01/2G/201 0 16:4 8 FA X 2024935U 2 FA A + DM S §1001/02 0

UNITT-D STATE S O F AMtRlC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVlA'^TlO

N ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . O ' ' 

### i \ H 

### 2 2 

### 201 0 

## •HEAR?M G DOCKE T T N TH E MATTE Ro r VENTUR A AI RSERVlCl-S , INC . FA A Docke t No

- CP08EA000 8 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2008-050 5 Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e Law Judg e RESPONDENT/APPELLEE' S REPL Y BRIE F COME S NOW , Vuntur aAi r Services , Inc . (hereinafte r "Ventura") , Respondent/Appelle e herein , b y an dthroug h undersigne dcounsel , an dhereb y submii s th e Jbllowin g Brie f

in repl y t o th e Complainant' s Appea l oJ'th e Administrativ e Law Judge' s Initial Decisio n i n thi s matte r serve do n Septembe r

24 , 2009' . I n .suppor t thereof , Ventur astate s th e following : ISSUE S O N APPEA L L I F TH E LA W JUDGE' S FINDIN G O F VIOLATIO N I S UPHELD , TH E CIVI L PENALT Y ASSESSMEN T O F $1,0 0 WA S I N ACCORDANC E WIT H APPLICABL E LAW , PRECEDENT , AN D PUBLI C POLICY .

' Respondent , Ventura , als o appeale dth e law judge' s initial decisio n andfile dan Appeal Brie f o n Decembe r

17 , 2009 . I

n it s Appeal Brief

, Ventur achallenge dth e la w judge' s fmdin g o f violatio n an dcivi l penalty assessmen t oF$ l .00 . Amon g other

things , Ventur a challenge dth e constitutionality o f th e "ambiguou s regulatory situation " create db y th e Complainant , FAA . Thus , Ventur ahereb y incorporate s if s Appeal Brie f

b y reference . Th e ai'giunent s mad e herein , ar e provide di n th e alternativ e an db y n o mean s are intende d t o abando n th e argument s i n it s Appeal Brie f0V28/201 0 16:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S @002/02 0

II . TH E LA W J U UGE DI D NO T ER RIN REFUSIN G T O FIN D THA T VENTUR A OPERATE D A N AIRCRAF T IN A CARELES S O R RECKLES S MANNE RI N VIOLATIO N O F 1 4 CE. R§9H3(a) .

PROCEDURA L IHSTOR Y On Septembe r

24 , 2009 , th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w -ludge (ALJ) , i.ssue

dawritte n initial decisio n in thi s matter . Th e issu e i n thi s eas e i s whethe r asecond-in-comman dpilo t employe db y Respondent , Ventur aAi r Service s (hereinafter

"Ventura") , a1 4 C.F.R . Par t 13 5 ai r carrier , wa s full

y qualifie di n Apri l 2006 , whe n h e serve di

n tha t capacit y a s a.second-in-comman dpilo t durin g thre e (3 ) lligh l operation s carryin g passenger s fo r hire . Th e Complainant . Federa l Aviatio n Administi-atio n (hereinafter "FAA") , charge dthat

Nichola s Tarascio , th e pilo t in question , wa s no

t full y qualifie dbecaus e h e hadno t timel y an d.successfull

y complete d ceitai n oral or

writte n knowledg e test s thai ar e require dunder

§ 135.29.'^(a

) o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR) . TH E HEARIN G Th e two-da

y hearin g too k

plac e i n Islip , Ne

w Yor k o n Apri l 7-8 , 2009 , durin g whic h th e FA

A introduce d"virtuall y n o evidenc e int o th e recordo n th e subjec t

o f sanction. " Initial decisio n a t 13 . A s aresult , th e recordi s "devoi do f an y evidenc e i

n suppor t o f th e $1.5,000 claime db y th e FAA , or an y other amoimt , a s appropriat e civi l penalty. " Initial decisio n a t 14 . WRITTE N INITIA L DECISIO N B y writte n initial decisio n serve do n September

24 , 2009 , th e Honorabl e Isaac D . fcjenkin hel dtha

t '"th e recordo f

thi s ca.se make s it

abundantl y clea

r tha t Ventura , in decidin g ho w t o dea

l wit h Capt . Tarascio' s qualifications , wa s facedwit h a n ambiguou s01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAA - DM S 0003/02 0

regulator y situation. " Initial decisio n a t 14 . Accordingly , h e conclude dtha t "a s a technica l matter , Captai n Tarasci o wa. s ou t o f tim e whe n h e mad e th e thre e flights i r questio n i n Apri l o f

2006.' " Initial decisio n a

t 1.'^ . Th e AL J als o foun

dthat "'th e gravit y o f Ventura' s violatio n seem s rathe r low , i n that th e safet y o f th e publi c wa s never

a t ris k durin g th e few day s early in Apri l 200<" > whe n Capt . Tarasci o acte da s second-in-comman do f thre e o f Ventura' s flights. " fherelbre , h e hel dtha t

a"nominal civi l penalty " i n th e amoun t o f $1.0 0 "wil l .«;erv

e th e interest s o f

justice. " Initial decisio n a t 15 . TH E COMPLAINANT S APPEA L On appeal , th e Complainan t onl y challenge s th e limite dissue s o f (1 ) sanction ; an d (2 ) th e ALJ' s failure t o findtha t Ventur aviolate d1 4 C.F.K . §91.13(a) . However , i n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233 , th e Complainan t faile dto rais e any prope r objection s t o th e ALJ' s factua

l fmding s an dconclusion s a s follows : 1 . WA S EAC H FINDIN G O F FAC T SUPPORTE D B Y A PREPONDERANC E OF RELIABLE , PROBATIVE , AND SUBSTANTIA L EVIDENCE ? 2 . WA S EAC H CONCLUSIO N O F I A W MAD E I

N ACCORDANC E WIT H I HE APPLICABL E LAW , PRECEDENT , AN D POLICY ? 3 . DI D TH E ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E COMMI T PRFJT.Ii:)lClA L ERROR S THA T SUPPOR T THE APPEAL ? A s result , al l furthe

r challenge s t o th e initial decisio n b y th e Complainan t hav e bee n forever

waived . Accordin g to Rul e 13.233(i) , i f aparty fail s to objec t

t o an y allege d erro r regardin g th e proceeding. s i n a n appea l brief , th e party waive s an y objectio n t o th e allege derror . Th e FA A deeisioimiake r i s no t require dto conside r

any objectio n i

n a n appea l brie f i f aparty'. s objectio n i s base don evidenc e containe do n th e recor dan dth e party doe s no t

specificall y refer

t o th e pertinen t

evidenc e fromth e recor di n th e brief

.01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DMS 0004/02 0

Complainan t

ha s no t adequatel y objecte dt

o th e followin g linding s b y th e AL J an dtherefore , suc h fmding s remai n unchallenge dan dan y objection s theret o arc forever waived . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233(i) .

UNCHALLENGE D FINDING S B Y TH E LA W JUDG E 1 . Th e recordi s devoi do f e-vidanc e in suppor

t o f th e $15,00 0 claime db

y the FAA , or an y oilie r amount , a s th e appropriat e civi l penalty . Initial decisio n a t 14 . 2 . lli e recor

do f thi s cas e make s it

abundantl y clea

r that Ventura , i

n decidin g ho w t o deal wit h Capt . Tarascio'' s qualifications , wa s face dwit h a n cimbiguou s regvialor y Hiluiiiion . Initial decisio n at 14 . 3 . I n thes e circumstance s i

t seem s unfai r

an dinequitabl e to fasten aheav y financia l liabilit y upon Ventur abecaus e i

t readth e varioiL

S "guidance " document s publishe dan

dapprove db y th e FA

A i n amanner

tha t seeme dt o requir e th e leas t amoun t o f ne w trainin g an

dtestin g o f

Capt . Tarasci o tha

t coul db e defende dimde

r th e existin g authorities . Initial decisio n a t 14-1 5 4 . Ventur aca

n hardl y b e faulte dfo

r havin g t o guess ; tha

t i s wha t th e regulator

y atmosphere require do f

it . Initial decisio n a

t 15 . 5 . Capt . Tarasci o wa. s a

t all relevan t

time s knowledgeabl e an dskillfu l enoug h to pas s al l o f th e test s .se

t ou t i n § 135.293(a) . 6 . Th e gravit

y o f Ventura' s violatio n seem s rathe r low , i n iha

t th e safet y oflh t publi c wa s neve

r a i rin k durin g th e firs t

le w day s earl y in Apri l 200 6 whe n C'apt . Tarasci o acie da s second-in-comman do f thre e o f Ventura' s flights. Initial decisiona l 15 .01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S @005/02 0

7 . Ventura' s violatio n wa s neithe r extraordinaril y blameworthy , intentiona l no r deliberate . Initial decisiona l 15 . 8 . A nomina

l civi l penalt

y wil l serv e the interest s o f justice . Initia

l decisio n at

15 . ARGUMEN T 1 . I F TH E LA W .JUDGE' S FINDIN G O F VIOLATIO N I S UPHELD , TH E CIVI L PENALT Y ASSESSMEN T O F Sl.O O WA S I N ACCORDANC E WIT H APPLICABL E LAW , PRECEDENT , AND PUBLI C POLICY . Ventur acontend s tha

t th e regulatio n a

t issu e (1 4 C.F.R . §155.293(a) ) i s voi dfo r vaguenes s andi n violatio n o f th e Du e Proces s Claus e o f th e U.S . Constitution . Therefore , th e la

w judge' s initial decisio n mus t b e rcvcr.sedandth e cas e dismissed . See Heath v . SFXl, 200 9 U.S . App . LEXI S 2412 8 a t +53-5 5 (Se e Respondent' s Appea l Brief) . Nevertheless , i f

th e Administrato r

uphold s th e law judge' s llndin g ofviolaiio n concernin g 1 4 C.F.R . §135.293(a ) (1 ) an d(4)-(8) , th e AfJ' s civi l penalty assessmen t o f $1.0 0 mus t

no t b e disturbed

A . Complainan t

Faile dt o Offer

th e Sanctio n Guidanc e int o th e Recor d o r t o As k th e La w Judg e t o Tak e Judicia l Notic e o f it . Durin g the hearing . Complainan t faile dto introduc e an y evidenc e t o .suppor t th e propose d.sanction amount o f $15,000 . A s aresult , th e law judg e properl y foun dtha t "th e recordi s devoi do f

evidenc e i

n suppor t o f th e $15,00 0 claime db

y th e FAA , o r

an y oilier amount , a s th e appropriat e civi l penally. " Initial decisio n a t 14 . I n fact , th e onl y testimon y regardin g sanctio n cam e fro mInspecto r

Mar k Rogers , wh o state dth e followin g durin g th e Complainant' s case-in-chief : TH E COURT : Let' s star

t out thi s way . Inspector , yo u didn' t choos e th e sanctio n her e di dyou ? TH E WITNESS : Not

th e $15,00 0 amount , no , sir . Tr . 106 .r* . ^ nM< ; 01006/02 0 01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202433514 2 FA A UH i ffij

Moreover , th e Complainan t faile dl o introduc e int o evidenc e th e FA A Orde r 2150.3A , Sanctio n Guidanc e Table . A s aresult , th e AL T state dth e followin g i

n hi s initia l decision : Th e FA A ha s introduce dvirtuall y n o evidenc e int o th e recor do n th e subjec t o f th e sanction . W

e als o kno w tha

t th e agency' s complain t

sough t acivi l penalty o f $15,00 0 base do n th e charg e tha t Ventur aha dviolate dboth subsectio n (a ) an d subsectio n (b ) o f

§ 135.29 3 o f

the FAR . Th e charg e o f

violatin g sub.sectio n (b) , wliic h deal s wit

h requirement s fo

r crewmembe r

trainin g wa s withdrawn , leavin g th e Responden t

charge dwit

h violatin g only subsectio n (a) , whic h deal s wit h testin g o f erewmembers . Nevertheless , th e amoun t o f th e penah y th e FA

A sough t wa s no t reduced . Whe n a.ske

d abou t thi s apparen t

discrepancy , FAA witnes s Rogers , th e perso n wh o initiate dth e cas e agains t Ventura , sai dtha

t h e ha d recommende dthat

tii e clai magains t

th e carrie r

shoul damoun t

t o $ 33,000 , o r $11,00 0 pe

r violation . H e sought

t o justif y thi s b y pointin g l o th e FAA' s Sanctio n Guidance , Order

No . 2150.3B

- I

t turne dout , however , tha

t Inspecto r Roger s wa s workin g wit

h aversio n o f

Order No . 215 0 tha

t di dno t exis t whe n th e allege d violation s too k

place . Hence , th e versio n tha t th e FA A ha dproffere dfor th e recordwa s no t

receive di n evidence . A t th e tim e thi s rather

embarra.s.sin

g disclosur e occurred , T offere dto allo w counse l fo

r th e Complainan t

t o submi t th e correc t

versio n o f

Orde r No . 2150 , or whateve r sanctio n guidanc e th e FAA ha di n forc e i

n Apri l 2006 , a s alate-file d exhibi t o r t o entertai n areques t

to take judicia l notic e o f

it s contents . H e agree dt o locat e th e documen t

an dprovid e i t

for th e recordo n tha t

basis . Bu t

h e neve r di d so . A s aresult , th e recor di s devoi do f evidenc e i n suppor t

o f th e $15 , t)() 0 claime db

y th e FAA . o r

an y othe r amount , a s th e appropriat e civi l penalty . hiitia l Decision ; 200 9 FAA LEXI S 34 2 a t 30-3 1 (emphasi s added) . I t appear s that

Agenc y counse l i s no w attemptin g t o challeng e th e A l ..F s decisio n a s aresul t o f hi s ow n failure t o offe

r evidenc e o f

sanctio n int o th e recor ddurin g th e hearing . Nevertheless , th e recor di s clea r tha t Complainan t

ha s no t me t it s burde n o f proo f by apreponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e regardin g th e propose d$15,00 0 sanction , a s require dpursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R . §13.223 . fhcreforc , th e Complainant' s appeal mus t b e denied .01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S gl007/02 0

B . O n Appeal , Complainan t Ma y No t Properl y Faul t

Th e La w Judg e Fo r Failin g t o Follo w th e Agency' s Sanctio n Guidance , In -Suppor t o f it s appeal . Complainan t

relie s upo n th e Administrator' s holdin g fromI n th e Matte r

ofWarbelo w ' s Ai r

Ventures , Inc. , FAA Orde r No . 2000- 3 (2000 ) to suppor t it s positio n tha t

"th e Adminisirato r

ha s bot h th e authority an ddut

y t o impos e th e agency' s [sanction ] polic y o n appeal. " Se e Complainant' s Brie f a t 14 . However , Complainant' s relianc e upo n th e holdin g i n Warhelow' s Ai r

Ventures , Inc . i s grossl y misplaced , a s i

t doe s no t support th e appeal . T o th e contrary , th e holdin g i n Warbelo w 'sAi r

Venture.^ , Inc . support s Ventura' s positio n tha

t i f th e fmdin g o f

violatio n i s upheld , th e AU' s assessmen t o f a$1.0 0 civi l penalty shoul dlikewis e b e upheld . I n Warbelow' s Air

Ventures , Inc. , th e Administrato r hel dth e following : Complainan t

mus t justif y t o th e la

w judg e th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalt

y i t seeks . (Se e I n th e Matte r

o f Luxemburg^ FA A Orde r

No . 1994-1 8 (Jun e 22 , 1994) , statin g that

Complainan t

bor e th e burde n o f

justifyin g th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalt y i t sough t an dcitin g 1 4 C.F.R . §13.224(a) , whic h provide s that , excep t i n th e cas e o f

a n aflin-nativ e defense , th e burde n o f proo f i s o n th e agency. ) Here , Complainan t

faile dt o explai n to th e law judge , eithe r iliroug h witnesse s or

in it s writte n closin g argument , exactl y ho w it use dit s sanctio n guidanc e t o arriv e at a figure o f S20,000 . Specifically , Complainan t faile dt o explai n t

o th e la w judg e why , accordin g t o th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Table , th e fue l pump violation s dcsei-ve damaximu mcivi l penally , o\

- wha t th e minimum , moderate , an dmaximu mrange s o f amaximu m civi l penalt

y were fo r a n ai r carrie r th e si/ e o f

Warbelow's . Eve n o

n appeal , Complainan t

ha s no t explaine dwhy th e fuel pum p violation s represen t

a"Non

conformit y whic h ha s a

n advers e effec t

(actual o r

potential ) o n saf

e operation, " (FAA Orde r

No . 2150.3A , Appendi x 4 , 1,L.3 ) whic h ordinaril y call s for a maximu mcivi l penalty , rathe r tha n a"Non-conformit

y whic h ma

y hav e a n advers e effec t

o n safet y o f operation, " (FAA Order

No . 2150.3A , Appendi x 4 , I.L.2) , wliic h ordinaril y call s for amoderat e civi l penalty .01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAA - DMS 0008/02 0

Additionally , Complainan t di dnot explai n t o th e la

w judg e that

it s sanctio n guidanc e provide s fo

r penaltie s proportiona l t o th e siz e o f a n ai r carrier , or

tha t Warbelow' s i s a"Group 111 " carrier , why , an dwhat tha t means . No r

di d Complainant

explai n t o th e la

w judg e that

it s sanctio n guidanc e provide s fo r aca p o n civi l penaltie s fo

r violation s involvin g multipl e flights , o r tel l th e la w judg e wha t th e ca p wa s i n thi s case . B y failin g l o explai n it s propose dsanctio n adequately . Complainan t i n effec t wa s askin g the la

w judg e simply t

o trus t Complainan t

tha t it s propose dsanctio n wa s appropriate . O n appeal . Complainan t ma y no t properl y fault

th e la w judg e fo

r failin g t o follo w th e agency' s sanctio n guidance , whe n Complainan t faile dt o offe

r th e sanctio n guidanc e int o th e recor dor to as k th e la w judg e t o tak e judicia l notic e o f it . I n the Matte r

ofWarbelow' s Ai r

Ventures . Inc. , 200 0 FA

A LEXI S 300 . 1 -7 2 (FA A 2000 ) a t 30-32 . Likewise , i n th e presen t

case , Complainan t

di dno t explai n t o th e la

w judg e tha

t it s sanctio n guidanc e provide s fo r penaltie s proportional t o th e siz e o f a n ai r carrier , o r tha t Ventur ai s a"Group IV " carrier , why , an dwha t that means . No r

di dComplainan t explai n to th e law judg e tha t it s sanctio n guidanc e provide s fo r aca p o n civi l penaltie s fo

r violation s involvin g multipl e flights , o r tel l th e la w judg e wha

t th e cap wa s in thi s case . Thus . Complainan t

ma y not , o n appeal , properl y faul t th e law judg e fo

r failin g t o follo w the agency' s sanctio n guidance , whe n Complainan t faile dt o offe r th e sanctio n guidanc e into th e recordor t o as k th e la w judg e to take judicia l notic e o f it . Accordingly , th e Complainant' s appeal mus t b e denied . C . Th e .$1.0

0 Civi l Penalt y i s Appropriat e in Thi s Cas e i n Ligh t o f th e Lac k Evidenc e i n th e Recor d»n dth e Totalit y of th e Circumstances . I n I n th e Matte r

o f Easter n Ai r

Center , Inc. , FAA Order

No . 2008- 3 (2008) ; 200 8 F A A LEXI S 391 , Complainan t appeale dth e ALJ' s writte n initial decision . I n that case , th e AL. T hel dtha t Respondent , Easter

n Ai r Cente r ("Eastern") , violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.203(a ) (I ) and135.25(a) (1 ) b y operatin g 2 4 charte r flight s withou t

havin g acurren t01/26/201 0 16:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @l009/02 0

andappropriat e airworthines s certilicale . However , simila r t o th e presen t

ca.se , th e \ U rejecte dth e propose d$6,00 0 civi l penall y sough t b y Complainant . In.stead , he assesse da $2,40 0 civi l penalty . On appeal . Complainan t

argue dthat

th e ALJ' s asse.s.'imen

t o f a$2,40 0 civi l penalt y was , inte r

alia ^ contrar y to th e FAA' s sanctio n guidanc e policy . Ih e Administrato r

grante dth e Complalnanf s appeal , bu t

foun dtha t th e $6,00 0 civi l penall y wa s to o high , andinstead , assesse da.$1,500 civi l penalty . Unhk e th e presen t

ca.se , th e fact s in Eastern Air Center , Inc. , were relativel y simple , 200 8 FA

A LEXI S 39 1 a

t 4 . Easter n applie dfor

an dwa s issue dane w specia l registratio n number

for it s aircraft . Subsequently , th e ne w registratio n numbe r wa s painte don th e aircraft . However , durin g aramp inspection , a n FA A inspecto r

notice dtha t th e aircraf t registratio n ccrlirical e reflecte dth e newly assigne dnumber , whil e th e airworthines s certificate rellecte dth e formerl y assigne dregistratio n number . A s aresult , th e carrie r wa s charge dwit

h operatio n o f

a n aircraf t withou t a n appropriat e andcurren t airworthines s certificate , i n hi s writte n initial decision , th e AL J hel dtha t Easter n violate dSection s 91.203(a)(1 ) an d135.25(a)(1) . Base do n hi s revie w o f

th e fligh t log , th e Al J conclude d that Eastern fle w 2 4 flight

segment s i n violatio n o f

th e regulations . Regardin g sanction , th e A l J hel dtha

t th e S6,00 0 penalt

y sought b y th e Complainan t

wa s to o hig h andto o arbitrar y afigure t

o b e appropriat e i

n tha t ease . H e explaine dtha

t h e considere dapenalty o f $10 0 pe r flight a s appropriat e a s i

t shoul dprovid e .sufficien

t 'sting ' t o th e Re.sponden

t andvindicat e th e publi c interes t i n stric t complianc e wit

h th e FARs . A s aresult , h e a.ssesscda$2,40 0 civi l penalt y agains t Eastern . 200 8 FA

A LEXI S 39 1 at

7 .rr* A + DMS @1010/02 0 01/26/201 0 16:5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^" ^

Th e Complainan t

argue do n appea

l tha t th e AlJ' s sanctio n reductio n wa s arbitrar y an dcapriciou s becaus e it

wa s inconsisten t

wit h th e FAA' s sanctio n guidanc e an d unsupporte dby th e evidenc e i n th e record . In response , th e Administrato r state dth e following ; Preliminarily , it

shoul dh e note dtha

t technically , th e AL J di dno t "reduce " th e .«;anctio n becaus e unti l th e AL

J Lssue dth e initial decision , n o civi l penalty ha d been assessed , ih e complain t i s no t a n orde r but astatemen t

o f th e allege d violation s o f

th e Federal aviatio n statut e or th e Federal hazardou s material s transportatio n statute . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.20 2 (definitio n o f complaint. ) Th e sanctio n sough l i n th e complain t

i s n o more tha

n aproposa

J o r recommendatio n to th e AlJ . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §13.224 , Complainan t ha s the burde n o f

provin g th e appropriatenes s o f

th e sanctio n tha

t it seeks . In th e Matte r

o f ToyotaMoto r

Sales , USA , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 94-2 8 a

t 6- 7 (Septembe r

30 , 1994) . I n th e Matte r

ofEa.sler n Ai r Center , Inc. , 200 8 FAA LEXI S 39 1 a t 13 . Furthermore , wit

h regardto sanction , th e Administrato r i n Easter n state dth e following : [FlAA sanctio n guidanc e doe s no t provid e fo

r a$ 10 0 civi l penalty agains t

a n ai r carrie r fo r asingl e violatio n arisin g fromflyin g withou t acurten t an dappropniat

e aiiworlhines s certificate . Finally , under FAA sanctio n guidance , th e computatio n o f acivi l penalt

y shoul dno t

b e don e b y multiplyin g th e sanctio n fo r asingl e violatio n b

y th e number

o f flights, instead , "judgmen t shoul db e exercise di n determinin g th e seriousnes s o f th e violation s an dapplyin g asanctio n tha t wil l dete r futur e violation s by th e violato r o r other s similarl y situated , i.e. , th e totality ofth c circumstance s surroundin g th e ca.se shoul db e considered.... " Complianc e an dEnforcemen

t Program , FAA Order

No . 2150. 3 A , Appendi x 4 a t 1 -2 . I n the Matte r

o f Easter n Ai r

Center , Inc. , 200 8 FA

A LEXI S 39 1 a

t 13-14 . Th e Administrato r

i n Easter n note dthat

th e FA A ha dprovide dguidanc e regardin g th e meanin g o f

"minimum " civi l penaltie s fo r different siz e operator s i

n it s

1 001/26/201 0 16:5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0011/02 0

Compliance/Enforcemen t

Kullcli n No . 92-1 . 'Ih e Bulleti n establishe s asyste mfor classifyin g air

carrier s b y size , anddivide s ai r

carrier s into fou

r different si/ e groups . Th e large r ai r carrier s ar e include din Group s I and11 ; th e smalle r operator s ar e include di n Group s H I andIV . Further , th e Bulleti n provide s maximum , moderat e andminimu m .sanction range s fo

r eac h ai r carrie r group . Wit h regardto Complianee/Hnforcemen t Bulleti n No . 92-1 , th e Administrato r in Easter n state dth e following : I n th e introductio n t o th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Table , th e ! • A A set s ou t

minimum , moderat e andmaximu mrang e sanction s fo r violation s commitie db

y ai r carriers , FA A Orde r No . 2150. 3 A , Appendi x 4 at 3 . I'hes e range s d o no t

take int o accoun t th e difference s i

n th e siiic s o f

ai r cartiers . I

n Compliance/Enforcemen t Bulleti n No . 92-1 , issue don January 16 , 1992 , th e FA A amende dth e sanctio n range s fo r singl e violation s committe db y ai r carrier s provide di n th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Table' s introduction . Th e amendmen t wa s designe da s a"mean. s o f placin g a relativel y equivalen t

deterren t effec t o n eac h ai r

cartier that violate s th e sam e FAR , b y considerin g th e siz e o f th e carrie r

i n determinin g a

n appropriat e amtiun t o f civi l penalty. " Compliance/Enforcemen t Bulleti n No . 92-1 , FA

A Orde r No , 2150.3A , Appendi x 1 , a

t 103 . Ihi s Bulleti n wa s no t

introduce dor

referre dt o a

t th e hearin g o r

i n any o f th e briefs , andth e ALJ di dno t mentio n it

i n hi s decision . Regardless , thi s bulleti n i s german e t o th e is.sue s involve di n thi s case , an dth e Administrato r ma y rel y upo n it . I n th e Matte r

ofEa-;tern Ai r

Center , Inc. , 200 8 FAA LEXI S 39 1 a t 16-17 . Fo r puipose s o f

applyin g Bulleii n No . 92-r s guidance , Easter n wa s regarde da s a Group IV carrier . Id . Unde r FAA Bulleti n No . 92-1 , th e minimu msanctio n rang e fo r a singl e violatio n fo

r Grou p I V operator s i s $50 0 t o $2,000 . In . Easter n aseparat e violatio n occurre do n eac h ofth c 3 2 flights. However , becaus e th e Administrato r foun dthat th e violation s di dno t

creat e ahazar dt o aviatio n safety , ther e was n o nee dt o asses s a minimu mrang e sanctio n fo r eac h o f th e 3 2 flights . Thus , th e Administrato r hel da s follows : 

## n01/26/201 0 16:5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0012/02 0

Indeed , du e t o th e lac k

o f impac t o n safely , asanctio n a

t th e highe r

en do f th e rang e fo r asingle , inadverten t

violatio n wil l hav e sufficient punitiv e effec t

an d shoul ddeter

Eastern an dother s fromcommittin g similar violation s i

n th e ftilure. A $1,50 0 civi l penalt

y i s appropriat e i

n thi s cas e i n ligh t

o f agenc y sanctio n policy , th e evidenc e in th e record , andth e totality o f ih e circumstances , i.e. , natur e o f th e violatio n (operationa l violation) , multipl e llighls , n o hayardposed , an dEastern' s size . I n the Matte r

o f Easter n Ai r

Center , Inc. , 200 8 FA

A LEXI S 39 1 a

t 17-1 8 (emphasi s added) . Likewise , in th e cas e a t Bar , th e Complainan t

ha s acknowledge dtha

t "fo r purpose s o f

applyin g Bulleti n No . 92- 1 ' s guidanc e i n thi s case , Responden t

[Ventura ] shoul db e regarde da s aGrou p IV earner. " Se e Complainanf s Brie f a t 15 . Thus , simila

r t o th e holdin g i n Eastern . Bulleti n No . 92-1 , FA A Orde r No . 2150.3A , i s german e t o th e issue s involve dandtherefore , th e Administrato r ma y rel y upo n it . However , th e Administrato r

mus t conside r th e lac k o f evidenc e i n th e recor dconcernin g sanction , u s wel l a s th e totalit

y ofth c circumstance.^ , i.e. , "technical " natur e o f th e violatio n (ambiguou s regulatory situation) , n o hazardposed , an dVentura' s si/e . Wit h regardl o th e natur e o f

th e violation , th e Al. J hel da s follows : I t i s als o significant , i

n my view , tha

t Capt . Tarasci o wa s at

al l relevan t

time s knowledgeabl e an

dskillfu l enoug h t

o pas s al l o f

th e test s se t

ou t in §135.293(a) . W e hav e in th e recordo f

thi s cas e al l o f

thi s aimian' s trainin g records . The y show , withou t exception , tha

t he neve r faile dt o pas s ates t

o f hi s knowledg e an dflyin g skills . Hi s prio r

experienc e hadequippe dhi mwit h tha t knowledg e an dtho.s e skill s and , s o fa

r a s th e recordshows , h e neve r los t them . Hence , th e gravit

y o f Ventura' s violatio n .seems rathe r low , i n tha t

th e safet y o f th e publi c wa s neve r

a t risk durin g th e few day s earl y in Apri l 200 6 whe n Capt . Tarasci o acte da s second

in-comman do f

thre e o f Ventura' s flights. Initial Decision . 200 9 FAA LEXI S 34 2 a t 33-34 .

1 201/26/201 0 16:5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0013/02 0

Therefore , sinc e th e AL

J i n th e presen t

cas e hel dtha t

th e safet y o f th e publi c wa s never a t ris k a s aresul t

o f ih e inadverten t

regulator y violatio n b y Ventura , th e $1.0 0 civi l penalty mu.s

t no t b e disturbe deven i f

afindin g o f

violatio n i s affirmed . Notwith.'itandin e th e above , Ventur astil l contend s tha t th e ALJ erre di n assessin g a$1.0 0 civi l penalt

y fo r th e "technical " violatio n o f an "ambiguou s regulatory situation " whic h i s constitutionall y voi dfo r vagueness , fherelbre , Complainant' s appea l mus t b e denied . Nevertheless , i f

Complainant' s appeal i s granted , th e cas e shoul db e remande dt o th e ALJ fo

r consideratio n o f

a n appropriat e sanctio n in ligh t o f th e Administrator' s holdin g \nl n th e Matte r

o f Easter n Ai r

Center , Inc. , FAA Orde r

No . 2008- 3 (2008) ; 200 8 FAA LEXI S 391 . 11 . TH E LA W JUDG E DI D NO T ER RI N REFUSIN G T O FIN D THA T VENTUR A OPERATE D A N AIRCRAF T I N A CARELES S O R RECiCLES S MANNE RI N VTOLATIOI N O F 1 4 C.F. R§9LI3(a) . Complainant' s objectio n t o th e ALJ' s decisio n regardin g hi s reftisa l to find a violatio n o f

1 4 C.I-.R . §91.13(a ) consist s o f n o mor e tha

n on e pag e o f

alawyer' s argument , lackin g an y basi s i n fact or law , an dwhic h include s on e citatio n inapposit e t o th e presen t

case . A s aresult . Complainant' s appeal concernin g th e AlJ' s decisio n regardin g §91.13(a ) doe s no t satisf y th e requirement s o f

Rul e 13.233 . Nevertheles.s , th e ALJ' s refusa

l t o lin daviolatio n o f

§91.13(a ) wa s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , andsubstantial evidenc e an dwa s mad e in accordanc e wit h th e applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy .

1 301/26/201 0 16:5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0014/02 0

I n Ih e Matte r o f Ac e Pilo t Training , FA

A Order No . 2005-1 2 (2005) ; 200 5 FA A LEXI S 699 , th e AL

T decline dt o fm

daviolatio n o f

§91.13(a ) becaus e there wa s n o evidenc e o f

carelessnes s o r

reckle.s.sness . I

n tha t case , th e Administrato r

grante dth e Complainant' s appea

l andstate dth e following : A s fo r th e allege dviolation s involvin g 1 4 C.F.R , § 91.13(a ) (operatin g in a careles s o r

reckles s manner) , th e AL J decline dt o fin dthi s violatio n becaus e there wa s n o evidence , other

tha n tha t o f AD-nonconipliance , o f

carelessnes s o r recklessness . Th e AL

J cite dI n th e Matte r

ofCarr , FA

A Orde r No . 1998- 2 a

t 11

- 1 2 (Marc h 12 , 1998) , for

th e propositio n tha

t finding multipl e violation s fo r the sam e offens e woul dconstitut e '"pilin g on ' [tha t j .shoul db e avoide dexcep t

unde r th e mos t egregiou s circumstances. " (Initial Decisio n a t 4. ) ITi e Car r

decision. , however , involve dwhether violation s o f

separate regulation s counte dfo r sanctio n purposes . FA

A Order No . 1998- 2 a

l 11-12 . Th e decisio n .stated ; "I t woul db e a tieiio n to sa

y tha t Mr . Car r di dno t violat e eac h an dever

y regulatio n .. . allege din th e complaint.. . However , there i s n o reaso n t o coun t eac h separatel y for

sanctio n purpose s i n thi s non-egregiou s cas e .... " Id . a t 1 1 n.l4 . Th e AL J overlooke dth e "ampl e legal authorit y .. . indicatin g tha

t absen t extraordinar

y circumstances , careles s or reckles s operatio n o f

a n aircraf t follow s a s aresidual violatio n [onc e th e agenc y establishe s operatio n o f a n unairworth y aircraf t j. " I n th e Matte r

ofUSAir . Inc. , FA

A Order No . 1992-7 0 a

t 6 (Decembe r 21 , 1992) . Th e recor din thi s cas e doe s not sho w an y extraordinar

y circum.stance s justifyin g afinding tha

t Ac e di dno t

violat e 1 4 C.F.R . §91.13(a ) a s well . Indeed , Ac e acte di n acareles s or

reckles s maimer

i n thi s ease , jeopardizin g th e safet y o f bot h it s studen t

pilot s an dother s b y operatin g it s aircraf t withou t complyin g wit

h ADs . I n th e Matte r

o f Ace Pilo t Training , 200 5 FA

A LEXI S 69 9 a

t 13-14 . Similarly , i n th e presen t

case , th e Al J decline dt o lin daviolatio n o f §91.13(a ) b

y Ventur abecaus e there wa s n o evidenc e o f an y careles s o r

reckles s operatio n o f

a n aircraf t s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f another . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . §91.13(a) . Unlike/^c e Pilo t

Training . Complainan t

i n th e presen t

ca.se di dno t

introduc e an y evidenc e int o th e recordtha t acharg e o f

careles s or

reckles s operatio n o f

a n aircraf t follow. s a s aresidual violatio n under th e presen t

extraordinar

y circumstances . Muc h to

1 401/26/201 0 16:5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S @015/02 0

th e contrary , th e uniqu e circumstance s i n th e presen t cas e dictat e tha t

afinding o f violatio n concernin g §91.13(a ) shoul dno t follo w a s aresidua l violation . I n fact , th e AL

J foun dth e fact s o f

th e presen t

cas e to b e extraordinary whe n he state dtha t "thi s i s on e o f

th e rar e case s i

n whic h th e las t

criterio n i.s , i n my judgment , the mos t significant . Th e recor do f tlii s ca.se make s i t

abundantl y cleai

- tha

t Ventura , in decidin g ho w t o deal wit

h Capt . Tarascio' s qualifications , wa. s facedwit h a n ambigtiou s regulator y situation. " an dtha

t "Ventur aca n hardl y b e faulte dfor havin g t o guess ; tha t

i s what th e regulatory atmospher e require do f it. " Initial decisio n a

t 14-15 . I f

that doe s no t defin e extraordinary circumstance s resultin g i n a"technical " findin g ofviolaiion , nothin g els e will . Thus , thi s i s no t

simila r to asituatio n i

n whic h th e regulatory requirement s wor e clea r andunambiguou s a s i

n th e cas e relie dupo n b

y th e Complainan t

i n it s Appea

l Brief . Se e I n th e Matte r

o f Air Solutions , LL C an dAi r

Solution s Group , Inc. , FAA Orde r No . 2009- 1 (2009) . Therefore , Complainant' s appea l regardin g aviolatio n o f

§91.13(a ) mus t

b e denied . 1 4 C.F.R . §9L13(a ) i. s No t Residua l t o th e Findin g o f a n Inadverten t Technica l Violatio n Concernin] v a n Ambiguou s Regulator y Situation . I n suppor t o f it s appea L Complainan t

relie s upo n th e holdin g fro mAir Solutions , LLC an dAi r

Solution s Group , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2009- 1 (2009) , for

th e propositio n tha t "b y virtu e o f

it s usin g a

n unqualifie dpilo t

i n thre e ai r carrie r operations , Responden t wa s careles s i n operatin g a n aircraf t s o a s to endange r

tli e live s o r

property o f

others , an

d a s are.suh , ther e i s als o aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . §91.13.' ' Se e Complainant' s Brie f a t 18 .

1 501/26/201 0 16:5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DMS 2)016/02 0

However , Complainant' s relianc e upo n Ai r Solutions , IX C an dAi r

Solution s Group , Inc . i s grossl y mi.splace da s tha t holdin g i s wholl y inapplicabl e t o th e fact s o f th e presen t case . Specifically , x

n Ai r Solutions . LLC an dAi r

Solution s Group , Inc . i t

wa s undi.sputedthat

th e tw o flights i n questio n wer e charte r flights operate dcontrar

y t o th e regulations . Rather , th e issu e wa s limite dt o th e questio n concernin g whic h o f th e tw o entitie s operate dth e flights. I n tha t case . Ai r Solutions , LL

C acknowledge dtha

t it wa s th e operato r

o f th e flight s i n question . Base dupo n th e admission s an dother evidence , th e FAA prove dit s ca.se b y a''preponderanc e o f reliable , suKstantiaJ , an dprobativ e evidence. " I n th e Matte r

o f Air Solutiotrs . LLC , F/\ A Orde r No . 2009- 1 a

i 8 . I n thai case , $1LOO O wa s th e maximu mcivi l penall y pe r violation , becaus e at

issu e wer e ''[v]iolation s o f FA A .statut e or regulation s b

y aperso n operatin g a

n aircraf t for th e transportatio n o f passenger s o r

propert y fo r compensation. " Id . a

t 9-10 . Th e FA A multiplie dth e four violation. ^ b y $11,00 0 (whic h wa s th e maximu mcivi l penalty pe r violation) , in orde r

l o arriv e a t $44,000 , th e amoun t

sough t at th e hearing . Wit

h regardto sanction , th e Administrato r

hel da s follows : Th e FAA' S requeste dcivi l penalty i s reasonabl e unde r al l th e circumstances , particularl y th e gravit

y o f th e offenses . Operatin g a s an ai r carrie r withou t a certificat e an doperatin g with unqualifie derewmember s ar c seriou s violations

In th e Matte r

o f Ai r Solutions , LLC . FAA Orde r 2009- 1 a t 10 . I n th e cas e a

t Bar , the FAA' s propose dcivi l penalty agains t Ventur a(i.e. . $15,000 ) wa s no t

reasonabl e under

al l th e circumstances , Unlik e Ai r Solution.^ , I.l.,C , Ventur aneithe r

operate da s a

n ai r carrie r withou t acertificate , no r

operate dwith a crewmembe r

who wa s otherwis e no t

qualifie dunde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 135 . Ventur awa s

1 601/26/201 0 16:5 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0017/02 0

onl y foundt o hav e usedaseeond-in-comman dpilo t wh o ha dno t

bee n administere da writte n o r ora l knowledg e tes t

withi n th e previou s 1 2 nionths . Specifically , unlik e Ai r

Solutions , LLC , Ventur awa s acertificate dai r carrie r authorize dt o conduc t

pas.senge r cartyin g operation s fo

r compensatio n o r

liirc pursuan t

t o 1 4 C-l'.R . Par

t 135 , Moreover , a

t al l time s relevant , Capt . Tarasci o was full y qualifie dt o operat e a s asecond-in-comman dpilo i i n accordanc e 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 13 5 fo r Ventur a Thus , th e case s ar

e factually distingui.shable . fh e onl y issu e in th e presen t cas e involve d whethe r h e ha dbee n administere dawritte n o r oral tes t i n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 C.F.R , §]35.293(a)and(4)-(8)- .

- Sectio n 135.293(a ) o f

th e FA Rread s a s follows : (a ) N o ecriilicat e holde r

ma y us e apilot , no r

ma y an y perso n serv e a s apilot , unless , sinc e th e begiimin g ofth c 12t h calenda r mont h before tha

t service , tha t pilo t ha s passe dawritte n o r

ora l test , give n by th e Administrato r o r a n authorize d chec k pilot , on tha t

pilot' s knowledg e i n the followin g areas — (1 ) fh e appropriat e provision s o f part s 61,91 , and13 5 o f

thi s chapte r

an dth e operation. ^ specification s andth e manua l o f th e certificat e holder ; (2 ) Fo r eac h typ e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown by th e pilot , th e aircraf t powcrplaut , major component s an dsystems , major appliances , performanc e an doperatin g limitations , standardan demergenc y operatin g procedures , andth e content s o f th e approve dAircraf

t Flight Manual or

equivalent , a.s applicable , (3 ) Fo r eac h typ e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown b

y th e pilot , f'*3 ] th e metho do f determinin g complianc e wit h weigh t an dbalanc e limitation s fo r takeoff , landin g an de n rout e operations ; (4 ) Navigatio n an dus e o f

ai r navigatio n aid s appropriat e t o th e operatio n o r pilo t authorization , including , whe n applicable , instrumen t approac h facilitie s and procedures ; (5 ) Ai r traffi c contro l procedures , includin g IF Rprocedure s whe n applicable ; (6 ) Meteorolog y i n general , includin g th e principle s o f fronta l system , icing , fog , thunderstorms , an dwindshear , and , i f appropriat e fo

r th e operatio n o f

th e 1 701/26/201 0 16:5 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S (2)018/02 0

I n fact , th e recorddoe s no t contai n an y evidenc e or

testimon y t o sugges t

that Capt . Tarasci o operate dth e Learjet i n acareles s o r

reckles s manner

s o a s to endange r live s o r propert y o f other s durin g th e thre e trip s i n Apri l 2006 . Therefore , 1 4 C.F.R . §9l.i3(.<3 ) i s no t

aresidua l charg e to afmdin g ofviolaiio n concernin g 1 4 C.F.R . §135.293(a ) (1 ) an

d(4)-(8 ) only . I

n fact , Capt . Tarasci o coul dhav e acte da s apilo t (.inde r 1 4 C.F.R

- Par

t 9 1 flight operation s and , a s aresult , n o §91.13(a ) woul dhav e occurred . Accordingly , i f

Ventur awa s responsibl e fo r th e inadverten t

violatio n o f §135.293(a ) (1 ) and(4)-(8 ) only , i t woul dhav e been cause db y areasonabl e misunderstandin g whe n facedwit h a n "ambiguou s regulator

y situation " resultin g i n a purel y "technical " violation . A s such , there i s n o residua l violatio n concernin g th e careles s o r

reckles s operatio n o f

a n aircraf t i n violatio n o f

§91.13(a) .

certificate holder , higi i altitud e weather ; (7 ) Procedure s for ~ (i ) Recognizin g an davoidin g severe weathe r Situations ; (ii ) Escapin g fromsever e weathe r sittuitions , i

n cas e o f inadverten t

encounters , includin g low-altitud e windshea r (excep t tha t roiorcraf t pilot s arc no t

require dt o b e teste don escapm g fro

mlow-altitud e windshear) ; an d (iii ) Operatin g in o r

nea r thunderstorm s (includin g bes t penetratm g allitudes) , turbulen t ai r (includin g clea

r ai r turbulence) , icing , hail , an dothe r potentiall y hay:ardou s meteorological conditions ; an d (8 ) Ne w equipment , procedures , o r techniques , a s appropriate .

1 801/26/201 0 16:5 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS l2]019/02 0

Sinc e th e Complainant' s appeal iaile dt o adequatel y challeng e th e "technical " nature ofth c violation , a s foun db y th e ALJ , an

y furthe r objectio n t o suc h afinding ha s bee n forever

waived . A s aresult , th e ALJ' s finding o f a"technical " violatio n i n ligh t o f thes e extraordinar

y circumstance s mus t

b e upheld . Therefore , th e ALJ' s refusa l t o findaresidual violatio n o f §91,13(a ) wa s supporte db

y apreponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , and.substantia l evidence ; an dwa s mad e in accordanc e wit

h th e applicabl e law , precedent , an dpolicy . Accordingly , th e AL J di dno t commi t prejudicia

l error s tha

t suppor t Complainant' s appeal . Se e I n th e Matte r qfVSAir , Inc. , FA

A Order No . 1992-7 0 a l 6 (Decembe r 21 , 1992) , Thus , Complainant' s appea l mus t b e denied , WHERFFORE , Respondent , b y andtliroug h undersigne dcounsel , respcet.["ull y request s that

th e Decisionmake r

deny th e Complainant' s appeal , revers e th e initial decisio n rendere dby th e Honorabl e Isaac D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judge , an

d dismis s th e Complain t

in thi s matter

wit h prejudice . Dated : Januar

y 21,201 0 kespectful l Gy^ggC Y S . WI

N ION , ESQ . 1 .a w Experts , LL C C)n' c Researc h Court . Suite 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Counse l fo

r Responden t

1 901/26/201 0 16:5 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S g)020/02 0

CERFIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t 1 hav e thi s dat e serve db y FEDEX , postag e prepaid , th e origina l an d tw o (2 ) copie s o f

th e foregoin g Respondent' s Repl y Brie f addresse dto : Federal Aviatio n Admitiistratio n Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^30 . 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW . Wilbur Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Te k 20 2 26 7 715 8 1 hereb y certif

y tha t 1 hav e thi s dat e serve dvi aFEDEX , postag e prepaid , acop y o f th e foregoin g Resptmdent' s Repl y Brie f addresse dto ; Christia n Lewerenz , E.sq . 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , NY 1143 4 Fax : 71 8 995-569 9 Tel : 71 8 995-,327 3 Dated : Januar

y 21 , 201 0 GjrtGOffV^ . WINTON , ESQ . Lviatioiirlia

w Experts , LL C On e Researc h Court , Suite 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Counse l fo

r Responden t

2 0