BRIAN A WALLAESA 

In the matter of: 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant, 

V. 

BRIAN WALLAESA 

Respondent 

f Ed 2 9 2012 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 

Docket No. CPIOWPOOIO .., 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder ^ 

CO 

•T 

ys-'S 

Answer to Complainant Request ror Trial and Move for Dismissal 

Brian VVallacsa (Respondent) herby tiles an answer to the Federal Aviation 

Administration Motion (Complainant) for Hearing date. The Respondent firniJy requests 

that the Motion for Hearing date be denied as well as enters a motion for dismissal. 

Background to Filings 

Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on Febiiiary 25, 2010 

(see Attachment A) which charged that the Respondent violated Section 121.580 of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations. In the initial Notice the Complainant stated that the 

Respondent was being cited under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A) where the maximum penalty 

was Si 1,000 and the proposed assessment was $5,500. Respondent then requested an in 

person conference with the Complainant at the Complainant's offices on April 5, 2010. 

Respondent was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty as amended April 7, 

2010 that the Complainant proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,500 and 

that the initial charse of violation of Section 121.580 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations was now accompanied by violations of Section 121.317(0 ^nd 121.317(k), 

which was stated as having the possible penally of $11,000 for each violation, a grand 

total possible of $33,000. Noting that 49 U.S.C. 46301 (a)(5)(A) states e.xplicilly that "An 

individual ... is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 ..." 

Respondent had requested an informal hearing and throughout several 

negotiations including informal meetings and phone conversations with Complainant, a 

resolution was not able to be reached. A final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was 

submitted, and by a letter dated July 13. 2010, Respondent re(iuested a hearing. 

In both instances of Notices the Respondent was given a copy of Department of 

Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Rules of Practice forFAA Civil Penalty 

Proceedings 14C.F.R.. 

Discussion on Code of Regulations 

In the Rulesof Practice for FA A Civil Penalty Proceedings 14C.F.R. §13.16 and 

Subpart G the code states "Civil Penalties: Administrative assessment against a person 

other than an individual acting as a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman." The 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty States that the Complainant is subject to 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A). 

After Review of Each Section of the 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A), the Respondent 

sates the followins section to be worded as the followin^: 

"An individual (except an airman serving as an airman) or small business concern 

is liable to the Government for a civil penally of not more than $10,000 for violating -

(i) Chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d)). 40105, 40106(b), 40106, 

and 40117), section 44502 (b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717-
44723), or chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, and 

44907-44909) of this title." 

In the Memorandum on Sanction dated November 15'^, 2011, the Complainant 

states the following: 

"The applicable sanction guidance is found in FAA Order 2150.3B which became 

effective on October 1, 2007. The sanction guidance provided that Complainant could 

impose a civil penalty in (he maximum range for interference with a crewmember in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.580. FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Fig. B-3-p(l), 

page B-28. The maximum range applicable to an individual not serving in the 

capacity of an airman is $4,000 - $11,000. Id. at page B-8. Thus, the Complainant, 

upon issuing the original Notice, proposed a $5,500 sanction. This amount falls 

within the low end of the maximum range sanction applicable to a section 121.580 

violation under FAA Order 21530.8." 

It is the Respondent's position based on the testimony and actions of the 

Complainant that the $5,500 sanction had been solely based on guidelines set forth in 

FAA Order 2150.3B, which was discussed in the third paragraph spanning pages 1 and 2 

of the Memorandum on Sanction. . 

It is also the position of the Respondent that FAA Order 2150.3B has been in use 

and modified long enough that it no longer has any connections to 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A). Proof of this is in the following (2) two statements from 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A) and FAA Order 21530.B. respectively: 
(1) "An individual (except an airman serving as an airman) or small business 

concern is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than 

$10,000 for violatino..." 

(2) "The maximum range applicable to an individual not serving in the capacity 

of an airman is $4,000 - $11,000..." 

The actual written law is stated in 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A), while FAA Order 

21530.B is not referenced in 49 U.S.C. 4630)(a)(5)(A) or Rules of Practice for FAA 

Civil Penalty Proceedings 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and Subpart G. 

Discussion of FAA Order 2150.3B 

As stated previously, the Respondent was unaware of FAA Order 2150.3B until 

receiving the Complainant's Memorandum on Sanction. Order 2150.3B clearly states in 

Chapter 1, sections 2 (b) and (c) that the order is a "Staff Manual..." and that the order 

"does not give any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at any law by 

any party against the FAA, its officers, or its employees..." On this basis, it is the 

Respondent's posilion that FAA Order 2150.3B is intended to be a guideline for 

employees of the FAA on how to act, especially llirough the use of the term "Staff 

Manual." It is the position of the Respondent that in defining the document as a "Staff 

Manual", it has no legal basis in U.S. Code. It is the Respondent's belief that FAA Order 

2150.3B is essentially a set of guidelines outside of the U.S. Code. As support for (his 

position the Respondent can have his national Car Club organization draft a document 

that states all Car Club members can drive 20 MPH over any posted Speed Limit within 

U.S. Borders, and have said document notarized and made official within the Club, but 

any police officer vvill still follow the code of law as set forth in each state for violations 
therein. Also as support, 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and Subpart G states that the Respondent is 

iiableunder49U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A). Nowhere within 14 C.F.R. §13.16 or 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A) do the documents reference sec "Staff Manual" (FAA Order 2150.3B) for 

how to assess violations. 

It is the position of the Respondent that FAA Order 2150.3B has no basis in U.S. 

code, and therefore, any presumptions, arguments or positions based on FAA Order 

2150.3B are invalid, and therefore, any argument made by the Complainant is invalid. 

Finally, the Respondent moves for dismissal on this basis. 

Summary of Respondent 

It is the Respondent's position that through the Citation or49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A) there is no basis for a fine schedule for violations of §§§ 121.580, 

121.317(f), 121.317(k), as such violations are not mentioned within the section of code, 

and that there exists no information within the sections of code listed as to guide a fine 

schedule. It is also the Respondent's position that the use of FAA Order 2150.3B, makes 

any and all discussion of sanction invalid. It is apparent that the FAA Order is a "Staff 

Manual," and not codified law. Tliis makes the Order invalid for discussion as it is not 

based in US Code, and any premise based on the order invalid for discussion. Finally, it 

is the position of the Respondent that the Complainant, within the Complainant's own 

argument never provided a link to the facts of the Respondent's actions to any precedent, 

or for that matter, the actual citations under §§§ 121.580, 121.317(1), 121.317(k). The 

Complainant simply presented an excellent case liistory of cases surrounding §§§ 

121.580. 121.317(f). 121.317(k). 
FAA Order 2150.3B is not mentioned within 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 or 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A), and the Complainant did not relate any material fact of the Respondent's 

actions to any of the Precedents mentioned in the Complainant's case. Having the 

Complainant base any fine schedule without these links to the Respondent nullifies any 

argument from the Complainant. 

WHEREFORE,.the Respondent, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter an order that the Civil Proceedings against the Respondent be dismissed, 

and no civil penalty assessed, as there is no basis for the Complainant's argument. The 

argument put forth by the Complainant does not relate iiiaterial facts of the Respondent's 

actions to any precedent that the Complainant describes, and finally the FAA Order 

2150.3B is a "Staff Manual" and not actual codified law and thereby has no legal weight. 

Brian A. Wallaesa 

Respondent 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

(570)778-1335 

Dated February 23, 2012 
Certificate of Service 

hi the matter of: 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant, 

V. 

BRL\N WALLAESA 

Respondent 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 

Docket No. CPIOWPOOIO 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder 

I hereby certify that 1 have hand delivered and sent on this date by Certified Mail 

a copy of all motions and filings contained herein addressed to the following: 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Tel: (202)267-3143 

Joseph A. Conte 

Manager, Special Emphasis Enforcement 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal A.viniinn Adniinistratioo 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Tel: (202)267-7831 

The Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Healings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202^66-7536 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington. DC 20591 

Attn: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wrioht Buildins - Suite 2W1000 

Brian A. Wallaesa 

Respondent 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

(570)778-1335 

Dated February 24, 2012