulations consist ofmnltiple elements. To prove a 

violation of a regulation, there must be evidence to prove each of the individual elements. This 

makes the ability to identity the individual elements of a regulation a critical investigative skilL 

Appendix E contains an example of how FAA enforcement personnel establish a violation by 

proving each element of a regulation. 

c. Burden and Standard of Proof. In prosecuting both certificate actions and civil penalty 

actions, the FAA has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence, to establish all facts necessary to satisfY each element of a statutory or 

regulatory violation. The preponderance of evidence standard requires that the FAA's evidence 

shows that it is more likely than not the respondent committed the violation. When a respondent 

asserts an affirmative defense at a hearing, the respondent has tile burden of proof and must 

establish the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence. 

d. Relevance and Materiality. Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to 

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more 

probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Under the 5 U.S.C. § 556(d), 

the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion ()f irrelevant, immaterial, or 

unduly repetitious evidence. Material evidence is evidence that has a natural tendency to 

influence or is capable of influencing a question at issue in the legal dispute. 

-----· 9;-tetter-oHnvestigation-and Response. 

a. General. 

(1) A letter of investigation (LOI) serves the dual purposes of notifYing an apparent 

violator that he or she is under investigation for a possible violation and providing an opportunity 

for the apparent violator to tell his or her side of the story. While an LOI is not required, FAA 

investigative personnel should issue an LOI in most cases. Learning the other side of the story 

early in the investigation is to everyone's advantage. Inviting input also helps to demonstrate the 

FAA is conducting the investigation fairly and impartially. FAA investigative personnel do not 

4-10 & hfi. tx '-t- 3 

fd'\ ~ II 
10/01/07 2150.38 

issue an LOI unless evidence shows that a violation may exist. IfF AA investigative personnel 

issue an LOI, they put a copy of it in the EIR See sample letter of investigation in Figure A-1 of 

Appendix A. 

(2) An LOI usually identifies the activity being investigated, such as the departure of 

Nl2345 from Anywhere, USA, at some given time and date, or 1naintenance performed on 

Nl2345, at some given time and date, as opposed to citing specific sections of the regulations. 

During the investigation, it is usually premature to cite specific regulations. The critical 

objective of the LOI is to advise the apparent violator of the subject matter of the investigation 

sufficiently so the recipient of the letter may respond to the facts giving rise to an investigation 

of an apparent violation. 

(3) An LOI also may include a request for inspection of records. Some regulations 

specifically require certificate holders to allow the inspection of certain types of records. 

Examples include 14 C.F.R § 61.5l(i) for pilot logbooks and 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c) for 

maintenance logs. An LOI request for such documents includes a specific time limit for 

response to provide a firm basis for enforcement action if there is noncompliance. 

( 4) FAA investigative personnel usually send an LOI even if they have previously 

discussed the activity with the apparent violator, and he or she has offered an explanation. In 

these instances, an LOI serves to formalize and document the process. 

(5) In emergency cases, an LOI response may be the only opportunity for the agency to 

learn of contradictory information or affirmative defenses the apparent violator may present at 

trial (since there is no informal conference and little time for discovery in emergency 

proceedings). Therefore, LOis generally are sent in emergency cases and are specific and 

detailed in outlining the issues being investigated 

( 6) Where FAA investigative persormel discover additional violations during the 

investigation after they send the LOI, FAA investigative personnel use judgment as to whether 

they should send another letter of investigation. An investigation continues whether or not an 

LOI is sent. In cases involving companies with complex organizational structures, FAA 

investigative personnel exercise care to address the LOI to the responsible official. FAA 

investigative personnel may obtain advice on such matters from the supporting office. 

b. Preparation ofthe LOI. FAA investigative personnel use the following guidelines 

in preparing a letter of investigation: ---------------------

(1) The LOI is not a statement of charges. It informs the apparent violator of the 

activities being investigated. The LOI contains enough factual details so that the apparent 

violator can provide a response that addresses the facts the F M believes are relevant FAA 

investigative personnel do not cite specific statutory or regulatory provisions they believe have 

been violated, unless specific regulatory reference is needed to accurately identify the incident. 

The LOI only states there may have been a violation. 

4-11 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(2) The LOI specifies a time for reply. This time normally is 10 days. Additional time 

may be necessary in cases involving apparent violators who reside or have their principal place 

of business in foreign countries. Although FAA investigative personnel consider any reply 

received after the 10 days, the investigation continues even without a reply. IfF AA investigative 

personnel have forwarded the EIR to the regional office, they forward the reply with an analysis, 

including a discussion of how the reply affects the analysis or changes their conclusions. FAA 

investigative personnel include the LOI and any response to the LOI in section C of an EIR as 

items of proof. 

(3) The LOI requests that specific relevant documents be retained or made available for 

inspection and copying. 

( 4) If the apparent violator is an individual, FAA investigative personnel include a 

Privacy Act statement with the LOI. See sample Privacy Act notice in Figure A-2 of Appendix 

A. 

c. Sending the LOI to the Apparent Violator. FAA investigative personnel send the LOI 

by regular mail and either certified mail, return-receipt requested, or registered mail. to establish 

a record of notice to the party under investigation. If the party is a certificate holder, FAA 

investigative personnel send the document to the current address of record. If the regular mail is 

returned or the certified letter or registered letter is returned as undeliverable (because it is 

addressed incorrectly or the party has moved and left no forwarding address), then FAA 

investigative personnel correct the address or obtain a new address and resend the LOI to the 

correct address by regular mail and either certified mai~ return-receipt requested, or registered 

mail.. If the certified letter or registered letter is refused or returned unclaimed but the regular 

mail is not returned, then there is a presumption of service and FAA investigative personnel do 

not resend the LOI. IfF AA investigative personnel deliver the letter in person, they document 

the delivery in the file. 

d. Distribution ofLOI. FAA investigative personnel send the original letter of 

investigation to the apparent violator and copies of the LOI to supporting FAA offices. 

10. Evidence. 

a. General. The object of the investigation is to obtain evidence to establish whether a 

violation occurred. Evidence includes all the means by which any alleged fact tends to be 

proved or disproved. It is the means by which FAA legal counsel proves the facts alleged in a 

complaint. If FAA investigative personnel are uilstire alfout the relevance of a piece of evtdence, 

they secure and preserve the evidence and consult legal counsel. FAA investigative personnel 

obtain evidence from any place or source where it is legally available. Conducting an 

investigation at the scene of a violation often will help FAA investigative personnel in the 

collection of evidence. It affords FAA investigative personnel the best opportunity to obtain 

physical evidence and interview and obtain statements from eyewitnesses. FAA investigative 

personnel also prepare a written statement of their personal observations as soon as possible, 

because such observations are in most cases key evidence. FAA. investigative personnel obtain 

4-12 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

evidence that proves each element of the apparent violation and prepare a report that clearly 

conveys such facts and circumstances. 

b. Hearsay Evidence. Hearsay evidence is evidence offered by a witness to prove a fact 

about which the witness has no personal knowledge. For example, an inspector's testimony that 

a first officer stated the pilot in command appeared intoxicated would be hearsay evidence if 

offered to prove the pilot was intoxicated. In administrative hearings, such as those before the 

NTSB or DOT ALJs, hearsay evidence may be used to prove violations. FAA investigative 

personnel report any information that could be relevant to the case and could possibly be used as 

evidence, including information that might be hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence can be 

helpful to FAA investigative personne~ because it often leads to persons who have direct 

knowledge of the incident, or knowledge of important documents. Hearsay evidence may also 

be helpful to legal counsel in cross-examination of a hostile witness or the alleged violator. 

Despite the usefulness of hearsay evidence, FAA investigative personnel should obtain direct 

evidence if it is available because ALJ s generally accord greater weight to it. 

c. Types of Evidence. FAA investigative personnel gather and prepare various types of 

evidence, including witness statements, photographs, charts, maps, diagrams, records, and 

physical evidence, to substantiate a violation. 

(1) Violation history and accident/incident records. FAA investigative personnel obtain 

the violation history of the subject of the investigation from several automated information 

systems. They obtain violation history and accident history from the AID/EIS Display and 

Profile program uoder EIS. This program provides access to essential data taken from several 

separate data files of the Accidentllncident Data System (AIDS) and the Enforcement 

Information System (EIS). FAA investigative personnel address problems or questions to the 

local EIS system manager or A VS Support Central at 405-954-7272. EIS records containing a 

subject's rebuttal statement, under the provisions of the Privacy Act, are available only from 

AFS-620. Requests for release of this information should be referred to the Aviation Data 

Systems Branch, AFS-620. 

(2) Witness interviews. Generally, FAA investigative personnel interview all witnesses 

knowledgeable about an apparent violation and report the inform<~.tion gathered during the 

interview. Multiple witness statements may help in proving a c<~.se. FAA investigative personnel 

may tape-record an interview, if they request and receive permission from the interviewee for the 

recording. FAA investigative personnel must record the interviewee's permission on tape at the 

beginning of the taping of the interview. A tape recording is a valuable investigative means of 

securing evidence~ FAA -iiivestigative personneTselecT\vltilesses llasea on thelikelilrooaoftlret·, ----

knowledge about the incident and their competence to relate the information sought. FAA 

investigative personnel find, or learn of, possible witnesses from sources such as: 

• Passenger manifests. 

• Air traffic controllers. 

• Records and personnel of organizations, such as air carriers, air taxis, and repair 

stations. 

• Local restaurants or bars that may have served the apparent violator. 

4-13 
10/01/07 2150.38 

• Pilots and mechanics who may have pertinent information. 

• Persons who work or reside in the area of the incident. 

• Health personnel who may have exanrined the apparent violator. (May be 

obtained by subpoena or a signed release.) 

• Federal, state, or local law enforcement personnel. 

(3) Conducting the Interview. FAA investigative personnel interview witnesses in 

person or by telephone. FAA investigative personnel may use tl:le record of interview job aid in 

Figure A-3 of Appendix A to document information obtained during the interview. They may 

use other formats to document the interview, however, and should not feel constrained to follow 

the job aid in Appendix A. FAA investigative personnel state on the record of interview form 

the name, address, and telephone number of the person interviewed. If two or more FAA 

investigative personnel are preseut during the conversation, eacll prepares a record of interview 

for inclusion in section C of the EIR. The interviewing techniques ofF AA investigative 

personnel will vary depending on circumstances. The following general guidelines will facilitate 

an interview: 

• Plan the interview to assure the interviewer is thoroughly prepared and that 

the best environment in which to hold the interview is selected. 

• Put the person to be interviewed at ease. 

• Maintain control of the interview. 

• Assure from the outset the witness understands tl:lat any information 

provided may be used as evidence in subsequent enforcement proceedings. No promises of 

confidentiality may be given without prior consultation with FAA legal counsel. However, if a 

witness requests immunity in exchange for information regarding safety, FAA investigative 

personnel must immediately proceed under the policy on special enforcement consideration. 

• Do not discuss with witnesses any possible sanctions and do not raise the issue of 

immunity. Do not disclose sources of information, except where necessary. 

• Request a signed and dated statement. 

• Plan questions that will accomplish the objective. The broad or general question 

often is effective to open areas of discussion. Specific searching questions are good for getting 

specific information, clarification, and conclusions. 

• Be attentive and listen. 

• Take notes if practical to do so. This will vary with circumstances, but if notes 

are not taken at the interview, make notes immediately after the interview and document the time 

and date the interview took place. 

--------- .--s1llf1t!!lll"iz-e-tlre interview with the witness to velify the interviewer's · 

understanding and recollection of all relevant points. Give the witness an opportunity to make 

any additional comments. 

• Prepare a separate report of the interview, including the interviewer's own 

factual observations. This report of interview is a separate item of proof in the EIR. The report 

of interview must not contain personal opinions of the interviewer. 

• Ask witness to prepare written statement. 

• When an essential witness refuses to cooperate, contact FAA legal counsel for an 

administrative subpoena. 

4-14 
02/24/16 2150.38, Chg 11 

Appendix H 

through education warrants administrative action (warning notices or letters of correction, 

with associated documentation (See FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 5, Paragraph 3)). 

• When sufficient evidence exists to support a violation that poses a medium or high actual 

or potential risk to safety, legal enforcement action is appropriate. For example, legal 

enforcement action is appropriate when a UAS operation has a medium or high risk of 

endangering the operation of another aircraft or endangering persons or property on the 

ground. In addition, repeated or intentional violations general! y warrant legal 

enforcement action. 

In making a sanction determination, the guidance provided in Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7 and 

Appendix B shall be applied. Appendix B sets forth ranges applicable to various individuals and 

entities. 

• A violation that poses a medium actual or potential risk to safety generally warrants a 

civil penalty in the minimum to moderate range. 

5 

• A violation that poses a high actual or potential risk to safety generally warrants a civil 

penalty in the maximum range. 

• Repeated or intentional violations generally warrant a civil penalty in the applicable 

maximum range. 

For a deliberate, egregious violation by a certificate holder, regardless of whether the certificate 

holder is exercising the privileges of the certificate in connection with the violations associated 

with a UAS operation, certificate action, may be appropriate. Such certificate action may be in 

addition to a civil penalty. 

4 A certificate holder should appreciate the potential for endangerment that operating a UAS contrary to the FAA's 

safety regulations may cause. Accordingly, a violator's status as a certificate holder is an aggravating factor that may 

warrant a civil penalty above the moderate range for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. 

H-5 
02/24/16 2150.38, Chg 11 

Appendix H 

3. For a deliberate violation by an individual not holding an airman certificate, the FAA 

may seek a civil penalty up to the statutory maximum of$11,000 per violation under 49 

U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A). 

4. For a deliberate violation by an airman certificate holder, regardless of whether the 

airman was exercising the privileges of his or her certificate at the time of the violation, 

the appropriate sanction generally is revocation of the airman certificate. A civil penalty 

in the maximum range may be appropriate in addition to certificate revocation. 

5. The FAA's Regional Counsel Offices will coordinate with FAA's Office of Chief 

Counsel, Enforcement Division, in initiating and processing these legal enforcement 

actions. 

H-2 
02/24/16 2150.38, Chg 11 

Appendix H 

Appendix H. Compliance and Enforcement Bulletin No. 2012-1 

(Originally Effective 05/01/12) 

SUBJECT: Sanctions for persons who direct a laser toward an aircraft in violation of 14 C.F .R. 

§§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120. 

ffiSCUSSTON: Data recently compiled by the FAA reflects a continuing upward trend in the 

number of reported incidents of lasers being aimed at aircraft. Aiming a laser at an aircraft can 

seriously impair a pilot's vision and interfere with the flight crew's ability to safely handle its 

responsibilities. Flight crewmembers exposed to laser light, while operating an aircraft at night, 

have experienced glare (a temporary disruption in vision caused by the presence of a bright light 

within an individual's field of vision), flashblindness (the inability to see, caused by bright light 

entering the eye that persists after the illumination has ceased), and afterimage (an image that 

remains in the visual field after an exposure to bright light). A sufficiently powerful laser could 

cause permanent ocular damage, blinding crewmembers and making a successful landing 

virtually impossible. 

On June 1, 2011, the FAA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations issued a memorandum 

interpreting 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 as being applicable to a person, not on board the aircraft, who 

aims a laser beam at that aircraft. The memorandum noted that the interpretation applied equally 

to the similarly worded provisions of 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120. 

Subsequently, this interpretation was published in the Federal Register to increase public 

awareness that: (1) directing laser beams towards aircraft operating on the ground or in the air so 

that it interferes with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties is a 

violation of section 91.11; and (2) persons violating section 91.11 are subject to a civil penalty. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. 76611-76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Minors found in violation of section 91.11 under 

this interpretation are subject to enforcement action and sanction. 

Because of the continuing high number oflaser-related flight crewmember interference 

occurrences and the high risk to safety they present, the FAA's Acting Administrator has 

determined that a special emphasis enforcement program is v.ra..11anted for violations of 14 

C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120 resulting from such occurrences. 

ACTION: Until further notice, the following special emphasis enforcement program is in effect 

for violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120 committed by an individual 

when he or she aims a laser beam at an aircraft: 

1. Informal action (oral or written counseling) and administrative action (warning notices or 

letters of correction) are not used to address such violations. 

2. A single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation by an individual generally 

warrants a civil penalty in the moderate range ($2,200-$4,399). 1 

1 An individual who holds an airman certificate should appreciate the potential for danger 

associated with directing a laser at the crew operating an aircraft. Accordingly, a violator's 

status as an airman is an aggravating factor that may warrant a civil penalty above the moderate 

range for a single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation. 

H-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(2) All FAA investigative personnel include a written analysis supporting the type of 

legal enforcement action, and in security and hazardous materials EIRs the sanction range 

and specific amount of sanction, they recommend in section B of the EIR. In the written 

analysis, FAA investigative personnel explain the reasons why they recommend a type of legal 

enforcement action and for each violation address the factors described in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

or Appendix C that are relevant to that alleged violation. FAA investigative personnel explain 

how each of the relevant factors applies to each alleged violation and why it may warrant 

mitigation or aggravation of the sanction amount for the case. 

(3) To determine the type of legal enforcement action, FAA inspectors first consult the 

sanction guidance table in Appendix B. The table provides the type of legal enforcement action 

that usually is taken for an alleged violation. (If a particular violation is not listed in the table, 

FAA investigative personnel refer to an analogous or similar violation for guidance.) FAA 

special agents follow the guidance in Appendix C to recommend a specific amount of sanction 

for a hazardous materials case or Appendix B for their other cases. FAA investigative personnel 

document their recommendation and the reasons for it in section B of the EIR. 

c. Responsibilities of Regional and Washington Headquarters Program Office 

Personnel. 

(1) For civil penalty actions and fixed-period certificate suspensions in cases other than 

those opened by the Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, regional or Washington 

headquarters program office personnel recommend a specific amount of sanction, that is, the 

number of days or dollars the FAA will seek for a case. Regional or Washington headquarters 

program office personnel base this recommendation on FAA investigative personnel's analysis 

of the relevant factors and elements affecting sanction and their recommendation. Regional or 

Washington headquarters program office personnel apply the agency's sanction guidance policy 

in determining a specific sanction amount for the case. For cases involving multiple violations, 

regional or Washington headquarters program office personnel follow the guidance in chapter 7, 

paragraphs 6 and 7 in determining the specific amount of sanction for the case. When the 

regional program office division manager and the Regional Counse~ or the Washington 

headquarters program office division manager and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement, 

agree, program office personnel and legal counsel may collaborate in determining the specific 

amounts of sanction for cases before the program office forwards the EIR to legal counsel for 

processing. Program office personnel document in the EIR when they determine a specific 

sanction recommendation collaboratively with legal counsel. 

(2) If the EIR does not contain a sufficient sanction analysis for regional or Washington 

headquarters program office personnel to recommend a specific sanction amount, then those 

- personnel-may-retum-theEIR-to FAA investigative personnel for further sanction analysis. 

Regional and Washington headquarters program office personnel document their recommended 

specific sanction amount or the amount determined collaboratively with legal counsel, and the 

reasons for that amount, in section B of the EIR. If that sanction recommendation differs from 

2-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the recommendation ofF AA investigative personnel, then regional or Washington headquarters 

program office personnel and legal counsel, if appropriate, discuss the difference with FAA 

investigative personnel. Regional or Washington headquarters program office personnel must 

document the reasons for the difference in section B of the EIR. 

d. Responsibilities of Legal Counsel. 

(1) If legal counsel and the program office do not collaborate on determining a specific 

sanction amount before receipt of that case by the legal office, th.en legal counsel reviews the 

sanction recommendation of regional or Washington headquarters program office personnel. If 

legal counsel believes the sanction sought should differ from the regional or Washington 

headquarters program office recommendation, then legal counsel discusses the proposed change 

to the sanction type or amount with appropriate program office personnel, including FAA 

investigative personnel, if practicable. If legal counsel seeks a sanction type or amount different 

from the recommendation of regional or Washington headquarters program office personnel, 

then legal counsel documents in the EIR the reasons why legal counsel sought that sanction. 

(2) After legal enforcement action is initiated, legal coUllsel consults with appropriate 

regional or Washington headquarters program office personnel before proposing any changes to 

the sanction sought. If such a change also differs from the type of sanction recommended by 

FAA investigative personne~ then regional or headquarters program office personnel consults, if 

practicable, with FAA investigative personnel before legal counsel changes the sanction sought. 

Legal counsel documents in the EIR the reasons for any changes to the sanction sought. 

e. Sanction Determinations in Significant Cases. Significant cases defined in paragraph 3 

of chapter 6 require coordination with Washington headquarters through AGC-300. FAA 

enforcement personnel determine the type of sanction and specific sanction amount for such 

cases in accordance with the guidance in chapter 2, subparagraphs 4.a.-d. IfWashington 

headquarters personnel involved in coordinating a significant case have a different opinion about 

the sanction the FAA should seek in that case, then they convene a meeting or teleconference 

with FAA investigative personnel, regional and Washington headquarters personnel, and 

regional and Washington headquarters legal counsel. The p111pose of the meeting or 

teleconference is to discuss the case and to resolve any differences that exist among FAA 

enforcement personnel about the type and amount of sanction that should be sought. 

5. Voluntary Safety Programs. 

a. Background. The threat to regulated persons of mclllTlllg pumtive legal enforcement 

actions is a traditional and often effective incentive to promote ccmpliance. While these actions 

have deterrent value, they do not necessarily improve a person's ability to assure future 

compliance. The public interest in aviation safety is served in appropriate circumstances by 

positive incentives to promote and achieve compliance. To this end, the FAA has established 

several programs to-improve compliance and increase safety by offering incentives to regulated 

persons to disclose their own violations, other safety discrepancies, and general safety 

information to the FAA and take corrective action to preclude future safety problems, if 

appropriate. These programs include the voluntary disclosure reporting programs, the aviation 

2-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(2) To promote the prompt and diligent processing of enforcement cases, the FAA has 

timeliness goals for completing investigations and associated E!Rs and processing legal 

enforcement actions. The timeliness goals for completing investigations and EIRs are in chapter 

4, subparagraph 4.e. The timeliness goals for processing legal enforcement actions are in chapter 

6, paragraph 25. 

i. Recommendations of Inspectors, Special Agents, Field Offices, and Regional Offices. 

FAA investigative personnel recommend initially the appropriate type of response to address an 

apparent violation. Often, they are in the best position to evaluate various subjective 

considerations, such as the apparent violator's compliance attitude and whether an alternative to 

legal enforcement action may be sufficient to achieve compliance. IfF AA investigative 

personnel prepare an enforcement investigative report (EIR), program office management 

reviews it to determine consistency with agency compliance and enforcement policy. In this 

review, field and regional program office personnel consider the recommendations ofF AA 

investigative personnel, if they properly justify and explain their recommendations. FAA legal 

counsel who reviews the EIR considers the recommendations of the program office. 

j. FAA Legal Enforcement Actions; Sanction Guidance Policy. After determining that 

legal enforcement action is necessary, FAA enforcement personnel consult the sanction guidance 

policies in chapter 7 and tables of sanctions in Appendix B or C to detennine the appropriate 

sanction. FAA enforcement personnel must fully explain and justifY in the EIR deviations from 

the sanction guidance policy. 

4. Responsibility for Determining Legal Enforcement Actiom. 

a. General. IfF AA enforcement personnel select legal enforcement action (for example, 

certificate action or civil penalty action), they determine the type and amount of sanction under 

agency sanction guidance policy. The program office and legal counsel jointly detennine the 

type and amoUnt of sanction sought in a legal enforcement action. The roles of the various 

enforcement personnel vvith regard to sanction determination are outlined below. Disagreements 

within a program office or between legal counsel and the program office are generally resolved 

following discussion among, as appropriate, the inspector or other investigative personnel; field 

office, regional, or Washington headquarters program office personnel; and legal counsel. 

b. Responsibilities of FAA Investigative Personnel. 

(1) In all legal enforcement actions except those recommended by the security and 

hazardous matenals program of:fiee,FAA-mvestigative personnel recommendonl:yth...-e"'~'typ"""e"o'f----­

legal enforcement action (for example, civil penalty action, fixed-period suspension (for 

example, 30-day suspension)), indefmite suspension, revocation) that should be taken. Except in 

security or hazardous materials EIRs, FAA investigative personnel do not recommend a specific 

amount of sanction (that is, specific number of dollars or days) ()t a range of sanction in cases 

that warrant either civil penalty action or a fixed-period certificate suspension. For security and 

hazardous materials EIRs, FAA special agents recommend a range of sanction and a specific 

amount of sanction in cases that warrant legal enforcement action. 

2-4