2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-10-2008 

# V inel and Fireworks v

. B ur Alcohol T

ob a cco P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2381

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" V inel and F ir ework s v

. B ur Alc o ho l T

o b a c c o " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 285. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/285T he Hon o r a b l e W i l l i a m H
. Yoh n J r . , Uni t e d St a t es * D i s tr i ctJ udge for the E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 2381

V IN E L A N D F IR E W O R K S C O ., IN C ., Pet i t i oner

v. BU RE AU OF AL CO HOL , T OB AC CO , FI REA RM S & EX PLOSI VES

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B ur eau of

A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s and Expl os i ves ( N os . 8- N J

- 011- 50- 6D

- 00010 and 8- N J

- 011- 24- 4F- 00196)

A r gued J une 3, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d YOHN, D is tr i ct

Judge

. *2 ( Fi l ed: O ct ober10, 2008) D on P. Fost er( A r gued) K lehr, H arrison , H arv ey , B ran zb u rg & E ll ers 260 Sout h B r oad Str eet , Sui t e 400 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner K el s i B
. C or kr an ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce A ppel l at e Sect i on 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 M ark B
. S tern U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on, A ppel l at e St aff 6 0 1 D S tr e e t , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. V i nel and Fi r ew or ks C o. , I nc. ( “V i nel and”) appe al s the deci s i on of the A ct i ng D i r ect or( “D i r ect or ”) of the B u reau of A lco h o l, T o b a c c o , F ire a rm s & E x p lo siv e s (“ A T F ” ) to re v o k e its3 l i cens e t o m anufa ctur e fi r ew or ks and t o denyi t s appl i cat i on for the r enew al of i t s l i cens e t o i m por tfi r ew or ks

. T he D i r ect or f o u n d th a t V in e lan d ’s f a ilu re to k e e p re c o rd s o f its d a ily s um m ary of m agaz i ne tr ans act i ons on thi r ty - s i x occa s i ons over the cour s e of manym onths cons t i tut ed a w i l l ful vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127. W e hol d thatthe D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful ” i s r eas onabl e, and su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts its fi nd i ng that V i ne lan d “ w ill f u lly v i o l a t e d ” th e a b o v e p r o v i s i o n s . F o r th e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w il l den ythe p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e D ir ec tor’s ord er. I. V i nel and is a fi r ew or ks m anufa ctur erand di s tr i but or ow ned and oper at ed by R os e Paci t t o w i th l ocat i ons i n V i nel and, N ew J er s eyand C oamo, Puer t o R i co. V i nel and appl i ed forand b e c a m e lice n se d b y A T F in M a rc h 2 0 0 0 . F o r a p p ro x im a tely el even y ear s pr i ort o herappl i cat i on, Paci t t o w or ked at Fi r ew or ks by G i r one, a fi r ew or ks m anufa ctur erand di s tr i but or ow ned and ope r at ed by Fel i x G i r one, Paci t t o’ s form erhus band. Fi r ew or ks byG i r one operated o u tof the s ame si t e thatl at er beca m e V i nel and. I n 1 9 99, the U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyi ndi ct ed Fi r ew or ks byG i r one forknow i ngl yand w i l l ful l ym anufa ctur i ng expl os i ve mat eri als w i thoutkeepi ng pr operr ecor ds , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 2, 8 4 2( f) , and 844( a)

. T he i ndi ctm ent s t emm ed fr om A T F i ns pect i ons i n 1995 and 1996, i n w hi ch i ns pect o rs f ound thatFi r ew or ks byG i r one h ad m anufa ctur ed thous ands of expl os i ve devi ces w i thout rec o rd a n d h ad im p rop erlystored the d ev ices. T h e inv esti g atorsA “r es pons i bl e per s on” i s “[a ] n i ndi vi dual w ho has the 1 pow ert o di r ectthe managementand pol i ci es of the appl i cant pert ai ni ng t o expl os i ve mat er i al s . ” 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 11. N eith er the A d m inistrati v e L aw Ju d g e, n o r th e D ir ec tor, 2 attr i but ed the J ul y1999 vi ol at i ons t o V i nel and. 4 di s cus s ed the vi ol at i on s w it h Paci t t o atthatt i m e bec aus e the c o m p a n y ’s f

e d e ra l ex p lo siv e s li cense listed h e r a s a “ re sp o n sib le per s on. ” Fi r ew or ks byG i r one pl eade d gui l tyt o the char ge, and

1 P a c itt o (th e n a s R o se G iro n e ) s ig n e d th e p lea a g re e m e n t. Subse quent l y , A T F r evoked Fi r ew or ks byG i r one’ s l i cens e. In N ov em ber 2 00 0, aft er F i rew orks byG i rone’s l i cense w as r evoked a nd Paci t t o had begun oper at i ng on the s i t e under the new l i cens e forV i nel and, A T F cont act ed Paci t t o and in f o rm e d h e r o f

its e a rlier in sp e c tio n o f F ire w o rk s b y G iro n e in Jul y19 99 and the v i olat i on s i tfou nd

. In part i cular , these v io lati o n s in c lu d e d “ f

a ilu re to m a in tain re c o rd s o f th e d a ily m agaz i ne tr ans act i ons forexpl os i ves ” forappr oxi m at el ya tw owe e k p e r i o d i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 7 C. F
. R. § 5 5 5
. 1 2 7
. On D ecem b e r 2 0 , 200 0, A T F and P aci t t o m ett o d i scuss these vi ol at i ons , and A T F instruc t ed Paci t t o on the r equi r ement s for c o mp l i a n c e wi th f

e d e r a l e x p l o s i v e s l a w. 2A T F i ns pectors vi s i t ed V i nel and i n O ct ober2001 and 3 D ece m ber2002, but di d not i s s ue ci t at i ons . A T F and V i nel and ar gue as t o w hethe rthes e i ns pect i ons w er e ful l i ns pect i ons of V i nel and’ s pr emi s es , butthi s di s put e i s i rr el evantt o our re so lu tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. 5 O n J ul y2, 2003, A T F conduct ed a s afe tyw al k- thr ough 3 i nspecti on of V i neland, and i t ci t ed V i neland for tw o v i olat i on s: ( 1 ) p r e - l o a d i n g tru c k s wi th e x p l o s i v e s wi th o u ta p r e - l o a d i ng var i ance ; and ( 2) i m pr oper l ys t or i ng fi r ew or ks

. O n J ul y2, 2004, A T F agai n conduct ed a s afe tyw al k- thr ough i nsp ec ti on of V i nel and, and i t ci t ed V i nel and for thr ee vi ol at i ons : (1) p rel oadi ng trucks w i th expl os i ves w i thouta pr e- l oadi ng var i ance ; (2 ) im p ro p e rlysto rin g f ire w o rk s a n d h ig h e x p lo siv e b u lk s al ut es ; and ( 3) fai l i ng t o keep pr operr ecor ds of fi r ew or ks and s al ut es. P ac i t t o s i gned the vi ol at i ons r eport , and on A ugus t4, 2004, s he metw i th A T F t o di s cus s the vi ol at i ons i n a “w arni ng conference. ” Subs equent l y , A T F se ntPaci t t o a l ett er , s t at i ng: “Y ou ar e re m i nded thatfutur e vi ol at i ons , r epea torotherw i s e, coul d be vi ew ed as w i l l ful and mayr es ul ti n the r evoca t i on of y o u r l ic e n s e .” O n O c to b e r 13 , 2 0 0 4 , A T F a g a in c o n d u c ted a s a f e ty w alk-thro u g h insp ec ti o n o f V inelan d

. T h e A T F insp ec tors found a numberof vi ol at i ons , and on A ugus t22, 2005, the D ire c to r o f

In d u stryO p e ra tio n s (“ D IO ” ) f o r th e P h ilad e lp h ia Fi el d D i vi s i on of A T F i s s ued a not i ce of rev o cat i on of V i n e l a n d ’ s l i c e n s e t o ma n u f a c tu r e e x p l o s i v e s p u r s u a n tt o 18 U
. S. C

. § 843( d)

. T he D I O also issued a not i ce de ny i ng6 V in e la n d ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r a ren ew al of it s li ce n se to im p o rt firew o rks p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 8 4 3 (b). O n Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , A T F in sp e c to r s c o n d u c ted a sa f e ty w al k- thr ough i ns pect i on of V ine l and’ s fac i l i tyi n Puer t o R i co and found a num berof ad di t i onal vi ol at i ons . O n D ece m ber2, 2005, the D I O amended the not i ces t o i ncl ude thes e addi t i onal viol a t i on s . The a mend e d n ot i c e s s e tfo r th thi r t e e n v i ol a t i on s, e a c h o f w h ich c h a rg e d th a t V in e lan d h a d “ w ill f u lly f a il e d ” to compl y w i th fede r al l aw s and A T F r egul at i ons . W e s um m ar i ze the ch arged v i olat i on s as fol l ow s:

(1) W il lfu l fail u re to p rop erlystore e x p l o s i v e ma t e r i a l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 842( j ) and 27 C

. F
. R
. §§ 555. 29, 555. 201, 555. 203( d) , 555. 210, and 555. 215. V inel and sto re d tw e n ty -f

iv e p o u n d s o f

d e ter io ra ted sta rs in a tr ai l erthatal s o contai ned det er i or at ed ch em ical s , and the tr ai l erw as notan appr oved type 4 magazi ne. (2) W il lfu l fail u re to p rop erlystore e x p l o s i v e ma t e r i a l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S

. C. § 842( j ) and 27 C

. F. R
. §§ 555. 29 an d 555. 224. V i nel and had thr ee m agaz i nes w i thi n 200 fee tof the tr ai l er i n count( 1) and l es s than 300 fe etfr om a r oad. (3) W il lfu l fail u re to p rop erlystore e x p l o s i v e ma t e r i a l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 18 U. S

. C. § 842( j ) and 27 C

. F
. R
. §§ 555. 29, 555. 210, and7 555. 215. O n O ct ober13, 2004, V i nel and di d not h a v e “ a d e q u a te lo c k s, h o o d s[ ,] a n d h in g e s” o n its st orage co ntai ners. (4 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F
. R
. § 555. 127. B etw een J ul y2, 2003 and O ct ober13, 2004, V i nel and di d nots t at e the m ethod i t us ed t o countexpl os i ve mat er i al s on t en occa s i o n s i n i t s dai l ys um m aryof m agaz i ne transact i on s. (5 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127. O n s i x occa s i ons b et w een J ul y1, 2004 and O ct ober13, 2004, V ineland fai le d t o ent erthe manufactur er ’ s name orbr and name of expl os i ve mat er i al s , the t ot al quant i tyof m at er i al s r ece i ved i n and r emoved fr om eac h m agaz i ne dur i ng the day , and t he t ot al r emai ni ng q u an ti tyat th e e n d o f th e d ayin it s d ail ysu m m ary of m agazine t ransact i on s. (6 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127. O n thi r tyocca s i ons betw een J anuaryand A ugus t2004, V i nel and comm i t t ed the s am e v iolati o n as in co u n t ( 5 ). (7 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27A T F di s m i s s ed V i ol at i on 10. 4 8 C

. F. R. § 5 5 5
. 1 0 9 ( a )

. Be twee n J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 3 and O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , V inelan d d id no t pro p erlym ark 12 cannon s hot s w i th the c o rr ectname and loca ti o n o f th e m an u fa cture r. (8 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 123( b). B etw een J ul y2, 2003 and O ct o b e r1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , Vi n e l a n d d i d n o te n t e rthe p ro p e r re c o rd s re g a rd in g th e c a n n o n sh o ts m en ti o n ed in co u n t ( 7 ). (9) W il lfu l fail u re to p rop erlystore e x p l o s i v e ma t e r i a l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 842( j ) and 27 C

. F. R
. §§ 555. 201( f)

. B etw een J ul y9, 2004 and J ul y25, 2005, V i nel and di d not not i fythe l ocal fi r e s afe tyoffi ci al s of the l ocat i on a n d o th e r in f

o rm a tio n o f

th e e x p lo siv e m a ter ials ati t s fac i l i tyi n Puer t o R i co. 4 (1 1 ) W ill f

u l f a ilu re to p ro p e rlym a in tain r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127. B etw een J anuary13, 2005 and Jan u ary1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , V inelan d d id n o t e n te r a s epar at e re cor d s t at i ng the dat es of di s tr i but i on of e x p lo siv e m a ter ials o n tw o o c c a sio n s at its f a c ili ty i n Puer t o R i co.9 (12 ) W il lfu l fail u re to p rop erlystore e x p l o s i ve ma t e r i a l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 8 4 2 ( j ) a n d 2 7 C. F. R. § 5 5 5
. 2 1 5
. B et w een J ul y9, 2004 and J ul y25, 2005, V i nel and di d not keep the ar ea s urr oundi ng a ma g az ine cl earof brus h and gr as s ati t s fac i l i tyi n Puer t o R i co. (13) W i l l ful fai l ure t o p ostl i cense in v i ol a t i on o f

1 8 U. S

. C. § 8 4 3 ( g ) a n d 2 7 C. F
. R. § 5 5 5
. 1 0 1
. On J u l y2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , Vi n e l a n d d i d n ot h a v e its lice n se p o ste d a t it s f a c ili tyin P u e rto R i co. V i nel and r eques t ed a he ar i ng befor e an A dm i ni s tr at i ve L aw J udge ( “A L J ”)

. T he ce ntr al ques t i on of the hear i ng w as w h e th e r V in e lan d ’s v io latio n s w e r e w ill f u l. F o r a n e n tityto i m por t , m anufa ctur e, or deal i n expl os i ve mat er i al s , i tm us thave a lic e n s e . See 18 U
. S. C

. § 843. H ow ever , an ent i tythathas “w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed anyof the pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt er[18 U
. S. C

. §§ 841 et

s eq. ] orr egul at i ons i s s ued her eunder ” ca nnot o b ta in a lic e n s e . I

d. § 843( b) ( 2)

. I f a l i cens ee ha s vi ol at ed any p ro v isio n , inc lu d in g th o se p r o v is io n s g o v e rn in g th e w a yin w h ich a lice n se e o b tain s its o rig in a l li c e n se , A T F m a yre v o k e its lic e n s e o r d e n yth e re n e w a l a p p lic a tio n f o r i ts lic e n s e . See i d. § 843( a) ( “Each l i cens e o r p erm i ts hal l be r enew abl e upon the s ame condi t i ons and s ubj ectt o the s ame rest r i ct i ons as the o rig in a l lic e n se o r p e rm it[.]” ); i d. § 843( d) ( “The A t t orney G e n e ra l m a yre v o k e a n ylice n se o r p e rm it i s s u e d u n d e r th is s ect i on i f i n the opi ni on o f the A t t orneyG ener al the hol der ther eof has vi ol at ed any pr ovi s i on of t hi s chapt er or any rul e or re g u latio n p re s c rib e d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l u n d e r th isA T F does notappea l the D i r ect or ’ s d e c i s i o n wi th r es pect 5 t o those vi olat i on s. O n J une 22, 2007, thi s C our t gr ant ed an emer gency 6 m ot i on s t ay i ng the r evocation of V i nel and’ s l i cens e pendi ng rev iew o f th e D ir ec tor’s ord er. 10 cha pt er [. ] ”)

. T hus , A T F m aydenythe r enew al of a l i cens e or r evoke a licen s e i f the l i cens ee ha s “w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed” the s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n s o r A T F re g u la tio n s . See i d. § 8 4 3 (a), (b)(2 ), (d). O n February23, 24, and 27, 2006, an A L J of the U ni t ed St at es E nvi r onm ent al Pro tect i on A gencypr es i ded overthe hear i ng on t hes e vi ol at i ons . O n J une 2, 2006, the A L J i s s ued a R ecomm ended D eci s i on, i n w hi ch he r ecomm ended r ever s i ng the r evoca t i on of the l i cens e and the deni al of the r enew al appl i cat i on for the l i cens e, fi ndi ng thatthe vi ol at i ons w er e not w ill f u l. O n J une 15, 2006, the D I O fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w ith th e D ire c to r. O n A p ril 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , the D ire c to r iss u e d h is O rde r , aff

i r m i ng i n partand r ever s i ng i n partthe A L J ’s R ec o m m en d ed D ec is ion

. T h e D ir ec tor af firm ed the A L J’s deci s i o n as t o V i ol at i ons 3, 4, 9, and 13, fi ndi ng thatV i nel and di d notw i l l ful l yco m m it thes e vi ol at i ons . H ow ever , the 5 D i r ect o r re ver s ed the A L J ’ s deci s i on as t o the r emai ni ng viol at i on s, fi nd i ng that tho se vi olat i on s w ere w i l l ful. A s a re su l t , he d i rect ed thatV i neland’s l i censes be im m ediat ely r evoked. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.

6T he A L J ’ s deci s i o n i s the fi nal deci s i on onl yi f the 7 D ir e c to r a f

f ir m s th e d e c is io n . See 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 79.

11 II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e D ire c to r’s d e c isio n to r evoke a n expl os i ves l i cens e and de nya r enew al appl i cati on p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 8 4 3 ( e ) ( 2 ) a n d 5 U
. S

. C

. § 7 0 4
. We r evi ew the D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on, w hi ch i s the fi nal or derr evoki ng V in e la n d ’s lic e n s e a n d d e n y in g its re n e w a l a p p lic a tio n . See 18 U
. S. C

. § 843( e) ( 2)

. W e r evi ew the deci s i on us i ng the j udi ci al 7 s ta n d a rd s o f

re v ie w s e t f

o rt h in 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6
. See 1 8 U. S

. C. § 843 ( e ) ( 2 )

. To th e e x t e n t th a t th i s a p p e a l c h a l l e n g e s t he Di r e c t o r ’ s i n t e rp r e t at i o n o f th e s t a tu t o ryp r o v i s i o n s ATF admi ni sters, w e ut i l i ze pr i nci pl es of C hevr on d e f e re n c e . See C hevr on U

. S. A

. I

nc. v. N at ur al R es . D ef

. C ounci l , I nc. , 46 7 U. S. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 ). A. V i nel and ar gues that the D i r ect or di d not l i m i thi s r evi ew of the A L J ’ s deci s i on t o a det erm i nat i on of w hether i t w as “ arbi trary and capri ci ou s, ” and he should hav e so l i m i ted h is s t andar d of r evi ew pur s uant t o 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 79. W e r evi ew a n a g e n c y ’s d e c isio n to a p p lya p a rticu larsta n d a rd o f re v iew to det erm i ne i f i tw as “arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , an abuse of di s cr et i on, o r oth erw ise n o t in acc o rda n ce w ith law

. ” 5 U

. S

. C

. § 7 0 6 (2)(A ); s ee al so C hen v. G en. A ccount i ng O f f i ce , 821 F. 2d 732, 734 ( D
. C

. C ir

. 1987) ( “[A ] boar d deci s i on thatappl i ed the w r ongIn pert i nen tpart , the st atute pr ov i des: 8 W hen the pr es i di ng empl oy ee makes an i ni t i al deci s i on, that deci s i on then bec om es the dec i s i on of the agen cyw i tho ut fur ther proceedings un l ess ther e i s an appe al t o, orr evi ew on m ot i on of, the agenc yw i thi n t i m e pr ovi ded byrul e. O n appea l fr om orr evi ew of the i ni t i al deci s i on, the age ncy has al l the pow er s w hi ch i tw oul d have i n m aki ng t he i ni t i a l d e c i s i o n e x c e p ta s i tma yl i mi tthe i s s ues on not i ce orbyrul e. 5 U
. S

. C

. § 5 5 7 (b). 12 sta n d a rd o f

re v iew to th e d e c isio n o f its h e a rin g e x a m in e r w o u ld

. . . b e a rbitraryan d ca p ri ciou s an d co n tr aryto law

. ”). Th e Ad mi n i s tr a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Ac t( “ APA” ) , 5 U. S

. C. §§ 500- 596, governs the w ayi n w hi ch adm i ni s tr at i ve age nci es fu n cti o n . Itp rov ides that, w h e re an ag en cyrev iew s an A L J’s d e c isio n , “th e a g e n c yh a s all th e p o w e rs w h ich it w o u ld h a v e in m aki ng the init ia l deci s i on exce ptas i tm ayl i m i tthe i s s ues on n o tice o r b yru le.” 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 7 (b ). T h u s, C o n g re ss p e rm its the age ncyt o l i m i ti t s r evi ew us i ng i t s r egul at i on- pr om ul gat i ng pow ers, b u t if

i tchoos es nott o do s o, i texer ci s es de novo re v ie w o v e r t h e A L J ’s d e c is io n . See i d. 8 W e must det erm i ne w hether A T F i s s ued a r egul at i on that lim ited th e D ire c to r’s re v iew o f a n A L J’s d e c isio n b e c a u se if it d id n o t, the D ir ec tor ex erc ises d e n o v o rev iew o v er the A L J’s deci s i on as pr o v i ded i n § 557( b)

. A T F has pr om ul gat ed a r egul at i on governing appea l s i nvol vi ng the r evoca t i on of anB ot h pa r t i e s c i t e t o 2 7 C. F. R. § 7 1
. 1 1 6 f o rv a r i o us 9 pr opos i t i ons , butthi s s ect i on governs the D i r ect or ’ s r eview of pe r mi t p r o c e e d i n g s o f th e To b a c c o Ta x a n d Tr a d e Bur eau of A T F. W hi l e thi s s ect i on i s s i m i l ar t o § 555. 79, w e w i l l l i m i tour di s cus s i on t o § 555. 79 as thati s the appl i cabl e s ect i on. A s a resul t , w e r ej ectV i nel and’ s ar gum entthatthe 10 D i r ect ors houl d have r ev iew ed t he A L J ’ s concl us i ons for w hethert he A L J w as arb i tr aryand capr i ci ous . T he t extof the r egul at i on i nvi t es pet i t i ons thats eek r evi ew notonl yof an a ct i on th a t is a rb itrar y , b u t als o o f a n a c tio n th a t is w ith o u t re a so n a b le 13 e x p lo s iv e s lic e n s e . See 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 79. Sect i on 555. 79 9 p ro v id e s tha t, f

o llo w in g th e A L J’s in iti a l d e c isio n , eith e r p a rty m ayap p ea l t o the D ir ec tor b yfil ing a p eti ti o n fo r re v ie w . It fur thers t at es : “The pet i t i on w i l l s et for th fac t s t endi ng t o s how (a ) a c ti o n o f

a n a rb itrar yn a tu re , (b ) a c tio n w ith o u t re a so n a b le w a rr a n t i n f

a c t, o r ( c ) a c tio n c o n tr a ry to la w a n d re g u la tio n s .” I d. W e ca nnotconcl ude thatthis reg ul at i on l i m i t s the D ire c to r’s sta n d a rd o f

re v iew b e c a u se th e re g u latio n in stru c ts th e p e titio n e r, n o t th e D ir e c to r. See i d. ( i nform i ng the pet i t i oner that“[t ] he p eti ti o n w i l l s etfor th” fa ct s s how i ng thes e types of ac ti o n s). T h e tex t of

the re g u lat ion d o es n o t l im itthe D ir ec tor’s re v ie w to t h e t h r e e lis te d typ e s o f e rr o rs . See i d. M o reo v er, even a s s um i ng thati tdi d, i t does not i ncl ude part i cul ars t andar ds o f re v iew f o r e a c h e r r o r . F o r e x a m p le, a n “ a c tio n c o n tra ryto l aw and r egul at i ons ” does notpr ovi de a s t andar d of r evi ew , but i s s i m pl ya type of err or . T her efor e, w e ca nnotconcl ude that 10w arran t in fac t, o r is co n tr ary to l aw . See 2 7 C

. F. R
. § 555. 79. T hus , i tcl ear l ydoes notl i m i tthe D i rec tor’s r evi ew t o an “ a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s ” s ta n d a rd

. See i d. T o th e e x ten t th a t V in e lan d a rg u e s th a t o u r d e c isio n in 11 Kow al chi ck v. D i r ector, O f f i ce of W orker s ’C om pens at i on P r o g r a ms , 893 F
. 2d 61 5, 61 9-20 (3d C i r. 19 90 ), com pels a di ffe r entconcl us i on, i t s ar gum ent i s unavai l i ng. I n Kow al chi ck , w e s t at ed thatthe B enef i t s R evi ew B oar d for the O ffi ce of W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on r evi ew s an A L J ’ s det erm i nat i o n for s ubs t ant ial evi dence

. H ow ever , w e made thatdet erm i nat i on b ec au se C o n g ress e x p resslyd ec lared that, u n d er the L o n g sh o re and H arb o r W o r ker s ’ C om pens at i on A ct , the B enef i t s R evi ew B oar d m us t r evi ew the hea r i ng r ecor d fors ubs t ant i al evi dence

. See 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 2 1 (b )(3 ); see al so 20 C

. F. R
. § 802. 301 ( s t at i ng th a t th e B e n e f

its R e v iew B o a rd “ is n o t e m p o w e re d to e n g a g e in a de novo pr ocee di ng” butm us ti ns t ead c ond u cta r evi ew for s ubs t ant i al evi dence )

. I n the pr es entcas e, C ongr es s has not i mpos e d a nys i mi l a rs t a nd a r d o f r e vi e w on the D i r e c t orof A TF, no r has A T F exp res sl ydeclar ed it s st and ard of revi e w . T hu s, Kow al chi ck

i s cl ear l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the pr es entcas e and d o e s n o t re q u ire a d if

f e re n t re su lt. 14 A T F e xpr es s l yl i m i t ed the D i r ect or ’ s s t andar d of r evi ew of the A L J’s d ec isi o n p u rsua n t t o 5 U
. S

. C

. § 5 5 7 (b). 11 V i nel and ar gues , how ever , thatw e s houl d concl ude that A T F i m pl i ci t l y l i m i t ed t he D i r ect or ’ s r evi ew t o an “arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous ” s t andar d beca us e “the r egul at i on i s s o s i m i l ar ” t o the15 A P A p rov isi o n g o v er n in g jud ici al rev iew o f a n ag en cy ’s decis i on . T he A P A provides: T he r e v i e wi n g c o u r t s h a l l

. . . h o l d u n l a wfu l and s et as i de agencyact i on, fi ndi ngs , and conc l us i ons fo u n d to b e-- ( A ) arbi tr ary , cap ri ci ous , an abus e of d isc re tio n , o r o th e r w is e n o t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith l a w; (B ) co n tr aryto co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t, p o w er, p r i v i l e g e , o ri m m u n i ty; ( C ) i n exce s s of s t atut oryj ur i s di ct i on, a u th o ri ty, o r l im ita tio n s . . . ; (D ) w ith o u t o b serv an ce o f p roc ed u re r e q u i r e d b yl a w; ( E ) uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

.

. . ; or ( F) unw arr ant ed bythe fa ct s to t he ext ent thatthe fa ct s ar e s ubj ectt o tr i al de novo bythe re v iew in g c o u rt. 5 U
. S

. C

. § 7 0 6 (2). I n compar i ng the A T F r egul at i on w i th the j udi ci al r evi ew s t a n d a r d s s e tf

o r th i n § 7 0 6 ( 2 ) , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e th a tth e ATF16 r egul at i on s o cl os el ypar al l el s the j udi ci al r evi ew s t andar ds that w e c a n in f

e r th a t A T F in ten d e d to a d o p t th o se sta n d a rd s. F irst, w hi l e § 706( 2) expr es s l ypr ovi des thata cour t m us tus e the l i s t e d s t and a r d s o f

r e v i e w i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n , th e ATF r egul at i on does not i ns truct the D i r ect or t o cons i der thes e thr ee lis te d typ e s o f

a c tio n s a s its s ta n d a rd s o f re v ie w . See 2 7 C. F
. R. § 555. 79. Second, the A T F r egul at i on does notm i rr orthe l anguage of § 706( 2)

. A l though both the A T F r egul at i on and § 7 0 6 (2 ) c o n te m p la te c h a lle n g e s f o r a c tio n s th a t a re a rb itr a ry, u n w a rra n ted b yth e f

a c ts, o r c o n tra ryto law , § 7 0 6 (2 ) e x p re ss ly p rov i des s t andar ds of r evi ew foreac h type of a ct i on w hi l e 27 C .F .R
. § 5 5 5 .7 9 d o e s n o t, pa rticu lar lyf o r “ a c tio n s c o n tra ryto la w .” H ad A T F i nt ended t o l i m i ti ts stan d ard of r evi ew i n a w a y sim ilar to th e A P A , w e b e liev e it w o u ld h a v e m o re c lo se ly m i r r or ed the s t atut e i n i t s r egul at i on. Forexampl e, i n C hen , the C our tof A ppeal s forthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a hel d thatthe G ener al A ccount i ng O ffi ce Per s onnel A ppeal s B oar d ( “B oar d”) l i m i t ed i t s s t andar d of re vi ew of a deci s i on bya s i ngl e mem ber o f th e B o a rd

. 8 2 1 F .2 d a t 7 3 7 -3 8 . It fo u n d th a t th e a p p lica b le s t andar ds underthe B oar d’ s r egul at i on “mi rr or [ed] ” the j udi ci al re v iew st a n d a r d s u n d e r b o th th e A P A a n d th e B o a rd ’s o rg a n ic s t atut e, both of w hi ch l i m i t ed j udi ci al r evi ew t o a s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd

. I

d. a t 7 3 5 -3 6 . It fu rth e r f o u n d th a t, i n pr om ul gat i ng t he r egul at i on, the B oar d s t at ed thati ti nt ended f or i t s s t andar d of r evi ew t o m i rr orthe j udi ci al r evi ew s t andar ds of § 7 0 6 (2 ). I

d. A s a r es ul t , the courtconcl uded: “I ts eems c l ear th a tth e [ Bo a r d ] ’ s n e w r e g u l a t i o n s g i v e i to n l y‘ a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w’ pow er s and notde novo r evi ew author i ty t o r eopen a nd r evi ew [an] i ndi vi dual m ember ’ s deci s i ons . ” I d. ; s ee al s o i d. at737- 38.17 T he A T F r egul at i on ati s s ue i n the pr es entcas e i s not s i m i l art o the one i n C hen , 821 F. 2d at734- 38. A s not ed above , the A T F r egul at i on, 27 C

. F. R
. 555
. 7 9, does notr equi r e the D i r ect ort o conducti t s anal y s i s us i ng thos e part i cul ars t andar ds of r evi ew . A ddi t i onal l y , i t does not “mi rr or ” the A PA s t andar ds bys t at i ng that the D i r ect or s houl d r evi ew the A L J ’ s concl us i ons f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See i d. F i n a l l y, a n d m o s ti m p o r t a n t l y, unl i ke i n C hen , 8 2 1 F .2 d a t 7 3 7 -3 8 , A T F d id n o t sta te th a t it i nt ended f

orthe D i r ect or ’ s s t andar ds of r evi ew t o be the s ame as t h e j u d i c i a l s t a n d a r d s o f r e v i e w. F o ra l l o f

th e s e r e a s o n s , we concl ude thatthe D

. C

. C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n C hen s uppor t s our concl us i on that , had A T F inten ded t o l i m i ti t s s t andar d of r evi ew , i tw oul d have us ed more part i cul arl anguage t o do s o. Ba s e d o n the for e g o i n g , we c a n n o tc o n c l u d e th a tATF h as li m it ed the D ir ec tor’s st an d ard o f re v iew o f th e A L J’s d ec isi o n p u rsua n t t o 5 U
. S

. C

. § 5 5 7 (b). A s a resu lt , § 5 5 7 (b)’s m andat e that“the age ncy has al l the pow er s w hi ch i tw oul d have i n m aki ng the i ni t i al deci s i on” re m ai ns i nt act
. T her efor e, t o the ex tent that the D ir ec tor ex erc ised d e n o v o rev iew o v er the A L J’s deci s i on, i tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on forhi m t o do s o. B. V in e lan d a r g u e s th a t th e D ire c to r e rre d in h is i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful ” under18 U
. S. C

. § 843( b) ( 2)

. W her e, a s h e r e , C o n g r e s s h a s i m p l i c i t l y d e l e g a t e d p o w e r s t o a n a g e n c y, w e m u st g iv e th e a g e n c y ’s in terp re tatio n d e f e re n c e so lo n g a s itW hi l e the A PA , 5 U
. S. C

. § 706, gener al l ygoverns our 12 r evi ew , w e ut i l i ze C hevr on defe r ence pr i nci pl es forques t i ons of law “ w h e re C o n g re s s d e le g a te d a u th o r it y to th e a g e n c y g e n e r a lly t o m ake rul es carr y i ng the for ce of l aw , an d

. . . the age ncy i nt erpr et at i on cl ai m i ng defe r ence w as pr om u l gat ed i n the exer ci s e of thatauthor i ty . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mead C or p. , 533 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 6 -2 7 (2 0 0 1 ). In th e p re se n t ca se , A T F ’s a u th o rity i s der i ved fr om C ongr es s ’s d el egat i on of the l i cens i ng of expl os i ves m anufactur er s , di s tr i but or s , and i m por t er s t o the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. See 18 U
. S. C

. § 843. A T F ex erc i s es the authori tyt o revo k e a l i cense o r denythe renew al of a li cense p u rsua n t t o § 8 4 3 (e)(2). U n d er C hevr on , w e m us tfi r s tas k “w hetherC ongr es s has dir ect l y spok en to the p reci se quest i on ati ssue” becau se i f i thas, w e “mustgi ve eff

ectt o the unambi guous l yexpr es s ed i nt entof C ongr es s . ” S e e C h e v ro n U.S.A

. In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s. D e

f. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U
. S. 837, 842- 43 ( 1984)

. H er e, C ongr es s has n o t p ro v id e d a n yd e f

in iti o n f o r th e ter m “ w ill f

u l” w ith in th is s ta t u to ry sc h e m e . See 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 8 4 3
. M o reo v er, th e w o rd “w i l l ful ” has m any m eani ngs , and i t s m eani ng us ual l ydepends o n th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f its u se , in c lu d in g w h e th e r it a p p lies in th e c iv il o r c ri m in a l c o n te x t. See B r yan v. U ni t ed Stat es , 524 U
. S. 184, 191 ( 1998)

. T hus , w e concl ude t hatC ongr es s has not pr o v i ded an “ unambi guous l yexpr es s ed i nt ent ” as t o the m eani ng of “w i l l ful

. ” S ee C h evron , 467 U
. S. at842- 43. T h e r e f o re , C hevr on defe r ence appl i es , and w e mustgi ve the a g e n c y ’s in terp re tatio n d e f e re n c e so lo n g a s it is a re a so n a b le c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e s ta tu te
. See i d. at844.

18 is re a s o n a b le

. See Chevr on , 467 U
. S. at 8 4 4. Forthe 12A tor al ar gum ent , A T F agr eed thati ts houl d have c i t ed 13 C hevr on in iti a lly , ex p lain in g th a t at th e tim e it s u b m itt e d its bri ef, i tdid not r eal i ze V i neland w as a rg u ing f or any thing l ess than C hevr on d ef

ere n ce , an d ask ed u s to e m p loysu ch a stan d ard i n r evi ew i ng the age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e. T o th e e x ten t th a t V in e lan d su g g e sts th a t th e A L J d id 14 n o t r e q u i r e a b a d p u rp o s e , we r e j e c ti t s a s s e r t i o n . T h e ALJ adopt ed the l anguage i n V i nel and’ s r epl ybri ef r equi r i ng an “a ct[] in d ef

ianc e of the law w ith n o justi fica ti o n . ” M o reo v er, h e th e n f o u n d th a t V in e lan d h a d n o t “a c ted w ith th e p u rp o se to d iso b e yth e law ” a n d th a t “it w a s n o t [ P a c itt o ’s] in ten tio n to wi l l f u l l y i g n o r e th e r e c o r d k e e p i n g r e q u i r e me n t s . ” Th u s , t he A L J ’ s rul e of l aw and s ubs equentfi ndi ngs demonstr at e thathe 19 fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude th a tth e Di r e c t o r ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful ” under§ 843( b) ( 2) i s r eas onabl e. 13 1. T he D i r ect ori nt erpr et ed “w i l l ful nes s ” under § 843( b) ( 2) a s “ p l a i n i n d i f

f e r e n c e t o , o ri n t e n t i o n a l d i s r e g a r d o f , a k n o wn leg a l d u ty .” H e f

u rth e r sta ted th a t a lic e n se e h a s w ill f u lly vi o l a t e d th e r e g u l a t i o n s “ i f , wi th k n o wl e d g e o f

wha tthe regul at i on s r equ i re, the d eal er r epeatedl yviol at es tho se r egul at i ons . ” H ow ever , he r ej ect ed the A L J ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of w i l l ful n ess to the ext entthatthe A L J s t at ed thati tr equi r ed a “bad pu rp o s e” a nd perm i t t ed a “ j us t i fi abl e exc us e” de fens e. T he D i r ect ors t at ed: “W i l l ful nes s does notr equi r e proof that V in e la n d a c te d w ith th e s p e c if ic p u rp o s e to d is o b e y th e la w .” 14di d, i n fact , req ui r e a s how i ng thatV i nel and had a ct ed w i th a bad pu rpose i n v i olat i ng the A T F regul at i on s. V inelan d p o ints t o n o tes i n the fo u rth ed it ion o f B lack ’s 15 L aw D i ct i onary ; V i nel and cl ai m s thes e not es s t at e t hata w i l l ful actm ust be done “ w i thoutj us t i fi abl e exc us e. ” H ow ever , the cu rren t editi o n o f B lack ’s L aw D ict ion aryd o es n o t al low fo r a j us ti fiab le exc us e. T o the ext entthatthe curr entedi t i on di s cus s es the req u i r ementof a “ bad purpos e, ” i ti s l i m i t ed t o a di s cus s i on i n t he not es of w hatar e “w il lfu l” act i ons i n the cont extof a c r i m i nal s t atut e. 20 W e m us t det erm i ne w hetherthe D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of w hatcons t i tut es a “w i l l ful ” vi ol at i on pur s uantt o § 843( b) ( 2) is r ea so n ab le, an d w e c o n clud e th a t it is. F ir st, the D ir ec tor’s in te rp re ta tio n is in a c c o rd w ith th e le g a l d e f in itio n o f “ w illf u l,” w h ich is “ [ v ]o lu n tar ya n d in ten tio n a l, bu t n o t n e c e ss a rily m ali cio u s . ” B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary1 6 3 0 (8th ed

. 2 0 0 4 ). B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onaryfur therdefi nes “w i l l ful nes s ” as “[t ] he vol unt ary , i nt ent i onal vi ol at i on ordi s r egar d of a know n l egal duty . ” I d. L i ke the D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful ” and “w i l l ful nes s , ” thes e def i ni t i ons r equi r e know l edge of the c o n d u c t, b u t th eyd o n o t r eq u ir e a b ad p u rpo se o r all o w fo r a j us t i fi abl e exc us e. 15 F u rth e rm o re , the D ire c to r ’ s d e f in iti o n is in a c c o rd w ith C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls a d d re ss in g w h a t co n stitu tes a “ w ill f u l”W hi l e no otherC o u rtof A ppeal s has addr es s ed the 16 i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful ” i n the cont extof expl os i ves l i cens i ng, s eve ral C our t s of A ppeal s have done s o i n the cont extof f ir e a rm s lic e n s in g . See R SM , Inc. v. Herbert , 4 6 6 F .3 d 3 1 6 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); W

ill in g h a m S

p o rts , In c . v. B u re a u o f A lc o h o l, Tobacco, F i r ear m s & Expl os i ves , 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 4 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); Appalachi an R es . D ev. C or p. v. McC abe , 387 F. 3d 461 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ; P erriv. D ep’tof the T reasury , 637 F. 2d 1332 (9th C i r. 19 80 ); S tei n’s I nc. v. B l um enthal , 6 4 9 F .2 d 4 6 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); Lew i n v. B l um enthal , 5 9 0 F .2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (8th C ir

. 1 9 7 9 ). 21 v i o l a t i on i n a s i mi l a rc o n t e x t– f i r e a rms l i c e n s i n g . F i r e a r ms 16 l i c e n s i n g i s s i mi l a rt o e x p l o s i v e s l i c e n s i n g b e c a u s e ATF admi ni s t er s bo th fi r earm s l i cens i ng and expl os i ves l i cens i ng, and the s t atut orypr ovi s i ons governi ng the r evoca t i on of ea ch type of l i cens e r equi r e that the l i cens ee has “w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed” a s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n o r a re g u la tio n . C om pa re 1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 2 3 (e ), w ith i d. § 8 4 3 (b )(2 ). T h u s, f ire a rm s lic e n sin g is an alog o u s to ex p losive s li ce n sing , an d itis a u sef u l fram ew o rk f o r i n te rp re tin g th e te rm “ w illf u l.” T he si x C ou rt s of A pp eal s addressi ng w hat con st i tutes a “w i l l ful” vi ol at i on of the fi r earm s l i cens i ng pr ovi s i ons have ag ree d o n an in te rp retati o n , h o lding that a f ir ea rm s d ea ler’s vi ol at i on is w i l l ful w her e he “ knew of hi s l egal obl i gat i on and p u rp o s e f u lly d is re g a rd e d o r w a s p la in ly in d if f e re n t to th e . . .W e n o te th a t, fo r f ire a rm s lic e n sin g , D istric t C o u rts 17 m us tconduct a de novo r evi ew of the deni al orr evoca t i on of a lic e n s e . See i d. § 923( f) ( 3)

. T hus , a C our tof A ppeal s r evi ew of th e D is tr ic t C o u r t ’ s d e c is io n is a ls o d e n o v o . See , e. g. , W i l l i ngham Spor t

s , I nc. v. B ur eau of

A l cohol

, Tobacco, F i r ear m s & E

xp losi ves , 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 5 -76 (11 th C ir

. 2005)

. C ongr es s has notpr ovi ded us w i th de novo r evi ew of the d e n ia l o r re v o c a tio n o f a n e x p l o s i v e s lic e n s e , s ee 1 8 U. S

. C. § 8 2 3 ( e )( 2 ), a n d f

o r t h e re a s o n s d e s c ri b e d a b o v e , C hevr on defe rence app l i es. 22 re q u ir e m e n ts .” Lew i n v. B l um enthal , 5 9 0 F .2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (8 th 17 C ir. 1 9 7 9 ); see al

so R SM , Inc. v. Herbert , 466 F. 3d 3 1 6 , 322 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (re q u irin g e ith e r “ d e lib e ra te d isre g a rd ” o r “ p lain in d if f e re n c e ” ); W

illin g h a m S

p o rts , In c . v. B u re a u o

f A lco h o l, Tobacco, F i r ear m s & Expl os i ves , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ); Appalachi an R es . D ev. C or p. v. McC abe , 387 F .3 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (s a m e ); P er r iv. D ep’ tof the T reasury , 6 3 7 F .2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 6 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) ( s a m e ); S tei n ’s I nc. v. B l um enthal , 6 4 9 F
. 2 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 7 (7th C ir

. 1 9 8 0 ) ( sam e). A n u m b e r o f

th e se C o u rts o f A p p e a ls ha v e e x p re ss lysta ted th a t, i n fin d ing w i l l ful nes s , ther e i s no r equi r ementof bad purpos e. See W i l l i ngham , 4 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 6 ; Appalachi an R es . D ev. , 387 F .3 d a t 4 6 5 ; C ucch i ara v. Sec’y of the T reasury , 652 F. 2d 28, 30 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); Stei n ’s , 6 4 9 F .2 d a t 4 6 7 ; L e w in , 590 F. 2d at 269. I ns t ead, t hes e C our t s m er el yr equi r e vi olat i on of the re g u la tio n s w ith k n o w le d g e o f th e irre q u ir e m e n ts
. See RSM , 4 6 6 F .3 d a t 3 2 1 -2 2 ; W

i l l i ngham , 4 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 6 ; Appalachi an R es . D ev. , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 4 6 4 ; C ucch i ara , 6 5 2 F .2 d a t 3 0 ; S tei n ’s , 6 4 9 F .2 d a t 4 6 9 ; L e w in , 590 F. 2d at269. Fi nal l y , theyhaveV inel a n d arg u es th at w e sh o u ld rejec t th e D ir ec tor’s 18 interpre tat ion b ec au s e w e h av e re q u ir ed a b ad p u rpo se f o r a fi ndi ng of w i l l ful nes s i n the cont ext of O SH A

. V i nel and r el i es on the fol l ow i ng s t at ement : “W i l l ful nes s connot es defi ance or su c h re c k les s d isre g a r d o f c o n se q u e n c e s a s to b e e q u iv a len t to a k n o w in g , co n sc io u s , a n d d e lib e ra te f lau n tin g o f

th e A c t. W i l l ful m eans m or e tha n [a] m er el yvol unt aryact i on or o m iss io n [ ;] it i n v o lv e s a n e lem e n t o f o b sti n a te r e f

u sa l to compl y . ” B abcock

& W i l cox C o . v. O ccupat i onalSaf et y & Hea lth R ev . C o m m ’n , 622 F. 2d 1160, 1165 ( 3d C i r . 1980) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). I n B abcock , w e not ed thatourl anguage had cr eat ed a “s uppos ed conf

l i ct ” w i th otherC our t s of A p p ea ls, w hi ch bel i e v e d th a twe r e q u i r e d a “ b a d p u rp o s e ” f o ra f i n d i n g of w illf u ln e s s . I

d. at1167. T hos e court s di s agr eed w i th a “ba d purpos e” r equi r ement , hol di ng that“w il l ful ” meantan “i nt ent i onal di s r egar d of, orpl ai n i ndi ffe r ence t o” the re q u ir e m e n ts
. I

d. W e r ej ect ed the vi ew that an yconfl i ct e x iste d , sta ti n g th a t w e d id n o t h a v e a d if f e re n t sta n d a rd , o n ly d if f e re n t v e rb ia g e . I

d. Fur therm or e, ours ubs equentdeci s i ons h a v e e n d o rs e d th e v e rb ia g e o f th e o th e r C o u rt s o f

A p p e a ls

. See , 23 n e v e r p e rm itte d a “

ju s tif ia b le e x c u s e ” d e f

e n s e . See , e. g. , R SM , 466 F. 3d at321 ( r ej ect i ng the l i cens ee’ s ar gum ent s t hatthe v iolati o n s w ere n o t w il lfu l, b u t instead w ere inad v erten t errors d u e to a h igh v o lum e o f s a le s ). H ere , the D ir ec tor’s i nt erpr et at i on of w hatcons t i tut es a “w il lful vi ol at i on” under § 843( b) ( 2) fol l ow s the C our t s o f A ppeal s ’ i nt erpr et at i ons of wh a tc o n s t i tu t e s a “ wi l l f u l v i o l a t i o n ” u n d e r§ 9 2 3 ( e ) , a n d we concl ude thati ti s r eas onabl e. 18e. g. , B i anchiTris on C or p. v. C hao , 4 0 9 F
. 3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “A lth o u g h the [ O S H ] A ct do es n o t def ine th e term w i l l ful , court s have una ni m ous l y hel d that a w i l l ful vi ol at i on of the [O SH ] A ct cons t i tut es ‘ an act done vol unt ar i l yw i th ei theran i n t e n t i o n a l d i s r e g a r d o f , o rp l a i n i n d i f

f e r e n c e t o , th e [ OS H] A ct ’s requi rem ents
. ’” ( i nternal ci t at i on om i t t e d )). T hu s, V inelan d ’s arg u m en t that w e sho u ld r ejec t th e D irec tor’s i nt erpr et at i on becaus e of ourpr evi ous s t at ementi n B abcock is unavai l i ng. 24 V i nel and s ugges t s thatw e s houl d r equi r e the fol l ow i ng circu m stan ti al ev iden ce to sup p o rt a f ind ing o f w il lfu lnes s: ( 1 ) a patt ern of re peat ed vi ol at i ons , w hi ch i ncl udes ( a) m or e than one vi ol at i on of the s ame ki nd and ( b) t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een th e two v i o l a t i o n s ; a n d ( 2 ) s p e c i f i c , o n g o i n g warn i n g s b yATF t o correc t the vi ol at i on. V i nel and admi t s thati tdoes nothave c a s e l a w t o s u p p o r tth i s “ i n tu i t i v e d e f i n i t i o n . ” Ho we v e r , we m u st r eview the D i rect or’ s i nterpret at i on t o det erm i ne i f i t is reas on able, no tt o d et erm i ne if a bet t er defi nit i on exis t s. T hu s, w e ca nnotadoptV i nel and’ s defi ni t i on. B as ed on the for egoi ng, the D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr etat i on of w h a t co n s titu tes a “ w ill f u l v io latio n ” o f

§ 8 4 3 (b )(2 ) is r eas onabl e. 2. T he D i r ect orconcl uded thata l i cens ee’ s corr ect i ve act i ons “have no bear i ng” on a det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe l i cens ee ha s “w il lfu l l yvi ol at ed” f eder al expl os i ves l aw s or25 re g u latio n s. V in e lan d a r g u e s th a t it s f u tu re c o m p lian c e is r el evantt o the w i l l ful nes s det erm i nat i on. W e hol d thatthe D i r ect or ’ s concl us i on i s r eas onabl e. T he s tat ut orypr ovi s i on r equi r es a det erm i nat i on of wh e th e rth e l i c e n s e e “ w i l l f u l l yv i o l a t e d ” f

e d e r a l e x p l o s i v e s l a ws o r r e g u la tio n s . See 1 8 U .S .C . § § 8 4 3 (b )(2 ), (d ). T h is det erm i nat i on i s not bas ed on the futur e conduct of the l i cens ee, i

. e. , w hetheri t w il l “w i l l ful l yvi ol at e” the l aw s , and i ti s not bas ed on a c om bi nat i on of the pas t , pr es ent , and futur e conduc t of the l i cens ee, i

. e. , w hether the l i cens ee has “w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed” th e law s, is c o n tin u in g to “ w ill f u llyv io late ” th e law s, a n d w ill “w i l l ful l yvi ol at e” the l aw s t om orr ow . I ns t ead, the i nqui ryturns o n the pa st co n d u ct o f th e li c e n s e e . See i d. B a se d o n th is s t atut oryl anguage , the D i r ect or ’ s conclusi on – thatthe l i kel i hood th at th e l i cens ee w i l l corr ectthe vi ol at i ons i s not r el evantt o w hetherthe l i cens ee ha s “w il lf ul l yvi ol at ed” the r egul at i ons – i s r eas onabl e. A d d itio n a lly , the D ire c to r’s c o n c lu sio n is re a so n a b le b e c a u se it i s a g a in in a g re e m e n t w ith o th e r f e d e ra l co u rts addr es s i ng thi s ar gum enti n the cont extof fi r earm s l i cens i ng. Forexamp le, the C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui thas s t at ed thatevent s occurr i ng aft erthe r egul at ions have be en vi ol at ed ar e notr el evantt o a det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe v i o l a tio n s w e re w illf

u l a t th e tim e th e yo c c u rr e d

. C ucch i ara , 6 5 2 F .2 d a t 3 0 (sta tin g th a t th e lic e n se e ’s c o rre c tio n o f its re c o rd k e e p in g sy ste m su b se q u e n t to th e lic e n s e re v o c a tio n “ is i m m at er i al t o the ques t i on of w i l l ful nes s at the t i m e the v io latio n s o c c u rre d ” ); s ee al s o T. T. Salvage Auct i on C o. v. Sec’y, U

. S. D ep’t of Treasury , 8 5 9 F
. S u p p . 9 7 7 , 9 7 9 ( E. D. N. C.26 1994) ( hol di ng that evi dence of cor r ect i ve act i ons i s “i rr el evant un der the st atute be cause t he st atute focuses on the w i l l fulness of the vi ol at i ons and the compl i ance of the firear m s deal er b ef o re the li ce n se w as re v o k ed ”). V i nel and’ s ar gum ent s do notper s uade us thatthe D i r ect or ’ s concl us i on w as unr eas onabl e. V i nel and fi r s tar gues th a t 2 7 C. F. R. § 5 5 5
. 7 1 r e q u i r e s a f i n d i n g o f th e l i k e l i h o o d of futur e compl i ance pr i or t o r evoca t i on of the l i cens e. S ec ti on 555
. 7 1 d i s c u s s e s th e “ o p p o r tu n i tyf o rc o mpl i a n c e ” th a tATF m u st a f f o rd it s li c e n se e s. It p ro v id e s: “ [ N ]o lice n se o r p e rm it w i l l be revo ked o r r enew al app l i cat i on den i ed w i tho ut fi rs t cal l i ng to the at t ent i on of the l i cens ee orperm i t t ee the r eas ons f o r th e c o n tem p late d a c tio n a n d a f f o rd in g h im a n o p p o rtu n ityto demonst r at e or a c h i e v e c o mpl i a n ce w i t h al l l aw ful r equi r ement s . ” 27 C

. F. R
. § 555
. 7 1
. H ow ever , thi s r egul at i on expr es s l yexcl udes “ca s es of w i l l ful nes s ” as l ong as the r egi onal di r ect oral l eges w il lfu l nes s i n hi s “not i ce of deni al of an appl i cat i on orr evoca t i on of a l i cens e orperm i t
. ” I d. T her efor e, w h ere , as h ere , the n o ti ce the licen see rec eive d fro m the D IO al l eged w i l l ful nes s , the l i cens ee ne ed notbe af fo r ded an oppor tuni tyt o compl ypr i ort o r evoca t i on or d en ial of r enew al of a l i cens e. V i nel and nextar gues thatthe D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on c o n f l i c t s wi th h i s p r i o r o p i n i o n i n In the M at t erof Luna Tech, I nc. d/ b/ a P yr opak , O rde r o f th e D ir ec tor, Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 (“ Luna Tech ”) , i n whi c h he cons i der ed the l i cens ee’ s futur e compl i ance . H ow ever , t o the ext entthatthe D i r ector co ns i der ed the li ce n s ee’ s futur e compl i ance i n Luna Tech , h e d id so in anal y zi ng w hetherthe l i cens ee s hould b e perm i t t ed an27 oppor tuni tyt o compl y pur s uant t o § 555. 71. A s not ed, § 555. 71 does notappl yher e, and thus , w e ar e notper s uaded that the D i r ect or ’ s concl us i on w as unr eas onabl e i n thi s cas e. B as ed on the foreg o ing , the D ir ec tor’s co n clus ion that the pot ent i al for futur e compl i ance i s notr el evantt o a det erm i nat i on of w i l l ful nes s i s r eas onabl e. 3. T he D i r ector concl uded thatA T F’ s fai l ur e t o ci t e a vi ol at i on d id n o tpr ecl ude A T F fr om ci t i ng the l i cens ee i n a s ubs equenti ns pect i on forthe s ame vi ol at i on unl es s the l i cens ee demonstr at ed thatA T F had aff i r m at i vel y m i s l ed t he l i cens ee a s t o the requi r ement s . V i nel and cha l l enges thi s concl us i on, ar gui ng that“the pr i or i ns pect i on hi s t ory i s r el evantt o the i s s ue o f w ill f u ln e ss .” W e h o ld th a t th e D ire c to r’s c o n c lu sio n is r eas onabl e. T he D i r ect or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful nes s ” pl ace d the focus on w hetherthe l i cens ee ha d the r equi s i t e know l edge of the r equi r ement s y etfai l ed t o compl y w i th them. I f t he l i cens ee ha d k n o w led g e o f

th e re q u ire m e n ts, w h e th e r A T F h a d p re v io u sly ci t ed the l i cens ee w oul d be i rr el evantt o a det erm inat i on of “w i l l ful nes s ” unl es s A T F had aff i r m at i vel yt ol d th e l i cens ee that itw as in co m p li an ce . T h u s, b ase d o n the D ir ec tor’s in terp re tatio n o f

“ w ill f u ln e ss ,” th is f

u rth e r in terp re tatio n is r eas onabl e. A d d iti o n a lly , t h e D ire c to r’s c o n c lu sio n is re a so n a b le beca us e i ti s i n acc or d w i th a D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on ofT o the ext entthatV i nel and ar gues thatthe hol di ng of 19 B re it w a s “ c o m p lete ly irre lev a n t” to th e p re se n t ca se , w e f in d its a r g u me n tu n a v a i l i n g . Con tr a ry t o Vi n e l a n d ’ s a s s e r t i o n , th e ALJ cat egor i zed V i n el and’ s ar gum entas an es t oppel

- bas ed ar gum ent
. M or eover , the A L J concl uded thats ever al vi ol at i ons w er e notw i l l ful beca us e A T F had notpr evi ous l yci t ed V i nelan d , and the A L J di d notr equi r e evi dence thatA T F had m is le d V in e la n d a s to th e re q u ir e m e n ts . T h u s , B re it w a s d ire c tly o n p o in t w it h th e p re se n t ca se , an d th e D ire c to r’s a n a lo g yto it w as r eas onabl e. 28 “ w illf u ln e s s ” in th e c o n te x t o f f ir e a rm s lic e n s in g . See B re it & J o h n so n S p o rtin gG o o d

s, In c . v. A sh c ro

ft , 320 F. Supp. 2d 671, 680 ( N
. D
. I l l

. 2 0 0 4 ). I n B re it , th e l i c e n s e e a r g u e d th a tATF s houl d n o t b e abl e t o r evoke i t s l i cens e bec aus e A T F had not c ite d it f o r p re v io u s v io la tio n s . I d. at680
. T he courtr ej ect ed thi s “equi t abl e e stop pel ” ar gum entbeca us e the l i cens ee ha d know l edge of

the r equi r ement s and coul d not demonstr at e that A T F h a d m is le d it. I

d. T h e D ir ec tor’s c o n clus ion is i n ac co rd w i th t hi s deci s i on, and thus , i ti s r eas onabl e. 19 B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , the D ire c to r’s c o n c lu sio n is r eas onabl e. C. V i nel and ar gues th a tth e D i r ect orerr ed i n concl udi ng that V i nel and “w i l l ful l y vi ol at ed” A T F’ s r egul at i ons i n V i ol at i ons 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 , an d 1 2
. W e r evi ew the D i r ect or ’ s concl us i on thatV i nel and “w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed” the A T F r egul at i ons forA t th e h e a rin g , b o th P a c itt o a n d h e r b o o k k e e p e r, A d e le 20 H u ryn , tes tifie d . H u ryn sta ted th a t sh e w a s d ia g n o se d w ith canc eri n ear l y 2004, and s he had t o l eave w or k i n M ar ch 2004. P ac itto the n too k o v er th e reco rdk ee p ing d u ti es d u ri n g H u ryn ’s abs ence , and vi s i t ed H uryn i n an att empt t o co m p let e the i nvent oryr ecor ds

. H uryn r eturned t o w or k on A ugus t2, 2004, a n d c o m p lete d a n in v e n to ryc o u n t at th a t p o in t. 29 su b st an tial e v id e n c e u sin g th e D ire c to r’s re a so n a b le in te rp re ta tio n o f

w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a w illf u l v io la tio n . See 5 U
. S. C

. § 706( E ) ( s t at i ng thatthe s t andar d of r evi ew for a d ju d ica to ryp ro c e e d in g s is w h e th e r th e d e c isio n is
“ u n su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e ” ); see al so 1 8 U. S

. C. § 843( e) ( 2) ( s t at i ng thatthe courtof appeals w il l r evi ew the deci s i on pur s uantt o 5 U
. S. C

. § § 7 0 1 -706)

. W e conc l ude that s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on that Vi n e l a n d “ wi l l f

u l l yv i o l a t e d ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 8 4 2 ( f ) a n d 2 7 C. F
. R. § 5 5 5
. 1 2 7 b y fa il ing to kee p p rop er r ec o rds i n it s d ail ysu m m ary of m agaz i ne tr ans act i ons as char ged i n V i ol at i ons 5 and 6. I n the A L J’ s R ecomm ended D eci s i on, he found that w hi l e the cha r ged i nci dent s i n V i ol at i ons 5 and 6 had occ urr ed, V i nel and had not“w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed” 18 U
. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127 i n fai l i ng t o keep pr oper r ecor ds

. T he D i r ect or d isa g re e d w ith th e A L J, f in d in g th a t V in e lan d h a d “ w ill f u lly vi ol at ed” the appl i cabl e l aw and r egul ati o n . T he D i r ect or acknow l edged that Paci t t o’ s bookkeepe r , A del e H uryn, m i s s ed w ork du ri ng the rel evan tm on ths for cance r treatm ents
. 20 H ow ever , he found t hat , w hi l e H uryn’ s i l l nes s w as unfor tunat e, i tcoul d notnegat e a f

i ndi ng of w i l l ful nes s as t o Paci t t o.A lth o u g h V inelan d ch all en g ed the D ir ec tor’s 21 det erm i nat i on thatPaci t t o had know ledge of t he r egul at i ons 30 T he D i r ect or th en appl i ed hi s i nt erpr et at i on of w i l l ful nes s , and found thatPacit to w as aw ar e of the r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement s beca us e A T F ha d i ns truct ed heras t o the r equi r ement s i n i t s D ece m ber2000 m eet i ng. H e further s t at ed that , r egar dl es s of w hatFel i x G i r one had i nform ed her pr i ort o 1999 abouta rel ax at i on of r ecor dkeepi ng dur i ng the “bus y s eas on, ” P aci t t o knew that w as i ncorr ectaft erD ece m ber 2000. H e al s o not ed that , des pi t e A T F’ s fai l ur e t o ci t e pr evi ous r ecor dkeepi ng vi ol at i ons occurr i ng betw een 2000 and 2003, he coul d f i n d th a tVi n e l a n d h a d b e e n wi l l f u l i n i t s v i o l a t i ons becau se V i nela n d h ad k no w l edg e of the prope r r equ i rem ents
. H e then appli ed the r el evants t andar d, fi ndi ng thatV i nel and “w i l l full yviol at ed” the reco rdkeep i ng requi rem ents becau se Paci t t o chos e t o negl ectthe dai l ys um m aryof m agaz i ne tr ans act i ons thi r ty - s i x t i m es betw een J anuaryan d Sept ember 20 04 despit e hav i ng kn ow l edg e as t o the r equ i rem ents
. T he D i rect or’ s reasonab l e i nterpret at i on of “w i l l fulness” is th a t a lic e n se e h a s w ill f u lly v io late d th e re g u latio n s “ if , w ith k n o w led g e o f

w h a t th e re g u latio n s re q u ire , th e d e a ler re p e a ted ly v io late s th o se re g u lati o n s .” A g re a t d e a l o f e v id e n c e su p p o rts t he Di r e c t o r ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a tPa c i t t o h a d k n o wl e d g e o f the r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement s under42 U
. S. C

. § 842( f) and 27 C

. F
. R
. § 5 5 5
. 1 2 7
. P ac itto d o es n o t d ispu te th at sh e w as a w are o f th e re q u ire m e n ts, a n d a s th e D ire c to r p o in ted o u t, P a c itt o s poke w i th A T F i ns p ect or s r egar di ng the r equi r ement s of 27 C

. F
. R
. § 5 5 5
. 1 2 7 at the D ec em b er 20 0 0 m ee ti n g . T h u s, there 21bas ed on heri nvol vementi n the oper at i ons of Fi r ew or ks by G i r one, Paci t t o ac k n o w l edged thats he w as aw ar e of the r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement s under27 C

. F
. R
. § 555. 127 fol l ow i ng herm eet i ng w i th A T F i ns pect or s i n D ece m ber2000. B ecause w e are onlyreac h in g a con cl usi on as t o V i olat i on s 5 and 6 and Pac i t t o admi t t ed thats he had know ledg e of the req u ir em en t i n v o lved in th ese v iolati o n s, w e find itu n n ec essa ry to f u rth e r a d d re ss th is a rg u m e n t. 31 i s evi dence i n t he r ecor d that Paci t t o had know l edge of the re q u ire m e n t. A ddi t i onal l y , t he evi dence s uppor t s the conc l us i on that P a c itto r e p e a ted lyv io late d th e re g u latio n . H e r f a ilu re to pr oper l yr ecor d the tr ans act i ons w as nota “one

- off e vent ” as V i neland clai m s, bu ti nst ead o ccurr ed o n thi rty -si x o ccasi on s. M or eover , Paci t t o’ s fai l ur e t o compl yd id notoccurdur i ng a b ri ef t i m e peri od , bu t extended for m on ths w i th the end re su lt b eing , as the D i r ect ornot ed, “thatthous ands of pounds of expl os i ves l eftV i nel and’ s fac i l i tyw i thoutanyr ecor d bei ng kep t
. ” W hil e w e agree w i th the D i rect or that H uryn’s i l l ness w as cl earl yun fortun at e and requi res m uch sym pathy , her i l l ness di d notpr ovi de Paci t t o cart e bl anche t o s t op compl y i ng w i th the reg u lat ion req u irin g h er to k ee p a re co rd o f th e d ail ysu m m ary of m agazine t ransact i on s. B as edo n th e f

o r egoi ng, s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the D i r ect or ’ s concl us i on thatPaci t t o had know l edge of the r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement s , and y et di d not compl yw i th themTo th e e x t e n tth a tVi n e l a n d a r g u e s th a tth e Di r e ct or 22 s h o u l d h a v e c o n s i d e r e d i t s e x e mp l a ry r e c o r d s p r i o r t o 2 0 0 4 , we fi nd i t s ar gum entunavai l i ng beca us e pr i orcompl i ance i s notthe r el evants t andar d. I n addi t i on, t o the ext entthatV i nel and ar gues th a t th e D ir e c to r sh o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r it w a s lik e ly to v io late 2 7 C .F .R . § 5 5 5 .1 2 7 in th e f u tu re , w e f

in d its ar g u m en tunavai l i ng beca us e futur e compl i ance i s notthe relev an t st an d ard eith er. 32 thi r ty - s i x t i m es overa t en-mont h per i od. T her efor e, 22 s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the D i r ect or ’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on t hat V i n e l a n d “ wi l l f

u l l yv i o l a t e d ” 4 2 U. S. C. § 8 4 2 ( f ) a n d 27 C

. F. R
. § 555. 127. A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, V in e la n d c o n c e d e d th a t, w e re w e to fi nd thats ubs t ant i al ev idence s uppor t ed eve n one of the D i r ect or ’ s concl us i ons thatV i nel and had “ w il l ful l yvi ol at ed” f e d e ra l law a n d A T F re g u latio n s, th e D ire c to r’ s d e c isio n to rev o k e it s li ce n s e a n d d en yit s ren ew al w o u ld b e p rop er. T her efor e, beca us e w e concl ude thatther e w as s ubs t ant i al evidence to su pp ort the D i rect or’ s conclusi on as t o V i olat i on s 5 and 6, w e fi n d itunnece s s aryt o r eac h a conc l us i on as t o the rem ai ning viol at i on s. III
. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w il l de nythe pet i t i on for rev iew o f th e D ir ec tor’s ord er.V inelan d ag ree d d u ri n g o ral argu m en t th at th e A T F ’s 23 or ders houl d b e u p hel d i f w e conc l uded thatanyone of the char ged vi ol at i ons w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. 33 JO R DA N

, C i r cui tJudge , concur r i ng i n the j udgm ent
.

_________________________________________________

I agr ee w i th the maj or i tythatthe A T F w as notr equi r ed t o gi ve def

er ence t o the A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and l egal concl us i ons . I al s o agr ee t hat s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the A T F ’s fin d ing that V inelan d w il lfu ll yv iolated c ertain statutory and r egul at oryr ecor d- keepi ng r equi r ement s and that i t s pet i t i on fo r rev iew sh o u ld the ref o re b e d en ied. I t ak e issu e, ho w ev er, 23 w i th the maj or i ty ’ s as s ert i on thatw e ow e C hevr on d e f e re n c e to th e A T F ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e ter m “ w ill f u lly ” a s it a p p e a rs in 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 8 4 3 (b)(2 ).

Sect i on 843( b) of Ti t l e 18 s t at es that , upon the fi li ng of an ap pli cat i on for a l i cense t o m anu facture or deal i n ex plosi ves, the A t t orneyG ener al s h all iss ue the appr opr i at e l i cens e i f, among ot herthi ngs , “the appl i cant has notw i l l ful l yvi ol at ed any of the pr ovi s i ons of [18 U

. S

. C

. §§ 841 thr ough 848] orA m ong the pr ovi s i ons r efe rr ed t o by§ 843( b) ( 2) i s 18 24 U .S .C . § 8 4 2 (f

), w h ich m a k e s it a c rim e f o r a lice n se e “ w ill f

u lly t o m anufa ctur e, i m por t , pur chas e, di s tr i but e, orr ecei ve expl os i ve mat er i al s w i thoutm aki ng s uch r e c o r d s a s the A t t orney G ener al m aybyr egul at ion r equi r e, ” and 27 C. F. R
. § 555. 127, w hi ch r equi r es li cense es t o keep da i l yr ecor ds of the t ot al quan ti tyof expl os i ves r ece i ved i n and r emoved fr om eac h m a g a z i n e a n d th e t o t a l r e m a i n i n g o n h a n d a t th e e n d o f th e d a y. 34 r e g u l a t i o n s i s s u e d [ t ] h e r e u n d e r . ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 8 4 3 ( b ) ( 2 )

. As 24 expl ai ned bythe maj or i ty , the A T F concl uded thatpr oof that V in e lan d a c ted w ith k n o w led g e th a t its c o n d u c t w a s u n law f u l – thati tdis tri bu t ed fir ew orks w i tho ut m ai ntai ning t he d a ily re c o rd s th a t itk n e w w e re r e q u ire d b ylaw – w a s s u f f icie n t to es t abl i s h w i l l ful nes s w i thi n the m ea n ing of § 843( b) ( 2)

. T he m ajoritythen h o lds tha t th e A T F ’s i n te rp re tation o f th e term “w il lfu ll y ” is en ti tl ed to d ef ere n ce u n d er C hevr on U

. S. A

. , I nc. v. N at ur al R es our ces D ef

ens e C ounci l

, I nc. , 4 6 7 U
. S

. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 ). H ow ever , I s ee no ne ed t o i nvoke C hevr on on thatpoi nt
. Si nce itap p ea rs th a t w e w o u ld ind ep en d en tl yarrive a t th e A T F ’s pos i ti o n o n w i l l ful nes s , ther e i s “no occ as i on t o defe rand no poi nti n as ki ng w hatki nd of def er ence , orhow m uch. ” E delm an v . L y n c h b u rgC o ll. , 5 3 5 U
. S

. 1 0 6 , 1 1 4 (20 0 2 ).

M o re o v e r, C hevr on i ns truct s us t o g ive defer ence t o an agenc y ’ s r eas onabl e pol i cychoi ce w hen C ongr es s gave the a g e n c yth e a u th o rity to m a k e su c h a c h o ice . H e re , the A T F d id n o t eve n p u rpo rtto b e d o ing that. T h ere is n o thing in the A T F ’s35 deci s i on thats ugges t s thati t s int erpr et at i on of “w i l l ful l y ” w as the r es ul tof i t s i ndepende nt det erm i nat i on thati t s cons truct i on wa s d e s i r a b l e t o f

u r th e rs o me p o l i c yg o a l

. I n s t e a d , th e ATF re lied e n tirelyo n d e c isio n s o f th e v a rio u s C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls i nt erpr et i ng that t erm i n the fi r earm s and expl os i ves li cens i ng cont ext s , and i t concl uded fr om thos e dec i s i ons thatthe A L J had appl i ed the “i ncorr ect s t andar d. ” ( A pp. 14. ) I n otherw or ds , the agenc yacc ur at el ys aw i t s el f as appl y i n g a gene r al l egal s t andar d , n o tm aki ng a dec i s i on w i thi n i t s pecul i ar a d m in is tr a tiv e k e n . C

f

. C olaci cco v . Apot ex I

nc. , 521 F. 3d 253, 274 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( N ot i ng thatw e ar e “or di nar i l y. . . l eeryof an a g e n c y ’s v iew o f

w h a t is e ss e n tially a leg a l issu e ” ); B lackb urn v. R ei ch , 79 F. 3d 1375, 1377 n. 3 ( 4th C i r . 1996) ( “B eca us e the Secr et arybas ed hi s deci s i on i n the i ns t antcas e on j udi ci al p r e c e d e n tr a th e rth a n h i s o wn i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f th e s t a tu t e , we o w e ‘n o m o re d ef

ere n ce than w e w o u ld an ylow er c o u rt’s anal y s i s of the l aw . ’ ” ( quot i ng Thom as H odgs on & Sons , I

nc. v. FERC , 4 9 F .3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 6 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 5 ))). In d e e d , n o w h e re in it s b ri ef ing d id the ag en cyask fo r C hevr on defe ren ce , as one m i g h th a v e e x p e c t e d i tw o u l d h a d i tb e l i e v e d i tn e c e s s a ry.

F or these reasons, I do no tbeli eve the m aj ori ty ’s C hevron a n a ly sis is re q u ire d in th is c a se , an d I d e c lin e to jo in it.