### SERVE D AUGUS T 11,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEy^RING S WASHINGTON , D C FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . RECURREN TTRAININ G CENTER , IN C

Respondent . FA ADocket No . CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt

yAction ) DM S No . FAA-2009-097 1

INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found ; Th e allegation s wer e no t proven . Th e Complain t

wil l b e dismissed . I . Backgroun d Responden t Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc . ("Respondent " o r"RTC" ) I s a n Ai rAgenc ycertificate d fo ra n approve d Provisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit h a Specia l Preparatio n Course s rating . I t als o held , durin g th e perio d unde rreview , a Trainin g Cente rCertificat e wit h Trainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s unde r1 4 C.F.R . §142 . RT C an d th e Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r"th e agency" ) agre e o n th e fact s underlyin g th e charge s i n th e Complaint . The ysubmitted , pe rm yorder , a n Agree d Upo n Statemen t o f Fact s ("Statemen t o f Facts") . I n th e parties ' Statemen t o f Facts , date d Apri l 23 , 201 0 (Complainant' s Exhibi t A-1) , the yconcu rtha t RT C certifie d tha t tw o pilots , VanBerko m an d Moore , ha d successfull ycomplete d Instrumen t Proficienc yCheck s ("IPC") , o n Januar y16 , 2008 , an d Decembe r17 , 2007 , respectively . Th e IPC s wer e performe d i n a Fligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD" ) Leve l 1 , 3 , o r6 . Thos e ar e th e FTD s approve d fo rRTC . Neithe rFT D 1 , 3 o r6 ma yb e use d fo rcirclin g approache s o rlandin g fro m a straight-i n o rcirclin g approac h maneuvers . Th e IPC s give n t o RTC' s pilot s di d no t tes t fo rthes e skills .Afte rthi s point , th e FAAan d RT C par t ways . Complainan t assert s tha t a n IP C mus t tes t fo ral l th e Instrumen t Ratin g Pracfica l Tes t Standards ("PTS") . Th e PT S include s circlin g approache s an d landin g fro m a straight-i n o rcirclin g approac h maneuvers . A s stated , Respondent' s approve d FTD s wer e no t permitte d t o tes t fo rthes e abilifie s an d di d not . Becaus e Responden t certifie d tha t th e pilot s successfull ycomplete d thei rrespectiv e IPC s bu t faile d t o tes t fo rth e describe d skills , th e agenc yargue s tha t RT C committe d thre e violation s o f th e FARs : 1 ) secfio n 141.41(b)(3) , whic h require s tha t eac h FT D use d t o obtai n flight trainin g credi t hav e Administrato r approval ; 2 ) secfio n 141.83(a)(1) , obligatin g eac h provisiona l pilo t schoo l t o compl ywit h it s trainin g course ; an d 3 ) secfio n 61.57(d) , whic h mandate s tha t a n IP C mus t includ e " a representativ e numbe ro f task s require d b yth e instrumen t ratin g pracfica l test. " Th e agenc yask s fo ra civi l penalt yunde r4 9 U.S.C . §4630 1 o f $3,850 . Responden t counter s tha t th e IPC s i t conducte d wer e complet e an d confor m t o FA R requirements . Th e languag e o f secfio n 61.57(d ) mean s tha t a n IP C nee d no t includ e everyconceivabl e task , i t states . RT C contends tha t i t committe d n o violation . Bu t eve n i f violation s ar e found . Responden t argues , it s complian t attitud e an d th e mootnes s o f th e centra l question ^ compe l th e conclusio n tha t n o civi l penalt yi s warranted . Pursuan t t o m yOrde ro n Mofion s o f Apri l 5 , 201 0 - whic h denie d Respondent' s Mofio n fo rDecisio n an d Complainant' s respons e t o sam e an d Complainant' s ow n Mofio n fo rDecisio n - th e partie s filed brief s o n th e issue s presented . I find tha t ther e ar e n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fac t an d tha t th e matte rma yb e decide d o n question s o f law . Th e cas e wil l b e decide d b yInifia l Decisio n pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §13.20 1 etseq } II . Argument s Bot h partie s zer o i n o n languag e i n §61.57(d ) describin g wha t a pilo t mus t d o t o qualif yt o operat e unde rIF R (instrumen t flight rule ) o rless-than-minimu m VF R (visua l flight rule ) conditions . A s noted , th e regulatio n mandate s tha t a pilo t mus t pas s a n IP C "consistin g o f a representativ e numbe ro f task s require d b yth e instrumen t ratin g practica l test. " Th e agenc yassert s tha t th e quote d languag e incorporate s b yit s term s "instrumen t ratin g practica l test " int o th e regulation . Th e instrumen t ratin g

' See n . 4 , p . 4 . ^ Complainan

t file da nOpening Brie

f ("Compl . Br.") , Responden t submittedaRepl

y Brief ("Resp . Br.") , an dbecaus e the burde

nof proo f i s o nthe agency , Complain

t wa s permittedto , an

ddid , fil e aRespons e to Respondent' s Repl

y Brie f ("Compl . Repl

y Br.") . Th

e partie s attachedexhibit s t o their briefs . Complainant' s exhibits begi nwit h"A " followe

db y the exhibit

number, an

dRespondent' s exhibit s begi n wit h"R. "practica l test , i n turn , reference s a n FAAdirectiv e containin g th e content s o f tha t

test . Th e directiv e i s entitle d "Th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standards " ("PTS") . Th e PT S state s tha t adherenc e t o th e regulation s an d t o itsel f "i s mandatoryfo revaluatio n o f instrumen t pilo t applicants. " (FAA-S-8081-4D) . Th e PT S state s furthe rtha t "at a minimum , th e applican t mus t demonstrat e th e abilit y t o perfor m th e task s liste d i n th e abov e chart " - whic h task s includ e th e reference d skill s tha t RT C admittedl ydi d no t test . Th e "representativ e tasks " describe d i n th e regulations . Complainan t concludes , mus t includ e th e skill s liste d i n th e PT S chart (Compl . Br. , pp . 3-5) . Sinc e th e approac h an d maneuver s describe d canno t b e teste d i n RTC' s authorize d FTDs , RTC , th e agenc ystates , mus t b e foun d i n violatio n o f §61.57(d) . Violatio n o f th e othe rregulation s charge d i n th e Complain t mus t follow . Respondent , homin g i n o n th e sam e regulatorylanguage , counter s tha t th e phras e " a representativ e numbe ro f tasks " i s clea ran d unambiguous . I t mean s exactl ywha t i t says : t o successfull ycomplet e a n IPC , a representativ e numbe ro f task s fro m th e PT S mus t b e accomplished . Complainant' s position , i t argues , effectivel yexcise s th e quote d languag e fro m th e regulatio n ~ an d b y doin g so , violate s establishe d rule s o f constructio n (Resp . Br. , p . 5) . Word s ar e t o b e interprete d i n thei rcommo n an d ordinarymeanings . Responden t states ; applyin g tha t principl e her e compel s th e conclusio n tha t Responden t wa s unde r n o obligatio n t o tes t th e pilot s fo reac h an d everymaneuve rliste d an d describe d i n th e PT S (Resp . Br. , p . 8) . I t i s tru e tha t th e approache s an d maneuver s tha t th e PT S require s a n applican t t o perfor m includ e thos e whos e acknowledge d omissio n for m th e basi s fo rComplainant' s charges . Bu t a comman d o f th e PT S canno t trum p th e languag e o f th e regulatio n itself , RT C states . III . Decisio n I find an d conclud e tha t Responden t committe d n o violations . Th e Complain t wil l b e dismissed . Th e startin g poin t o f m yanalysi s mus t b e a n evaluatio n o f th e languag e o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . Fo ri t i s upo n th e questio n o f whethe rResponden t complie d wit h thi s regulatio n tha t al l allegation s hinge . A s noted , th e ke y provisio n o f thi s regulatio n state s tha t a n IP C mus t includ e " a representativ e numbe ro f tasks " require d b yth e instrumen t ratin g pracfica l test . i n interpretin g a regulation , th e decisionmakerlook s a t it s plai n languag e an d analyze s th e term s use d i n accordanc e wit h thei rcommon , ordinar y meaning . Whela n v . U.S. , 52 9 F.2 d 1000,1002-0 3 (Ct.CI . 1976) . Regulation s als o shoul d b e construe d s o that , i f a t al l possible , n o wor d o rclaus e i s rendere d superfluous . Canon s o f constructio n stat e tha t al l regulatorylanguag e b e give n effect . Morale s v . Socieda d Espano l d e Auxili o Mutu o yBeneficencia , 52 4 F.2 d 5 4 ( 1 Cir . 2008) .Th e operativ e languag e o f thi s regulatio n i s clea ran d unambiguous .

"Representative " i n thi s contex t mean s "exemplaryo f other s i n th e sam e class ; typical " (Th e Ne wAmerica n Heritag e Dictionar yo f th e Englist i Language) . State d anothe rway , sectio n 61.57(d ) require s IPC s t o includ e task s typica l o f thos e require d b yth e instrumen t rafin g pracfica l test . N o more , n o less . Th e , . regulatio n doe s no t nam e o rdescrib e particula rtest s whic h mus t b e acceptabl y performe d fo rsuccessfu l IP S complefion . Eve n i f (a s contende d b yth e agency ) th e PT S i s incorporate d int o §61.57(d) , th e regulafion' s plai n languag e controls . Whe n th e word s o f a regulatio n ar e unambiguous , th e regulafio n governs ; judicia l inquiryi s a t a n end . Tesor o Hawai i Corp . v . U.S. , 40 5 F.3^' ' 1339 , 134 7 (Fed.Cir . 2005) . A s such , secfio n 61.57(d) , properl yread , require s accomplishmen t o f a "representafiv e number " o f PT S task s - no t al l o f them , an d no t necessaril yth e one s name d i n th e PT S chart . Th e interpretatio n Complainan t urges , b y contrast , woul d effectivel ydelet e th e quote d phrase . Th e manifes t inten t o f th e regulatio n woul d b e thu s thwarted . Thi s outcom e canno t b e accepted . Ha d Complainan t bee n abl e t o sho wtha t th e task s Responden t faile d t o tes t fo r~ circlin g approache s o rlandin g fro m a straight-i n o rcirclin g approac h maneuver s - wer e a necessarypart o f th e "representativ e numbe ro f tasks " require d b yth e instrumen t ratin g practica l test , i t woul d hav e prevailed . Bu t i t canno t d o so . Thu s it s proo f fails . Complainant' s contraryargument s d o no t sway . Th e PT S statemen t upo n whic h i t s o heavil yrelies , requirin g a n IP C applican t t o perfor m al l th e task s liste d i n a char t therein , doe s no t hav e th e forc e o f law . I t i s containe d i n a FA A document , FAA-S-8081-4D , whic h wa s no t adopte d wit h th e protection s o f notice-and-commen t rulemakin g unde rth e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t ("APA") . Th e documen t wa s no t publishe d i n th e Federa l Registe r(se e 5 U.S.C . §552(a)(1)(D)) . Lackin g lega l effect , i t ma yno t impos e dutie s no t compelle d b y th e plai n word s o f §61.57(d). ^ Moreover , a s a regulatio n understoo d throug h it s ow n clea rwords , §61.57(d ) require s n o explainin g o rsupplementatio n b yreferenc e t o extrinsi c documents . A s such , th e argument s o f Complainan t (an d Respondent ) whic h attemp t t o discer n o rclarifyth e regulafion' s meanin g b yreferenc e t o othe r regulations , directives , an d interpretation s ar e besid e th e point . Th e parties ' assertion s o f thi s natur e ar e rejected. *

^ Complainan

t note s tha t the FAA' s Fligh

t Standard s Informatio

nManagemen

t Syste m("FSIMS" ) handboo k (FA A Orde r 8900.1) , cite db

y Responden

t t o suppor t it s argumen

t tha t a nIP C neednot tes t fo r ever y task listedi nthe PTS , considers itself

"guidance. " I

t expressl y state s tha

t "[s]houldthe guidanc e i

n thi s orde r conflic t wit h1 4 CFR, 1 4 CF

Rtake s precedenc e ... " (Compl . Repl y Br. , p . 2 ; se e als o Resp . Br. , p . 4 n . 3) . Wha

t i s goodfo r the goose , of

course , i s goodfo

r the gander . " * Responden

t als o point s out

tha t the language o f

§61.57(d ) was changedeffectiv

e Octobe r 20 , 200 9 ~ afte

r the event s o f

thi s cas e - t o requir

e a nIP C to consis t

of "the area s of

operationan

dinstrumen

t task s required " b

y the PTS (7 4 Fed.Reg . 42500,4251 8 (August 21,2009)) . I

t asserts tha t thi s chang e reinforce s it s contentiontha

t the earlie r §61.57(d) language embrace da nexemplar

y numbe r of tasks , an dno t al l listed i nth e PTS chart . Th

e change , i t states , woul

dnot hav e bee nnecessar y ha dthe requiremen

t to complet

e all

### Th e allegation s o f th e Complain t were not proven . Th e Complain t i s

herebydismissed. ^ ^ " 7 

### iichard C . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La

wJudg e Attachmen t - Service List

PTS tasks bee

nenshrinedi

nthe earlie

r version . Resp . Br. , p . 6 . Complainan t counters tha

t the FA A describe s the chang e as a"clarification " (7 4 Fed.Reg. , p . 42519) , suggesting thereby tha t it i s not substantive (Compl . Br. , p . 6) . Resolvin g thi s argumen

t i s unnecessar

y i nvie w of m y decision , an

dI expres s no vie

w o nit . Thi s decisionma

y be appealedt

o the Administrato

r of the FAA . Th

e notic e of appea l must confor mto section s 13.210 , 13.211(e) an d13.23 3 of

the Rule s of

Practice , whic

hrequir e tha t anotic e of

appea l 1 ) be file dnot late r tha n1 0 day s (plu s a

nadditiona

l fiv e day s i f mailed) fro

mthe servic e dat

e of thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfectedwit

hawritte nbrief o r memorandu

mnot late r tha n5 0 day s (plu s a

nadditiona

l five , if mailed) fro mth e servic e dat

e of thi s decision . Th

e notic e of appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mmust eithe r be a) mailedto the Federa

l AviationAdministration , 800 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , or

b ) delivered personall y o r vi aexpeditedcourie

r servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 . A cop

y o f the notic e o

f appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mals o must

b e sen t to agency counsel . Servic e upo

nth e presiding judg e i s optional .FA A Docke t No . CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Charle s R . Bamett , III , Respondent' s Counse l 1664 Moorlan dLan e Crystal Lake , IL60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMorgan , Complainant' s Counse l Grea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo nAvenu e De s Plaines , IL60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwdn , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso no r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdministration

, 60 0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-^30 .