02/07/201 1 09:5 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0001/01 0

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N .^^qPARTMEN T O F FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N l • ' Vj§°pRTATlO N

WASHINGTON , D C ' ^ - ^ UrcilATION S I n th e Matte r

of: GERAL D W . KELLE R- i ^I C 1 A IQ : 1 5 FA A Orde r

No . 2011- 2 Docke t No . CP06GL000 7 FDM S No . FAA-2006-25869 ' Served ; Januar y 11 , 201 ) ORDE RGRANTIN G TH E FA A TIM E T O FIL E A REPL Y BRIEF ' I . Intruductio n Thi s unusua l appea l involve s tw o civi l penalt y action s brough t seriall y agains t

th e respondent , Geral dKeller , base dupo n hi s allegedl y disruptiv e conduc t whil e apa-ssenge r o n boar dan Ai r

Tra n flig.ht

befor e takeof

f o n Decembe r

18 , 2005 . Prio r

t o an y hearing , th e AL J struc k

th e FAA' s amende dcomplaint . Subsequently , th e AL J grante dth e agency' s reques t

t o withdra w it s origina l complain t withou t prejudice . I n amotio n t o vacate , Kelle r

requeste dtha t

th e AL J vacat e th e orde r o f dismissal , arguin g tha t

ALJ' s dismissa l o f

th e proceeding s withou t prejudic e afte r

th e FA A withdre w th e complain t wa s contrar y t o th e Rule s o f

Practice . Th e AL J neve r rule dupo n Keller' s motio n t o vacate . Th e FA A late r

initiate dasecon dactio n agains t Keller . Whe n Kelle r

faile dt o respon dt o th e Fina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt y (FNPCP) , th e FA A issue da n Orde r

' Generally , material s filedi n th e FA A Hearin g Docke t

(excep t fo r material s file

di n securit y cases ) ar e als o availabl e fo

r viewin g a

t http://www.revelations.gov . Se e 1 4 C.F-R . § 13.210(eXl) . Th e Administrator' s civi l penalt y decisions , alon g wit

h indexe s o f

th e decisions , th e rule s o

f practice , an dothe r

information , arc availabl e o n th e Interne t

a t th e followin g address : ww^'.f(ui.gov/ahout/ojfice_org/headguarrer s offices/a^c/pol_adjudication/AGC400/ CivilJ'enulry . Se e 1 4 CF.K . § 1.1210(c)(2) , I n addition , Thomso n ReiKcrs/Wcs t publishe s Federal Aviatio n Decisions . Finally , th e decision s arc availabl e throug h LBXI S (TRAN S library ) an dWcsiLa

w (FTRAN-FAA database) . Fo r additional information , se e ih c Web site .02/07/201 1 09:5 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12002/01 0

Assessin g Civi l Penalt y (OACP) . Kelle r no w ask s th e Administrato r t o revie w th e ALJ' s dismissa l o f

th e first complain t

withou t prejudic e a s wel l a s th e issuanc e o f th e OAC P in th e secon daction . A s explaine dbelow , Keller' s motio n t o vacat e file do n Jul y 30 , 2007 , i.' ; construe d a s alimcl y notic e o f

appea l o f

th e ALJ' s .Tul

y 24 , 2007 , orde r

dismis.sin g th e cas e withou t prejudic e an da s an appea l brie f Th e FA A i s grante d3 5 day s fro mth e dat e o f th e issuanc e o f

thi s orde r

i n whic h t o fil e arepl y brie f

11 . Backgroun d Th e FA A file dit s origina l complain t i n th e firs t

civi l penalt y actio n o n Septembe r

22 , 2006 , allegin g aviolatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 46318 ' an dseekin g a$2,50 0 civi l penalty . Th e FA A allege dtha t Kelle r appeare dt o b e unde r

th e influenc e o f

alcohol , pushe dothe r

passenger s a s h e walke ddow n th e aircraf t aisl e durin g th e boardin g process , an dengage di n "verba l altercations " wit h othe r passenger s onc e h e reache dhi s seal . Subsequently , th e FA A fileda n amende dcomplaint , allegin g tha t Keller' s action s no t onl y disturbe dothe r

passenger s bu t

als o interfere dwit h th e performanc e o f th e dutie s o f th e crevraiember s i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.580.' ' Specifically , th e agenc y adde d

Sectio n 4631 8 provide s i

n pertinen t

par t a s follows : A n individual wh o physicall y assault s o r threaten s t o physicall y assaul t amember

o f th e fliglit cre w o r cabi n cre w o f

acivi l aircraf

t or any othe r individua l o n th e aircraft , o r

take s any actio n that

pose s imminent

threa t t o th e safel

y o f th e aircraf

t or other individual s o

n th e aircraf t i s liabl e to th e Unite dState s Governmen t fo r acivi l penalt

y o f no t mor e tha n $25,000 . Sectio n 121.58 0 provides ; N o perso n ma

y assault , threaten , intimidate , o r interfer e wit h acrewmcmbe r

i n th e performanc e o f

ih e crcwmember' s dutie s aboar da n aircrai l bein g operate dunde r thi s part .02/07/201 1 09:5 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S jgOOS/Ol O

th e allegation s that

Keller' s conduc t

hadbeen .s

o disruptiv e tha

t th e captai n hadt o deviat e firo mhi s dutie s t o spea

k t o Kelle r andtha t th e aircraf

t cre w "deeme dit

necessar y to hav e th e loca l authoritie s remove " Kelle r fro mth e flight . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.214(b) , th e FAA i s permitte dt o amen dacomplain t withou t th e ALJ' s consen t

a s lon g a s i t

files tli e amendmen t

n o later tha n 1 5 day s before th e schedule dhearin g date . I

n thi s case , however , althoug h th e AL J ha dno t ye t schedule da hearing , h e struc k

the amende dcomplain t

because , h e wrote , "|i| t

seem s fundamentall y unfair t o allo w ili c FA

A to take a

n ongoin g proceedin g base don som e ver y specifi c allegation s andlu mit

into avehicl e lo r

chargin g th e Responden t

wit h entirel y different violations. " (Order

Denyin g Motio n Fo r

Summar y Judgmen t

An dStrikin g "Amende dT o Complaint, " date dJuly 3 , 2007 , at 2-3. ) Th e AL

J wrote tha

i th e FA A coul dinitiat e anothe r proceedin g an dalleg e violation s o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 46318 , 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.580 , or both . {Id. , a

t 3. ) Subsequently , th e agenc y sought t o withdraw it s original complain t withou t prejudic e and , o

n Jul y 24 , 2007 , th e Al J grante dth e FAA' s motio n to withdra w th e original complain t

withou t prejudice. ' I

n s o doing , ih e AL

J disregarde dth e provisio n i n th e Rule s o f

Practice , specifically , 1 4 C.F.R , § 13.215 , tha t if th e agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complaint , th e AL J shal l dismis s th e proceeding s wit h prejudice . Th e AL

J wrot e that a n enforcemen t

agenc y ha s th e inheren t

right t o withdra w acomplain t

withou t prejudic e an d"star

t anew " a s lon g a s th e applicabl e statut e o f limitation s ha s no t

run . (Orde r Grantin g Motio n T o Dismis s Complain t Withou t Prejudice , date dJul y 24 , 2007. )

^ Th e phras e "withou t

prejudice " mean s that

ther e ha s been n o adjudicatio n o f th e clai mon th e merits , andiherefDrc , i

n asubsequen t

action , a n order of dismissal ha s n o re s Judicat aeffect . Saee r v . Hunter

Corp. . 66 5 P . Supp . 575 , 58 0 (N.D . 111 . 19«6) .02/07/201 1 09:5 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - . DM S 0004/01 0

Kelle r file damotio n ("motio n t o vacate" ) o n Jul y 30 , 2007 , i n whic h h e requeste d tha t th e AL J vacal e hi s Jul y 24 , 2007 , orde r an ddismis s ih c cas e wit h prejudice.* ' Kelle r argue di n th e motio n t o vacat e tha t th e ALJ' s orde r

wa s contrar y t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 , an dconsequently , wa s "illegall y void. " Th e AJ J neithe r rule do n Keller' s motio n t o vacat e no r

forwarde di t

t o th e Administrato r

fo r consideratio n a s an appeal . Th e FA A initiate dth e secon dcas e b y sendin g anothe r Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt y (NPCP ) allegin g violation s o f bot h 4 9 U.S.C , § 4631 8 an d1 4 C.F.R . § 121.58 0 o n Augus i 21 , 2007, ' an danothe r FNPC P o n Marc h 26 , 2008 . Afte r receivin g n o respons e t o th e FNPCP , th e FA A issue da n orde r (OACP ) assessin g a$2,50 0 civi l penalt y agains t

Kelle r o n Februar y 8 , 2010 , fo r violation s o f

bot h 4 9 U.S. C § 4631 8 an d 1 4 C.F.R . § 121-580 . O n Februar y 26 , 2010 , Kelle r filed adocumen t

entitle d"Notic e o f

Appea l And/O r Reques t fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Appeal. " I n thi s document , Kelle r appeale dfro mth e ALJ' s failur e t o ente r

arulin g o n th e motio n l o vacat e (i n th e first case) . I n addition , Kelle r appeale dfromth e OAC P (i n th e secon dcase ) because , h e argued , th e FA A wa s "estoppe dfro massertin g asecon denforcemen t actio n base do n prejudicia l erro r committe db y th e administrativ e la w judge. "

' " A judgmen t

dismissin g acas e 'wit h prejudice ' bar s alater sui l o n th e sam e caus e o f

action. " Foxx V . Dalton . 4 6 F . Supp . 2d . 1268 , 127 3 (M.D . Hla. 1999) . A voluntar y dismissal wit

h prejudic e constitute s afina l adjudicatio n on th e merit s io r rex judicat apurpo.^e s o

n claim s that were raise do

r coul dhav e bee n raise di

n th « original lawsuit , NB N Broadcastin g Inc. . v . Sherida n BroadcasiinRNetworks . Inc. , 10 5 F.3 d72 , 7 8 (2 dCir . 1997) , Under th e doctrin e o i re s judicata , asubsequen t

lawsui t between th e sam e partie s on th e sam e caus e o f actio n i s barred . T o determin e whethe r

th e earlie r

an dsubsequen t

case s involv e th e .sam

e caus e o f action , th e court s wil l look to se c i f th e case s involv e acommon nucleu s of operativ e facts , o

r i n othe r words , i f th « underlyin g fact s o f

th e tw o case s ar c "relate di n lime , space , origin , o r

motivation, " if'the y for

m aconvenient

tria l unit " an di f

thei r treatmen t a s auni t conform s t o th e parties ' expeeuiions. " Waldma n v . Villag e o f

Kirva s Jwl . 20 7 F.3 d105 , 108 (2 dCir . 2000) .

' Sectio n 13.16(f

) provide s tha

t "[a ] civi l penalt

y actio n i s initiale db

y sendin g anotic e of propose dcivi l penalty t o th e perso n charge dwit h aviolatio n .,,. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16( 002/07/201 1 09:5 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 0005/01 0

Th e FA A subsequentl y filedit s Mouo n to Dismis s Respondent' s Notic e o f Appea l /^d/O r Reques t fo r Extensio n of

Tim e t o Appea

l ("motio n t o dismiss") . Th e FAA wrote that

Keller' s appea

l i s either a n untimely appea

l o f th e ALJ' s .Tul

y 24 , 2007 , orde r dismissin g th e proceeding s vvjihou t prejudic e (in th e first

action ) or

a n untimel y appea l o f th e FNPC P date dMarc h 26 , 2008 , (in th e secon daction) . Kelle r di dno t repl y t o th e FAA' s motio n t o dismiss . O n March 11 , 2010 , Kefie r file dadocumen t

entitle d"Petitio n for

Revie w an d Dismissal o f

Orde r Assessin g Civi l Penalt

y wit h Prejudic e and/o r

Appellant' s Brief " I

n thi s document , Keller

requeste dtha

t th e Administrato r

dismis s th e OAC P fo

r th e followin g reasons . H e argue dthat th e OAC P wa s anullit

y becaus e (1 ) th e FA

A wa s estoppe dunde r

1 4 C.F.R . §13.21 5 frominstitutin g asecon denforcement actio n base do

n th e same fact s allege di

n th e withdraw n complaint , an d(2 ) ahearin g ha dno t

bee n hel d despit e hi s reques t

fo r hearin g date dSeptember

5 , 200 7 i n th e origina

l action . Th e agenc y di dno t

fil e any reply . IT

L Discussio n Th e Administrato r

mus t untangl e thi s peculia

r we b o f motions , orders , allegation s andcases , t o brin g thi s matte r bac k withi n th e framewor

k o f th e Rule s o f

Practice . 1 . Keller' s Motio n to Vacat e date dJul y 30 . 2007 . I n hi s motio n to vacate , Kelle r requeste dtha

t th e AL J reconside r

hi s order dismissin g th e complain t

withou t prejudic e an dreplac e i

t wit h a n order o f dismissal wit

h prejudice . However , th e Rule s o f Practic e do no t provid e fo

r suc h amotio n fo

r reconsideratio n o f

a n initial decisio n b

y a n Al.J. " Instead , th e Rule s o f

Practic e provide ; Unles s appeale dpursuan t

t o § 13,23 3 o f

thi s subpart , th e initial decisio n issue db y the administrativ e law judg e shal l b e considere da n orde r assessin g civi l penalt

y ifih c02/07/201 1 09:5 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS ©OOG/OI O

Th e Administrato r

ha s hel di

n pas t case s tha t th e AL J lack s jurisdictio n ove

r aproceedin g onc e th e initial decisio n ha s bee n issued. " Hence , th e Administrato r ha s held , a

n AL J doe s no t hav e th e authority t o rul e upo n amotio n t o vacat e a n initial decision . Deeenhardt . FA A Order

No . 1990-1 6 a

t 6 (Augus t

16 , 1990 ) ("th e fac

t i s tha t ala w judg e lose s jurisdictio n ove r

acas e upo n the issuanc e of th e initial decision , andthereafter ha s n o authorit

y t o entertai n amotio n t o vacate." ) A party , however , i s no t withou t recourse . Th e Rule s o f

Practice , specificall y 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233 , provid e fo r a n appeal fro

ma n initial decisio n t o the Administrato r a s lon g a s th e part

y file s anoiic e o f

appea l n o later tha n 1 0 day s afte

r th e issuanc e o f

th e initial decisio n andperfect s that appeal b y filin g a n appea l brie f I n thi s case , th e AL

J shoul dhav e forwarde dth e motio n t o vacat e t o th e Administrato r

fo r consideratio n a s anotic e of appeal , a s other

ALJ s hav e don e in simila r situafion s i n th e past.' " Despite th e significant passag e o f

time , th e Administrato r

no w

administrativ e la

w judg e find.s tha

t a n allege dviolatio n occurre dan ddetermine s tha

i a civi l penalty , .. . i s warranted . 14 . C.F.R . § 13.232(d) .

' E.g. . Han-is . FA

A Order No . 2005-1 4 (Augus t

17 , 2009 ) (AL

J los t jurisdictio n over

th e matte r onc e h e issue da

n order dismissin g th e complain t

wit h prejudice) ; Luxemburg , FA A Order No . 1994-1 8 (Jun e 21 , 1994 ) ("Onc e th e AL J issue dhi.i ; order

assessin g th e civi l penalty , he los t jurisdictio n o f

th e ea.se , an dha

dn o authorit y t o re-opc n it") ; Barnhill . FA A Order No . 1992-3 2 (Ma y 5 , 1992 ) (holdin g tha i "fwlhc n ala w judg e issue s a

n initial dcci.sion , hi s or

he r jurisdictio n over acas e ends") ; Eaddy . FA A Order No . 1992-3 2 (Ma

y 4 , 1991 ) (AI J ha

dno jurisdictio n l o entertai n areques t

fo r rehearing) ,

' " ^-K ; Gordo n Ai r

Services , FA

A Order No . 1997-2

4 (Jul y I , 1997 ) (i n whic h th e AL J ha d construe dth e respondent' s "Motio n fo r Rehearing/Reconsideration " !i.s anotic e o f appeal and forwarde di

t t o th e Administrato r

fo r consideratio n a s a

n appeal fro

mth e initia

l decision) ; Pere^ , FA A Orde r No . 1994-2 3 (Jun e 2 7 1994 ) (i n whic h th e AL. 1 forwarde daletter tile dafte r th e AL J dismisse dth e proceeding s andasbcs.se dacivi l penalt

y t o th e Administrato r

fo r consideratio n a s a n appeal) .02/07/201 1 09:5 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S @1007/01 0

construe s Keller' s motio n to vacat e a s anotic e o f

appea l fromth e ALJ' s Jul y 24 , 2007 , orde r dismissin g th e proceeding s withou t prejudice. " A party filin g anotic e o f

appea l i s require dunder

Sectio n 13.233(c ) to perfec t it s appea l b y filing a

n appeal brief

. Th e Administrato r

ma y dismis s anoiic e o f

appea l if th e appellan t fail s to perfec t

it s appea l b y filing a

n appea l brie f 1 4 C.F.R , § 13.233(d)(2) . Th e Administrator , i

n pas t cases , ha s construe dnotice s o f appea l a s appea l brief s - thereby , in essence , savin g otherwis e unpcrfectc dappeal s firomdi.smissa l unde r Sectio n 13.233(d)(2)' ' - whe n th e notic e o f appea l containe dsufficien

t detai l t o explai n th e basi s o f th e appellant' s appeal , satisfyin g th e requirement s fo r appea l brief s unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(d)(l).' ^ I

n thi s case , ih e motio n t o vacat e i s construe da s a n appea l brief , a s wel l a s anotic e o f

appeal , becaus e it

set s fort h Keller' s argumen t

that th e AL J shoul dhav e dismisse dth e proceeding s wit h prejudic e under

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215.' ^ Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . 13.233(e) , an

y party ma

y file arepl y brie f

withi n 3 5 day s afte

r servic e upo n that

party o f th e appea l brie f I n thi s instance , ih e FA

A wil l b e grante d3 5

" Continental Airlines . FA A Order No , 1991-1 1 (Apri l 11 , 1991 ) (in whic h th e respondent' s motio n t o vacat e defaul t

judgment s entere db

y th e AL J were constmc da.<

i a n appea l brief) ; se e Win e Countrv Helicopters . Inc. . FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 2 (Decembe r

15 . 2008 ) (in whic h th e respondent' s motio n requestin g that a n OAC P b e set

asid e wa s constnie da s anotic e o f appeal) , appea l dismissed , FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 3 (Decembe r

19 , 2008) .

' ^ Sectio n 13.233(d)(2 ) provides : "Th e FA A decisionmake r

ma y dismis s a

n appeal on th e FA

A decisionmaker' s own inhiativ e ., , wher e aparty ha s filedanotic e of appea l but fail s t o perfec t th e appea l b y timel y tilin g a

n appea l brief wit h th e FA A decisionmaker. "

' ^ Se c Lewis , FA

A Orde r No . 2005- 7 (Apri l 11 , 2005) , i n whic h aletter

addresse dt

o th e Hearin g Docke t clerk , whic h ha

dbee n construe da s anoiic e o f

appeal , wa s als o construe da s a n appea l brie f becaus e i t wa s sufficientl y detaile dt o explai n th e basi s o f

th e appeal) . '• * On Jul y 19 , 2007 , th e ALJ denie dKeller' s motio n to reconside r th e denia l o f Keller' s motio n for summar y judgment . T o th e exten t tha t Kelle r ma y hav e intende dto appea

l fro mtha t orde r i n hi s Jul y 24 , 200 7 motio n t o vacate , that appeal i s dismissed . Th e Jul y 19 , 2007 , denia l o f th e motio n fo r reconsideratio n doc s no t

constitut e a

n initia l decisio n i

n thi s matter , and , consequently , th e issue s relate dt o summar y judgmen t

ar e no t properl y o

n appeal befor

e th e Administrator .02/07/201 1 09:5 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S igOOS/Ol O

day s to file arepl y brie f

fro mth e dat e o f

th e issuanc e o f

thi s order construin g th e motio n t o vacat e a s a

n appeal brie f 2 . Keller' s Notic e o f

Appea l date dFebruar

y 26 , 2010 . Kelle r

asserte dtha t

h e filedhi s Notic e o f

Appea l under 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.219(c) , whic h i s th e rul e permittin g interlocutory appeal s o f

right . Sectio n 13.219(c ) provide s apart y wit h a n interlocutor

y appeal o f right t o th e Administrato r

befor e th e issuanc e o f

an initia l decisio n i f

th e AL J fail s to dismis s acas e i n accordanc e wit h Sectio n 13.215 . Keller

filedth e Notic e o f Appeal o n Februar

y 26 , 2010 , lon g afte

r th e AL J issue dth e initial decisio n i n thi s matter on Jul y 24 , 2007 . Hence , t o th e exten t tha t thi s documen t

represent s a

n interlocutory appea l o f th e ALJ' s initial decision , i t i s dismissed . Further , i n thi s document

Kelle r argue dtha

t h e wa s appealin g fro

mtli e ALJ' s failur e l o rul e upo n th e Jul y 30 , 2007 , motio n t o vacate , a s wel l a s fro mth e orde r assessin g acivi l penalt

y which , h e asserts , h e receive do n or abou t Februar y 12 , 2010 . Th e Rule s o f

Practic e d o no t

provid e for

revie w o f

a n ALJ' s failur

e t o tak e a

n action . At thi s point , ther e i s n o nee dt o rul e on Keller' s notic e o f appea l t o th e exten t

tha t h e i s appealin g fro

mthe M S % failur e to rul e upo n th e motio n to vacate , becaus e ih e Administrato r

ha s construe dth e motio n to vacat e a s anotic e o f appea l an dappea

l brie f Hence , Kelle r

wil l ge t th e revie w tha t

h e seek s o f

th e ALJ' s orde r

o f dismissa l withou t prejudice . For

thi s reason , a s anotic e o f appeal fro

mth e ALJ' s failur

e t o rul e upo n th e Jul y 30 , 2007 , motio n to vacate , th e notic e o f appea l i s dismissed . Regardin g hi s appea

l in thi s documen t

fromth t OACP , Kelle r

seek s reversa l o f th e OAC P because , h e argues , th e FAA faile dt o giv e proper

notic e an dopportunity fo r02/07/201 1 09:5 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS @1009/01 0 hearing.' ^ Th e Rule s o f

Practic e d o no t

provid e fo

r direc t revie w b y th e Administrato r o f a n order assessin g civi l penalt

y issue db y FAA coimse l under 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(d)(2).' * Hence , th e Administrato r

wil l no t conside r Keller' s argument

tha t th e FA A di dno t provid e adequat e du e proces s when i t issue dth e OACP . For thes e reasons , Keller' s Notic e o f Appea l date dFebruar

y 26 , 2010 , i s dismissed . 3

- Keller' s Petitio n fo

r Revie w andDismi.ssa

l o f Orde r Assessin g Civi l Penalt

y wit h Prejudic e and/o r

Appellant' s Brie f

date dMarc h 11 . 2010 . Keller purportedl y filed thi s document

under "Section s 13.219 , 13.23 3 and/o r 13.234. " U i s no t

a n interlocutor

y appeal under

Sectio n 13.21 9 o f

th e ALJ' s initial decision , for th e sam e reaso n that

th e Noiic e o f Appeal i s no t

a n interlocutory appea

l o f right

- i t wa s filedafte

r th e AI J issue d th e initia l decision . A s a

n appea l brief , th e document

i s dismis.'se

dbecaus e th e Notic e o f Appeal date dFebruar

y 26 , 2010 , was dismissed . Further , a s apetitio n t o reconside r

o r modif y under 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.234 , i t

i. s premature becaus e th e Administrato r ha s no t yet issue dafina

l deei.sion andorde r

unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233 . I T I S HEREB Y ORDERE D THAT : (I ) Keller' s motio n t o vacat e i s construe da s anotic e o f appea l fromthe ALJ' s orde r di.smissing th e original actio n withou t prejudice , an da s a

n appeal brie f

' ^ H e als o argue s tha

i the FA A misrepresente

dmateria l fact s an dtha t the finding s offse t

ar c no t supporte db y apreponderance of

the reliable , probative an

dsubstantia

l evidence . Considerin

g tha t th e AL J di dno t mak e an y findings o

f fact, tha t argumen t i s frivolou s an

dmerit s n o furthe r attention . "A n orde r assessin g civi l penalt y ma y b e issue di f aperso n charge dwit h aviolatio n doc s no l request ahearin g unde r paragrap h (g)(2)(ii ) o

f thi s sectio n f 1 4 C.F.R , § 13.16(g)(2)(ii) ] wiihi

n 1 5 day s afte r receip t o f afinal notic e o

f propose dcivi l penalty. " 14 C.F.R . § 13.16(d)(2) .02/07/201 1 09:5 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DMS @010/01 0

(2 ) Th e FAA ma

y file arepl y brie f

withi n 3 5 day s fro

mth e issuanc e o f

thi s order tha t addresse s th e issue s raise di n Keller' s appeal , i.e. , di dth e AL J hav e th e authorit

y t o dismis s th e proceeding s withou t prejudice , an di f

not , shoul dth e Administrato r dismis s th e proceeding s wit

h prejudice . (3 ) Keller' s Notic e o f

Appeal date dFebruar

y 26 , 2010 , an dhi s Petitio n fo r Revie w an dDismissal o f

Order Assessin g Civi l Penalt

y wit h Prejudic e and/o r Appellant' s Brie f

date dMarc h II , 2010 , are dismissed . (4 ) Afte r receivin g an

y repl y brie f

fro mth e agenc y attorney , th e Administralo r will reques t

additional briefin g onl y if th e Administrato r

deem s additional briefin g necessary . Onc e briefin g i s completed , th e Administrato r wil l issu e adecisio n resolvin g Keller' s appeal unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.2330)(2) . Kelle r ma y no t file any furthe

r brief s o r motion s unles s requeste db y th e Administrator , ViJ,- ^ J . RANDOLP H BABBIT T ADMINISTRATO R Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

1 0