In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 18, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2440 

COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014-GL-70-0239 

Respondent 

ORDER CLARIFYING COURT JURISDICTION AND 

DIRECTING PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE IN FUTURE FILINGS 

The record demonstrates that the FAA and the Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, 

Inc., have filed multiple pleadings and motions, and in many of these materials have mistakenly 

identified the FAA as part of the Court. 

For example, on July 28, 2015 the FAA filed its Complaint (dated July 27, 2015) with the 

Court. At the same time, the FAA also filed aN otice of Appearance. Both the FAA's July 28, 

2015 Complaint and its Notice of Appearance asserted in the jurisdictional caption that this 

Court was an employee of the FAA. Eight (8) days later, on August 5, 2015, the Respondent, 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc., filed its Answer. Not surprisingly, the Respondent utilized the 

same erroneous jurisdictional caption, which identified the FAA as part of this Court. 

On August 5, 2015 and August 13,2015, this Court issued Orders 1 that provided both 

parties with the Court's correct jurisdictional caption: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, DC 

On October 29,2015, the parties jointly filed a Proposed Discovery Plan ("Plan"). This 

Plan properly identified both the Court and the assigned Docket Number on the first page. 

1 August 5, 2015 Notice of Assignment of Proceeding; and August 13,2015 Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(t) Proposed Discovery Plan. 
-· 

Subsequently, however, on November 23, 2015, and December 17, 2015, the Respondent 

has filed multiple documents 2 utilizing the erroneous jurisdictional caption contained in the 

FAA's Complaint. 

A. Clarification Regarding the Court and Jurisdiction 

The parties' written materials that mistakenly identify the Court as part of the FAA in this 

proceeding are incorrect. It is an error that keeps occurring in FAA civil penalty cases, despite 

having been previously addressed by this Court.3 The error is not insignificant, and should be 

corrected by both parties in all future filings. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16(h)-(i), and the FAA's Rules ofPractice,4 when the 

Respondent requests a hearing in FAA civil penalty proceedings, the FAA refers the case to the 

Office of Hearings for independent adjudication pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.202 and 5 U.S.C. § 

554. The Office of Hearings is part of Office of the Secretary for the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. It is not an office within the FAA, or under the FAA's control or supervision. In 

addition, upon referral of the case to the Office of Hearings, the FAA Administrator is separated 

from the proceedings. Instead, the FAA's Regional Counsel or other designated agency attorney 

is the FAA's complainant litigant, and prosecutes the civil action on behalf of the FAA. See, 14 

C.P.R.§§ 13.202 and 13.203. Thereafter, throughout the litigation before this Court, the FAA 

Administrator is neither the complainant litigant in the proceedings, nor does he, or any other 

FAA employee, serve as the Court in any capacity. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.203. 

[A]dministrative law judges ... are completely independent of the Chief Counsel, and in 

fact, independent of the FAA. 

55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27552 (Jul. 3, 1990) (Discussion ofFinal Rule). 

2 Specifically, the Respondent's Notice of Service of Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories (etc.); Notice of 

Appearance of Counsel, Notice of Service oflnitial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), and Respondent's 

Notice of Compliance. 

3 See, e.g., Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., Dkt: FAA-2014-0867, Order Clarifying FAA Party and the Court's 

Jurisdiction, and Directing Procedural Compliance in Future Filings (Feb. 27, 2016); Jet Logistics, Inc., Dkt. FAA2013-0290, Order Granting Protective Relief and Directing Procedural Compliance (May 29, 2014). 

4 The Rules of Practice for this proceeding are set forth in Part 13, Subpart G, of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 C.P.R. Part 13). 

Page 2 of4 
The FAA Administrator has explained that referring the case to an independent, U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge, who·is not an employee of the FAA, promotes the FAA's wellestablished public goal of fair and impartial decision-making: 

[U]der the rules of practice, the adjudication function is performed initially by 

administrative law judges employed by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation .... Under the rule's [sic] separation requirements ... [the judges are not] 

subject to the [FAA's] control or supervision. 

55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27551 (Jul. 3, 1990) (Discussion of Final Rule). 

This bright line separation is necessary to maintain not only a fair adjudication system but 

also to preserve the appearance of fairness. 5 It also promotes confidence that any subsequent 

appellate involvement by the FAA Administrator will be thoughtful and fair. 

Thus, the FAA regulations provide that after a U.S. Administrative Law Judge fully and 

independently adjudicates the civil penalty proceeding and issues an Initial Decision, the FAA 

Administrator-who has not been involved in any way in the adjudication-may then serve as 

the first appeal tribunal if either the FAA Regional Counsel or the Respondent files an appeal 

from the Judge's Decision. See, 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.202, 13.203, and 13.233. This procedural 

separation of the FAA Administrator from the adjudication presumptively allows the parties to 

maintain confidence in any appellate review by the FAA Administrator. See, 14 C.F.R. §§ 

13.233, 13.234, & 13.235. Then, once the FAA Administrator issues an appellate decision, 

either party may pursue any further appeal of issues with the U.S. Court of Appeals. 14 C.F.R. 

§13.235. 

In short, the parties in this case (and any other FAA civil penalty case referred to this 

Court) should correctly identify the Court in this case in all its future filings. This allows the 

respondent litigants (and members of the public) to be confident that Court is independent, and 

that the FAA remains committed to an administrative adjudication system that is fair and 

impartial. 

5 See 55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27551 (Jul. 3, 1990) (Discussion of Final Rule) ("[I]t is important that a system of 

adjudication be perceived as fair by those who are subject to it, not simply that it actually operate fairly.") 

Page 3 of4 
B. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall stop identifying the FAA as part of the Court in this action. 

2. The parties shall also utilize the proper jurisdictional caption for all future filings (see, 

e.g., the jurisdiction caption on page 1 of this Order). 

ivan 

A'd:mt. m1strative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 4of4 
.... 

Th'i'h.l.L_ ~ - -~-~ I (Civil p ~ ..;u I ..J·2440 ~ 

SERVICE LIST- BY V S M . · · AIL 

F ORIGINAL & ONE COPY ederal Aviation Adm. . . 800 Indepe d Irustratwn 

W . n ence Avenue S W 

ashington, DC 20591 ' · · Attention· H . 

. W~;:g~~c~et C~er~, AGC-430 

g Buildmg-Suite 2WI 0006 

Mr. Brian K. Khan 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel AGL 

Federal Aviation Administratio~, -7 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847·294·7109 

FAX: 847-294·7498 

Mr. Stuart A. Strasfeld 

Mr. Louis P. Alexander, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge 

100 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

TEL: 330-74405211 

FAX: 330-744-3184 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

fAJ{: 202-3~7536 

ONE copy 

enalty Action) 

-- \J ~ Mail For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

~ ~~~\~~ 'tl ~~ . ' · $ ~epem\ence AYenue, S.W ., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl ooo, Washington, 

~\' ... ~~~~~~~~~- AGG-430. 

\ ,;,~~ I ~~y I.~~ ·'~,~~ , 

~