United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 12, 2018 Decided March 5, 2019

No. 18-1102

JEFFREY O. SIEGEL,

PETITIONER

v.

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

AND NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of an Order of 

the National Transportation Safety Board

Gregory S. Winton argued the cause and filed the briefs 

for petitioner. 

Sarah Carroll, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were 

Mark B. Stern, Attorney, and Christopher Stevenson, Senior 

Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration.

Before: SRINIVASAN and KATSAS, Circuit Judges, and 

SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
2

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

SENTELLE.

SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge: Law enforcement 

officers responding to an airplane crash discovered THCinfused chocolate bars onboard. The pilot, Jeffrey Siegel, 

admitted that they were his. In this petition, Siegel claims that

the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to revoke his 

pilot’s certificate for knowingly operating an aircraft with

narcotics onboard was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree

and deny the petition.

I. Legal Background

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), by statute, has the authority to 

prescribe regulations for “practices, methods, and 

procedure[s] the Administrator finds necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(5). 

The Administrator also has the authority to issue pilot

certificates to those he finds “qualified” to operate aircraft. 49 

U.S.C. § 44703(a). The Administrator may suspend or revoke 

a certificate if he “decides . . . that safety in air commerce or 

air transportation and the public interest require that action.” 

49 U.S.C. § 44709(b)(1)(A).

Under the authority granted by these provisions, the FAA 

promulgated a regulation prohibiting any person from 

operating a civil aircraft within the United States with 

knowledge that a controlled substance, including marijuana, is

on board. 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. Under published FAA 

enforcement guidance, violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19 

generally warrants revocation of a pilot’s certificate. FAA 

Order 2150.3B at 7-22. Pilots subject to a revocation may 
3

reapply for a new certificate one year after the revocation 

date. 14 C.F.R. § 61.13(d)(2).

II. Factual Background

On October 1, 2016, Jeffrey Siegel crash-landed his 

airplane on a road in Kansas due to an engine malfunction.

Kansas State Troopers responded. While Siegel and his 

passenger were taken to the hospital with minor injuries, the 

troopers conducted a routine inventory of the aircraft’s 

contents. During the inventory, Trooper Lucas Wagner found 

three chocolate bars infused with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, 

the psychoactive agent in marijuana) in Siegel’s briefcase.

The packaging on the bars identified them as containing THC.

Trooper Wagner asked Siegel about the bars at the hospital

and testified that Siegel claimed ownership. Testing by the 

Kansas Bureau of Investigation confirmed the presence of 

THC. Siegel was charged with misdemeanor simple 

possession of marijuana under K.S.A. § 21-5706(b)(3), but 

the charge was later dismissed. 

III. Procedural Background

On February 7, 2018, following an investigation into the 

October 2016 incident, the Acting Administrator of the FAA 

issued an emergency order revoking Siegel’s private pilot 

certificate. In the order, the FAA found that Siegel operated

an aircraft with knowledge that marijuana was on board, in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. The order invoked the Acting 

Administrator’s authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44709 to 

determine that “safety in air . . . transportation” required

revocation of the certificate.

Siegel sought review of the FAA’s order by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). On March 13, 2018, a
4

hearing on the merits of his case was held before an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) of the NTSB. At the hearing,

the FAA presented several witnesses. Trooper Wagner 

testified that he responded to the accident, located the 

chocolate bars, and asked Siegel about them at the hospital. 

He testified that Siegel told him that the bars were “all his”

and that he “was hoping that [the police] wouldn’t have found

it.” Kelly Daniel, a forensic scientist with the Kansas Bureau 

of Investigation, testified that she tested the bars and that they 

contained THC. Finally, Manny Martinez, a special agent for 

the FAA, testified that based on his review of the police report 

and Siegel’s admission to Trooper Wagner in the hospital, he 

concluded that Siegel had knowingly transported controlled 

substances on his aircraft in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. In 

defense, Siegel testified and presented one witness, Bethany

Brandstetter, Siegel’s passenger at the time of the accident

and now wife. She testified that she placed the bars in Siegel’s 

briefcase without his knowledge a month or two prior to the 

flight. In contradiction to his statement at the hospital, Siegel

testified that he did not know the bars were on the aircraft. 

At the close of evidence, the ALJ issued an oral ruling.

He found that the testimony of Siegel and his passenger was 

not credible and that Siegel “was aware that the marijuana 

was on board the aircraft.” Accordingly, the ALJ concluded 

that Siegel violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. Notwithstanding the 

violation, the ALJ reduced the sanction from revocation to a 

ninety-day suspension. To support this decision, the ALJ 

relied on the fact that the marijuana was purchased legally in 

Colorado, was of a small quantity, and was not being 

transported for commercial purposes.

Siegel and the FAA cross-appealed the ruling of the ALJ 

to the full NTSB. Administrator v. Siegel, NTSB Order No. 

EA-5838 (April 11, 2018). Siegel challenged the finding that 
5

he violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, while the FAA challenged the 

reduced sanction. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that 

Siegel knowingly transported a controlled substance in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. However, it vacated the ALJ’s 

reduced sanction and reinstated the revocation. The Board 

considered the ALJ’s findings that the small amount of

marijuana was purchased legally in Colorado and was not 

transported for a commercial purpose. It concluded that these

facts did not mitigate against the FAA’s choice of sanction, 

because marijuana is illegal under Federal law and because a 

violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.19 is predicated on the knowledge

of the drugs aboard, not the quantity. Furthermore, it noted 

that a commercial purpose is not required to show a violation. 

Siegel timely petitioned this Court for review. We have 

jurisdiction to review final orders of the NTSB pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 1153.

IV. Analysis

In this petition, Siegel raises a single issue: whether the 

sanction of revocation was improper. He does not dispute the

NTSB’s finding that he violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.19.

We review final actions of the NTSB under the

Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. “Our 

review of the NTSB order is limited to determining whether 

the Board’s decision is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Taylor 

v. Huerta, 723 F.3d 210, 213 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “Findings of fact by the 

Board, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.”

49 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3).
6

Siegel asserts two main arguments that the revocation of 

his certificate was imposed arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in 

accordance with the law. Neither succeeds.

First, Siegel argues that the NTSB imposed the sanction

without adequately articulating its reasoning. Primarily, he

faults the NTSB for failing to consider “mitigating factors,”

such as: the small quantity of drugs on his aircraft; that they 

were purchased legally in Colorado; that they were not 

transported for a commercial purpose; and that they were 

brought on board “inadvertent[ly].”

This argument is factually incorrect. The Board explicitly 

considered these purported “mitigating factors,” but simply 

did not agree that they warranted a lighter sanction. NTSB 

Order No. EA-5838 at *9. The Board concluded that

knowingly transporting illegal narcotics on an aircraft, 

regardless of quantity or purpose, falls within the scope of 14 

C.F.R. § 91.19 and is grounds for a certificate revocation. Id.

The regulation does not distinguish between drugs transported

for personal use and those intended for resale. Likewise, that 

the marijuana was purchased in Colorado does not change the 

fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law and in federal 

airspace. See 21 U.S.C. § 844. Although Siegel characterizes 

the Board’s decision as a failure to consider these factors, it is 

more accurate to say that he is simply unhappy with the result

of the NTSB’s consideration. We cannot remedy his 

discontent. Even if we agreed with Siegel’s preferred analysis,

we may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency

when reviewing under the arbitrary and capricious standard. 

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 

(1983). 

Turning to Siegel’s broader point, we disagree that the 

Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning when 
7

revoking his certificate. We review agency decisions for a 

“satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational 

connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). The Acting Administrator

stated in the Emergency Order of Revocation that 

“[c]ertificate holders who knowingly engage in the possession 

and transportation of a controlled substance by air have 

shown that the Agency cannot rely upon them to minimally 

comply with the regulatory requirements designed to ensure 

aviation safety with the highest degree of integrity.” This is 

consistent with the FAA’s published policy of revoking 

certifications for certain types of misconduct that reflect a 

lack of “care, judgment, and responsibility.” See FAA Order 

2150.3B at 7-21, 7-22. The NTSB explicitly relied on this 

FAA Order when reimposing the revocation. NTSB Order 

No. EA-5838 at *9. Under this published order, certain 

specific conduct warrants revocation: intentionally fraudulent

statements, refusal to submit to an alcohol or drug test, and 

the use of an aircraft to knowingly transport controlled 

substances. See FAA Order 2150.3B at 7-22, 7-23.

While the FAA guidance and the NTSB could have been

more explicit in articulating their precise rationale for 

revoking Siegel’s certificate, the explanation provided is

sufficient. Operating an aircraft is an inherently dangerous

activity that implicates public safety. For this reason, 

Congress tightly regulates federal airspace and has created an 

agency with the primary purpose of ensuring safety in civil 

aviation. Given the potentially devastating results of unsafe 

air traffic, it was not unreasonable for the Acting 

Administrator to make a categorical determination that pilots

who cannot be trusted to follow federal drug laws when 

operating aircraft do not demonstrate the “care, judgment, and 

responsibility” necessary to hold a certificate. We therefore 
8

reject Siegel’s argument that the FAA and the NTSB acted 

arbitrarily.

Siegel’s second main argument is that the law does not 

support the sanction of revocation for simple possession of a 

controlled substance. The FAA revoked Siegel’s license under

its authority granted by 49 U.S.C. § 44709. Nevertheless,

Siegel claims that the existence of a separate statutory 

provision, 49 U.S.C. § 44710, removes the FAA’s discretion

to impose a revocation for “simple possession.” In relevant 

part, 49 U.S.C. § 44710 provides:

(b)(1) The Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration shall issue an order 

revoking an airman certificate issued an 

individual under section 44703 of this title 

after the individual is convicted, under a law of 

the United States or a State related to a 

controlled substance (except a law related to 

simple possession of a controlled substance),

of an offense punishable by death or 

imprisonment for more than one year if the 

Administrator finds that—

(A) an aircraft was used to commit, or 

facilitate the commission of, the 

offense; and

(B) the individual served as an airman, 

or was on the aircraft, in 

connection with committing, or 

facilitating the commission of, the 

offense.
9

(emphasis added). Siegel claims that the language of § 44710, 

coupled with its legislative history, reflects that Congress 

intended simple possession of a controlled substance to be 

insufficient to warrant revocation of a pilot certificate. 

Siegel’s argument entirely misses the mark. As the NTSB 

explained in several of its previous decisions, the passage of 

§ 44710 did not limit the FAA’s authority to revoke 

certificates under § 44709. See, e.g., Administrator v. 

Schlieve, NTSB Order No. EA-5250, 2006 WL 2632087

(Sept. 11, 2006), at *1. A revocation under § 44710, which 

applies to felony drug crimes that involve the use of aircraft, 

is not discretionary. The word “shall” requires the FAA 

Administrator to revoke certificates under the circumstances 

described. § 44710(b)(1). Furthermore, a revocation under 

§ 44710 is particularly severe; it applies for life. 49 U.S.C. 

§ 44703(f). In contrast, pilots subject to a revocation under 

§ 44709 may reapply for a new certificate after one year. 14 

C.F.R. § 61.13(d)(2). It does not follow that Congress, by

passing a law mandating lifetime certificate revocation for 

serious drug offenders, intended to remove the discretion of 

the FAA Administrator to regulate less serious drug offenses 

involving aircraft under § 44709. We therefore conclude the 

FAA retains authority to revoke a certificate for “simple 

possession” of a controlled substance on an aircraft under 

§ 44709. Further, because the Government did not apply

§ 44710 in this case, Siegel’s arguments concerning that 

provision—and his citation to other NTSB cases involving 

revocations under it—are inapposite.

V. Conclusion

The NTSB’s order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. We 

therefore deny Siegel’s petition for review.