U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

CEIVED 

DEC 0 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

vs. 

Docket No. F AA-20 13-0716 

FAA Case No. 2012S0150128 

TYLER PENNYWITT, 

Respondent. Judge Sullivan 

PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION 

Pursuant to the Judge's November 10, 2014, Order, the FAA hereby identifies the 

following witnesses and documents: 

Witnesses the FAA May Call to Testify: 

1. S.C. Strickland 

Jacksonville Sheriffs Office 

501 E Bay Street 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Officer Stricldand was the pilot of the JSO helicopter affected by Respondent's conduct. Officer 

Strickland may testify about the incident in question, problems with laser strikes in the area 

before and after June 4, 2012, the need to deter this sort of conduct in this particular area, and (as 

the victim of the offense and a representative of the JSO) his opinion as to the inadequacy of the 

punishment of Respondent through a federal criminal proceeding. 

2. C.C. Bernard 

M.J. Lessard 

Jacksonville Sheriffs Office 

501 E Bay Street 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Officers Bernard and Lessard were the JSO ground officers who apprehended Respondent on 

June 4, 2012. They may testify as to Respondent's statements at the time, as outlined in the arrest 

report drafted by Officer Bernard, including Respondent's statements regarding his use of the 

laser pointer that night and on prior occasions. 
3. Joeseph W. Gramzinski 

5950 Hazeltine National Drive 

Orlando, FL 32822 

Aviation Safety Inspector Gramzinski handled the FAA investigation of this case. Inspector 

Gramzinski may testify with regards to that investigation, including his communication with 

Respondent. 

The FAA reserves the right to call other witnesses for impeachment or rebuttal as many become 

necessary at hearing. 

Exhibit List 

C-1 Respondent's June 4, 2012 arrest report 

C-2 Statement of Officer Strickland regarding June 4, 2012 incident 

C-3 Declaration of Officer Strickland regarding June 4, 2012 incident 

C-4 June 22, 2012letter to Respondent from ASI Gramzinski 

C-5 July 6, 2012letter from Respondent's attorney to ASI Gramzinski, including 

Respondent's undated letter to "JSO Helicopter Pilot" 

C-6 FAA Order 2150.3B, Excerpts 

The FAA reserves the right to introduce other exhibits for impeachment or rebuttal as may 

become necessary at hearing. 

:d.__ 

Respectfully submitted this_(_ day of December, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER ~ R. STE SON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Pre-Hearing Submission has been sent this date by 

the following methods: 

original and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail and Federal Express: 

Tyler Pennywitt 

4483 Hanover Park Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32224 

One copy via certified mail and facsimile: 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

fax: (202) 366-7536 

DONNA tOcmmill STAN e~ EY 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated 
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT C-1 

TO THE "PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION" 

FILED BY COMPLAINANT 

IS LOCATED AT THE 

FAA HEARING DOCKET 

600 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW 

SUITE 2W1000 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

Vicki 5. Leemon, FAA, AGC-430 

As per instructions of Judge Sullivan 

12/11/2014 
Written by Officer Stephen C. Strickland #6142- Pilot in Command 

While being vectored for the RNAV 32 approach by JAX approach, OfficerS. Vaughan U5941 and 

I were hit by a green laser. We were heading 140 at 2000 feet about 6 miles south~southeast of Craig. 

We broke off our approach with JAX and went to the area of Hodges and JTB and just north of a power 

station. We went down to 1800 feet and set up an orbit of several miles around the area to maintain a 

safer distance as we directed ground units, Officers Mark Lessard #67898 and Christopher Bernard 

#52798, to the house. The suspect lased us about six or seven times in our orbits at various points in the 

orbit. When ground units were in position, we descended to 500 feet and a tight orbit over the hou;e. 

Ground units made contact with a woman who told them they had a laser and that ·,twas her husbands, 

who just came in from outside and was just getting in the shower. She took them to the laser, which 

fired a green laser. The suspect was taken into custody. He stated he had lased over a dozen planes 

with the laser. It should be noted that we were lased from the same area by a green laser last night at 

around 2230. As we worked this call, in Craig's airspace and just south of the final approach course for 

runway 32, Craig advised that about seven aircraft had complained of laser incidents in that area over 

the past week. 

_}j,/)A 

Strickland, Stephen C. #6142, Police Pilot 

Jacksonville Sheriff's Office 

Aviation Unit 

904~642~0422 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

(-'2_ 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

TYLER PENNYWITT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 

FAA Case No. 2012S0150128 

Judge Sullivan 

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN STRICKLA\10 

COMES NOW the Declarant, Stephen Strickland, and states as tO! lows: 

1. 1 am over the age of 18 and I understand the obligations of an oath. 

2. I serve as a police o!Iicer (#6142) in the Aviation Unit ofthe Jacksonville Sheriff's O!Iice 

(.ISO), Duval County, Florida. I have served in the JSO tor nineteen years, and in the aviation 

unit for nine years. 

3. On June 4, 2012, I was flying a JSO helicopter approximately six miles southeast of 

Craig Airport (KCRG) in .Jacksonville, Duval County. florida. 

4. While being vectored for the RNAV 32 approach by JAX approach, Officer S Vaughan 

#5941 and I were hit by a green laser. We were heading 140 at 2000 feet about 6 miles southsoutheast of Craig. The laser entered the cockpit and was extremely bright. The laser made 

reading the gauges impossible. The laser also hit the cockpit window making it difficult to 

impossible to sec outside. We broke off our approach with JAX and went to the area of Hodges 

and John Turner Butler Boulevard, just north of a power station. We went down to 1800 feet and 

set up an orbit of several miles around the area to maintain a safer distance as we directed ground 

units. Officers Mark Lessard #67898 and Christopher Bernard #62798, to the house that the laser 

was coming from. The suspect lased us about six or seven times in our orbits at various points in 

the orbit. Each time it made reading instruments or seeing outside the cockpit di!T!cult to 

impossible depending on how the laser hit us. This also affected our night vision after the laser 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

c~~ 
stopped. When ground units were in position, we descended and began a tight orbit over the 

house. 

5. We had also been lased from the same area by a green laser on the prior night around 

2230. As we worked this call, in Craig's airspace and just south of the final approach course for 

runway 32, Craig advised that about seven aircraft had complained of laser incidents in that area 

over the past week. 

6. Each time we were hit by the laser it made it very difficult to operate the aircraft. We 

were a law enforcement flight and I elected to stay in the area due to the hazard that this 

presented to other aircraft and the need to stop this hazard. 

I, Stephen Strickland, declare this L. Nday of May, 2014, under penalty of perjury under 

the laws of the United States that the above statements are true and correct. 

Stephen 

qb~--- Strickland 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

June 22, 2012 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

File No. #2012S0150128 

Mr. Tyler John Pennywitt 

4483 Hanover Park Dr 

Jacksonville, FL 32224 

Dear Mr. Pennywitt: 

Orlando FSD0-15 

Citadel International, Suite 500 

5950 Hazeltine National Drive 

Orlando, Florida 32822-5023 

(407)812-7757, Fax (407)812-7710 

Personnel of this office are investigating an incident which occurred on June 04, 2012 

involving the misuse of a laser lighting device on a aircraft of which you were involved 

with. 

This letter is to inform you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. We would appreciate receiving any evidence or statements you might 

care to make regarding this matter within I 0 days of receipt of this letter. Any discussion 

or written statements furnished by you will be given consideration in our investigation. If 

w,e do not hear from you within the specificcltirne, OLtr report will be processed without 

the benefit of your statement 

Sincerely. 

A rJ jJ --....._ /;/ // J' '-,'-'1 r .. /' (V 1M:tt--~7 

Joseph W. Gramzinski 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Enclosure: Privacy Act Notice 

i!l GOVERNNIENT 

~ EXHIBIT i c~L-'-~ 
::::: 

••••• 

• • 

Fletcher & Phillips 

Lyman T Fletcher 

Bos.rd Certlrlel:l Maritl!!.l Md F~mily Lnw 

Amtlfic;;Jn Academy arMalrim.onial ~swyero 

Florida Farnity Law Inn of Court Meeter 

Via Facsimile and US Mail 

Mr. Joseph W. Gramz'1nski 

Counselors and Attorneys at Law 

Eric J Friday 

Member FloriCJa ear 

Member AI<'! bam<'~ B~r 

Floridl3 F<lmily Law Inn of Cautt, A&snciata 

July 6. 2012 

U.S. Department of Transportation- FAA 

Orlando FSD0-15 

Citadel International, STE 500 

5950 Hazeltine National Drive 

Orlando, FL 32822-5023 

Fax: 407-812-7710 

RE: File No 201280150128 

Dear Mr. Gramzinski: 

Michael R Phillips 

Membet FIMda BM 

Emphasis in Fsmily Law 

rlorids rsmlly l.aw Inn or Court, 8:<Jrr1StM 

I have the privilege of representing Mr. Tyler Pennywitt regarding the incident you are 

investigating. 

The incident in question occurred while Mr. Pennywitt was in his backyard at 4483 

Hanover Park Dr. in Jacksonville Florida with his toddler son. As a check of Google 

Maps will show, this address is not immediately adjacent to any airfield Direct 

overflights of Mr. Pennywitt's yard are not as routine an occurrence as they might be 1n 

other neighborhood that are on a direct approach or departure path to an airfield. 

Consequently, Mr. Pennywitt was not anticipating overflight by any aircraft during the 

use of his laser pointing device in a completely lawful manner. 

Mr. Pennywitl was engaged in stargazing and making designs on the trees, power lines 

and towers immediately behind his residence, with his young son and was utilizing a 

green laser pointer to point out stars to his young son and draw designs for the child's 

entertainment. While using his laser pointer he inadvertently shined the laser in the 

direction of the helicopter. He did so with no knowledge that the laser could either 

reach that far, nor did he realize that the intentional pointing of a laser pointing device at 

an aircraft in flight was illegal or could cause any harm to the aircrafl or the flight crew 

Mr. Pennywitt is an educated person with an accounting degree, and has a family with 

young children. Despite his education however, he was completely ignorant of the risks 

or the law regarding his conduct. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, this~~i..---'""'1111 

541 East Monroe Street, Ste 1 

Jacksonville, FL 32202-2838 famllylaw@FletcherandPh,llips.com 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

c--s-
not one the common person is aware of and does not prohibit conduct that is clearly 

harmful to the average person. Only persons who have encountered this issue or those 

with a specialized knowledge regarding aviation issues would have any reason to be 

aware of this law. 

I have purchased an exact duplicate of tt1e device Mr. Pennywitt' was using from Radio 

Shack. A thorough review of the packaging and instructions contain numerous 

warnings, but not one mentions the law regarding aircraft or in any way hints at the risk 

or dangers of pointing the device at an aircraft. It seems this is an issue the FAA may 

want to consider in its administrative rule making to require the addition of such a 

warning in the instructions of all laser devices sold in the US. 

This incident shows the need for an aggressive public awareness campaign regarding 

this issue, not a need for punishment of Mr. Pennywitt that would only harm his young 

family. Mr. Pennywitt has already drafted a letter of apology to the pilot of the aircraft, 

which I am including with this letter. It is my hope that the FAA will realize the need for 

further education of the public, over punishment of Mr. Pennywitt. Mr. Pennywitt stands 

ready and willing to assist in any way he can to make the public aware of the dangers of 

carelessly shined laser pointers and the possible penalties. 

If I can be of further assistance or provide any additional information please do not 

hesitate to contact me. 

541 East Monroe Street, Ste 1 

Jacksonville, FL 32202-2838 

Eric J. Friday 

familylaw@FietcherandPhillips.com 

phone: 904-353-T/33 

fax: 904-353-8255 
Jacksonville Sheriffs Office 

Dear JSD Helicopter Pilot: 

I want to sincerely apologize for the laser Incident on Monday evening, June 410 . I w;;s not 

trying to intentionally blind you or cause any harm to you and your crew. I did not mean to 

Interfere In any police business or detain you from your duties. I honestly had no idea the laser 

could reach that far In the sky or have any impact on your ability to navigate safely. 

Since the Incident, I have conducted extensive research on the Internet. I now realize the 

dangers of pointing a laser in the sky. Hopefully the media and press coverage surrounding this 

Incident will help the general public also recognize the dangers that laser lights pose and 

lm:rease the awareness of aircraft safety. 

I am truly sorry for any unnecessary duress that my careless actions caused you and your crew, 

In today's society I know you have Important tasks to address and I certainly didn't intend to 

detain you from those responsibilities. I hope you understand that there was no malicious 

Intent to my actions. It was simply a lack of knowledge on my part. Please accept my sincere 

apology, 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Chapter 7. Sanction Guidance Policies 

1. Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA's policies for determining an appropriate sanction 

once FAA enforcement personnel decide that legal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter 

contains the general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types of sanctions, ranges of 

sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal enforcement actions 

for typical violations of the FAA's statute and regulations. This guidance covers the parameters 

both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the informal procedures. The 

guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106,44709,44710, 

44726,44924,46111,46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are 

addressed in Appendix C. 

2. General Guidelines. 

a. Certificate Suspension Action and Civil Penalty Action: Sanctions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(I) General. If a certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period oftime commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, however, the FAA considers the adverse impact 

that a certificate suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which 

may adversely affect the public. Nevertheless, when the FAA determines that safety 

considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate of any type of certificate holder. 

In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same 

violations. The FAA generally does not take civil penalty action and punitive certificate action 

(that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period of time) against a certificate holder for the same 

conduct. If unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this practice, legal counsel consult 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily does not change the type of sanction unless additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. If the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. 

(I) Indefinite certificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 

~ GOVERNMENT 

i EXH_IBI! 

i u-G 
10/01/07 2150.38 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending demonstration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual does not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

See chapter 5. 

(2) Certificate revocation- general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise 

of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to safety in air 

commerce or air transportation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a 

certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a certificate. Orders of 

revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

does not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismissal of charges under 49 C.F.R. § 821.33, 

the NTSB's stale complaint rule. 

(3) Certificate revocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificate or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involve grossly careless or reckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates of a 

person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. 

(4) Certificate revocation- entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a 

certificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the statute or regulations or falsifies 

records. Revocation also is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has committed the 

same or similar violations in the recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44710, the FAA is required to 

revoke the certificates of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or state 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

offense and the airman served as an airman, or was aboard the aircraft, in connection with 

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the commission of the offense. Even when there 

has been no conviction, revocation is required when an airman has knowingly carried out an 

activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if 

a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will 

facilitate law enforcement purposes. See 49 U.S.C. § 44710(1). Under 49 U.S.C. § 44106, the 

FAA also must revoke the registration certificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of a violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

intent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The 

Administrator may waive that sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather 

than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44726(f) and (g). 

(6) Mandatory certificate action for security concerns. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46111, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any 

FAA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the 

request ofthe Under Secretary ofBTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station certificates in 

connection with security audits. 

3. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) in Appendix B provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII 

and 14 C.P.R. parts 1-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.P.R. chapter III. 

Once the agency has determined that legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, FAA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of this chapter, as well as any other 

sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanction. The matters described in 

chapter 7, subparagraphs 3a.-d. are some types of agency action that fall outside the scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table. 

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices or Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a finding of violation. For that reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. 

b. The FAA's Exercise ofProsecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Hecklerv. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821,831 (1985). 

c. Hazardous Materials Violations. Actions involving violations of the federal hazardous 

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department of Transportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. parts I 06 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 4610 I (b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, 

however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not 

7-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a. through m. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a violation and for 

selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also 

described. These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for 

violations specifically listed in the table as well as those not specifically listed. All the factors 

and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that 

are relevant to a violation are considered in determining a sanction for the violation. This list of 

factors and elements is not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be relevant as well. 

a. Natnre of the Violation. Three elements define the nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(I) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges of that certificate, the natural consequence of that act should be loss of privileges for a 

period of time commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate 

actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The 

potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood does not 

alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type of sanction. 

(2) Entities. The FAA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificate-holding 

entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would be a substantial adverse 

impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is 

not outweighed by safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, 

when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any 

certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to 

question the qualifications of any certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of 14 C.P.R. § 91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.P.R.§ 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.P.R.§ 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others. 

7-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

When calculating the amount of sanction based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is 

residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher 

sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconduct is an aggravating circumstance and 

includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumstances indicating intent to 

commit a violation. 

(2) Inadvertence. An act is inadvertent when it is the result of both inattention and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies at an incorrect 

altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's instruments; however, it is not an inadvertent act 

when a pilot flies at an incorrect altitude as a result of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instruments or choosing not to use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether the conduct, not the factual or legal consequences, is inadvertent and unintended. 

Ferguson v. National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F .2d 821, 828-829 (9th Cir. 1982). 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience. 

(1) Level of experience refers primarily to the type of certificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard than commercial pilots. 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with the certificate holder's level of experience. A significant deviation from the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may warrant a more 

aggravated sanction. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(1) A good compliance attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. 

A prior violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is 

an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to 

statutory or regulatory requirements after receiving notice through a prior administrative action 

or counseling that such conduct is in violation of those requirements might well be regarded as 

having a poor compliance disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, the FAA does not 

7-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to 

a letter of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing the attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration 

of an emergency to air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not of the person's 

own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 C.F.R. § 91.3(b). However, this situation is 

distinct from the situation where a declaration of emergency is not exculpatory but is a factor that 

might be appropriate to consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA 

views declaring an emergency to air traffic control as a sign of good judgment and a constructive 

attitude. When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations committed, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

e. Degree of Hazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of the interplay ofthe operational 

environment (for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to safety (to the life or property of another, including those in the aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduct. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply with an 

airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond the required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) The sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph 5.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extreme 

departures from required altitudes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of 

persons at 50 feet 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and 

whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

(1) Employment discipline. Where the violation would normally call for a certain type 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the same conduct, local, state, or federal 

prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor 

7-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

does it preclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive enforcement action. For cases where 

federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial 

enforcement action if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation history 

record. If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the 

criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings 

in determining the appropriate amount of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action. 

g, Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the severity of the sanction. Air carriers 

are held to the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged in air transportation are 

held to the highest safety standard. 

h. Violation History. 

(1) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not 

a mitigating factor. Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compiiance disposition or of a pattern of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justify imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It might 

also justify revocation rather than suspension if the pattern of violation reflects a lack of 

qualification. In addition, a violation history might justify a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length of time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. 

(2) The following actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become final: orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contained in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court. In 

addition, a party may agree as part of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. 

i. Decisional Law. Decisions of the FAA decisiomnaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts with FAA 

decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisiomnaker decisions published after 

7-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the issuance of this document that conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document 

and are controlling. 

j. Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive sanctions 

should not be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanction should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to 

established safety standards. While the FAA does not allow financial circumstances to excuse 

any violation, it does consider a carrier's size and financial strength in choosing the appropriate 

sanction amount. The difference in the penalties fixed in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier might compel a small air carrier to go out of business. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air 

carrier that violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set forth in part one of the table. For all entities and individuals, 

the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a 

person's ability to continue in business to the extent it knows such information. 

k. Consistency of Sanction. One of the agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in 

imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues this objective to assure 

fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree of deterrent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions. 

I. Whether the Violation was Reported Volnntarily. 

(I) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations 

and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met. These programs include 

the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the 

aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement 

consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her report of 

another's violations, voluntarily discloses his or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enforcement action is required. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one of these programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation to the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing 

of the corrective action, that is, how extensive was the corrective action and how quickly was it 

taken. Implementing new procedures that are above those required under the FAA's regulations 

7-8 
10/01/07 2150.38 

to prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an 

appropriate sanction. Corrective action taken after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action that is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice of the FAA's 

enforcement action. Corrective action taken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person 

into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of 

sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic 

disadvantage competitors who have expended the resources necessary to maintain compliance. 

5. Use of the Table of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along a 

spectrum of gravity. Ultimately, the circumstances of each case are evaluated in terms of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

h. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. 

(I) Part II of the table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA ordinarily seeks 

to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time violation that is generally 

inadvertent (the table includes ranges of sanctions for several violations that usually are 

intentional, for example, interference with a crewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, 

the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law 

and to remedy any noncompliance and that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

table solely based on the inadvertence of the violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be found in the facts and circumstances of the violation itself. 

(3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a 

sanction should be imposed, the FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i, j, k, and m of 

paragraph 4 (that is, nature of the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use of certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency of the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent they are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement 

personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

( 4) Deviating from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based on justifiable mitigation under factorsj, I, and m of paragraph 4 

(that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, voluntary reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

7-9 
10/01/07 2150.38 

impose sanctions above the normal ranges when the following circumstances, relating to factors 

b, d, e, and h of paragraph 4 are present: the violation is other than inadvertent4

, the violator has 

a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree of hazard, or the violator has a 

poor compliance disposition. The ranges also may be exceeded when the case involves multiple 

violations. (See chapter 7, paragraphs 6 and 7). 

c. Types of Sanction. 

(I) General. The FAA ordinarily does not initiate punitive civil penalty and punitive 

certificate actions (that is, fixed-period certificate suspensions) against a certificate holder for the 

same offense. While electing to impose one sanction is not a legal bar to a concurrent 

proceeding to impose another, pursuing both actions solely for punitive purposes usually is not 

necessary. The FAA takes remedial and punitive actions in the same case, however, when 

warranted. 

(2) Selecting types of sanctions. Except in exceptional circumstances, the FAA uses the 

type of sanction recommended in the table. The FAA must impose any sanction mandated by 

statute (for example, revocation under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106(b), 44710(b), and 44726(b) unless 

waived by the Administrator). 

6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations. 

a. Description of Multiple Violations. Enforcement actions often involve multiple 

violations: multiple violations of a single regulation; a single violation of multiple regulations; 

or multiple violations of multiple regulations. ln addition, under 49 U.S.C. § 4630 I (a)(2), if a 

violation is a continuing one, each day the violation continues, or each flight for which the 

violation was committed, constitutes a separate offense. 

b. General Sanction Guidance. Multiple violations ordinarily result in high sanction 

amounts. Such sanction amounts ordinarily are not determined by simply adding up the 

individual penalties for multiple violations set forth in the table, however. Simply adding up the 

individual penalties for each violation could result in compounding a sanction in a 

disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. Conversely, multiple violations may 

be so serious in their consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty 

greater than the sum of the recommended amount of penalty provided for in the table for each 

violation. 

c. Single Act of Noncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations. When a single 

instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of general and specific regulations 

involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to 

reflect the amount of sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. In 

calculating the amount of sanction for multiple violations, FAA enforcement personnel consider 

4 When the violation is one that is generally inherently deliberate (e.g., interference with crewrnember or smoking 

violations), factor b. is not considered in determining whether the sanction should be above the range in the table. 

The ranges in the table for such violations already have taken into consideration the inherently deliberate nature of 

the violation. 

7-10 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

the totality of circumstances relating to the multiple violations, including the alleged violator's 

degree of culpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessful, to 

prevent the violations. 

d. Type of Legal Enforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the type of legal 

enforcement action for a single violation, the FAA ordinarily selects the same type of sanction 

for multiple violations of a similar nature. The seriousness of multiple violations, however, may 

require changing what is normally a civil penalty action to a certificate action or, sometimes, a 

punitive certificate suspension to a remedial revocation action. 

7. Special Considerations for Numerous Multiple Violations Resulting From an Initial Act 

or Omission. To determine penalties for numerous multiple violations that result from an initial 

act or omission, the FAA applies the special considerations and guidance in chapter 7, 

subparagraphs 7.a. through e. These cases involve such a high number of multiple violations that 

ifF AA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts of penalty for each 

flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount could be 

disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

a. Determining Proposed Penalty. To determine an appropriate civil penalty in a case 

involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act or omission (for example, an 

aircraft operated on a dozen or more flights after being improperly returned to service), FAA 

enforcement personnel: 

(1) IdentifY each initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations 

(for example, improper maintenance plus improper return to service; failure to maintain a quality 

control system). 

(2) Consult the table in Appendix Band the general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount of penalty appropriate for each 

initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations (for example, in 

airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act of improper maintenance or inspection; in 

manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act of failing to maintain a quality control system). 

(3) Determine the amount of penalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying 

the guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Of particular importance in determining 

an appropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree of the alleged violator's 

culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree of culpability is present when the alleged 

violator neither knew nor was likely to discover the continuing violations. For example, once 

improper maintenance was done there were no signs of it from such things as discrepancies 

reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have led to its discovery were scheduled. A 

more significant degree of culpability is present when factors such as the following are present: 

• the initial act or omission was entered in records that should have led to 

immediate detection and correction; 

• the initial act or omission remained undetected and continued through required 

inspections or checks designed to reveal such discrepancies; 

7-11 
10/01/07 2150.38 

• the alleged violator was not following maintenance or inspection procedures the 

FAA had approved or accepted; 

• the level of the alleged violator's organization that was aware of, or involved in 

the noncompliance included management (for example, management implemented policies that 

contributed to the violations), although an alleged violator's culpability does not require 

management involvement; 

• the alleged violator has a history of similar violations or a history of systemic 

deficiencies. 

Knowing and willful violations connote the highest degree of culpability. 

( 4) Add the penalties arrived at for the initial violation to the penalty for the multiple 

violations. 

b. Limitations on Total Civil Penalty Amounts for Numerous Multiple Violations. 

(I) In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from 

a single act or omission, that is, not one that is covered by chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.c. or 7.d., 

the total civil penalty for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the ranges provided in 

either Figure 7-1 or 7-2. The group classifications are defined in part I of Appendix B. 

(2) The term isolated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instan.ce of an 

employee's failure to follow a statutory or regulatory requirement, contrary to the company's 

own practice or procedure. A case may involve a number of isolated and unrelated violations. 

Each group of the multiple violations resulting from each isolated violation ordinarily is subject 

to the isolated, inadvertent ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2. 

(3) Inadvertent failures are considered systemic if they are repetitive or otherwise 

demonstrate an underlying deficiency in the alleged violator's system, practices, or procedures. 

Systemic failures generally warrant more substantial penalties and indicate a need for corrective 

action. 

(4) The aggravating or mitigating factors and elements in chapter 7, paragraph 4. are 

considered to determine an appropriate civil penalty within the applicable range in Figure 7-1 or 

7-2, for the multiple violations resulting from the initial act or omission. Of particular 

importance is an evaluation of the seriousness of the potential hazard caused by the violation and 

the degree of culpability of the alleged violator for the multiple violations. 

7-12 
05/01/12 

Compliance and Enforcement Bulletin No. 2012-1 

2150.38, Chg 4 

Appendix H 

SUBJECT: Sanctions for persons who direct a laser toward an aircraft in violation of 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120. 

DISCUSSION: Data recently compiled by the FAA reflects a continuing upward trend in the 

number of reported incidents oflasers being aimed at aircraft. Aiming a laser at an aircraft can 

seriously impair a pilot's vision and interfere with the flight crew's ability to safely handle its 

responsibilities. Flight crewmembers exposed to laser light, while operating an aircraft at night, 

have experienced glare (a temporary disruption in vision caused by the presence of a bright light 

within an individual's field of vision), flashblindness (the inability to see, caused by bright light 

entering the eye that persists after the illumination has ceased), and afterimage (an image that 

remains in the visual field after an exposure to bright light). A sufficiently powerful laser could 

cause permanent ocular damage, blinding crewmembers and making a successful landing 

virtually impossible. 

On June 1, 2011, the FAA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations issued a memorandum 

interpreting 14 C.F .R. § 91.11 as being applicable to a person, not on board the aircraft, who 

aims a laser beam at that aircraft. The memorandum noted that the interpretation applied equally 

to the similarly worded provisions of 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120. 

Subsequently, this interpretation was published in the Federal Register to increase public 

awareness that: (I) directing laser beams towards aircraft operating on the ground or in the air so 

that it interferes with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties is a 

violation of section 91.11; and (2) persons violating section 91.11 are subject to a civil penalty. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. 76611-76612 (Dec. 8, 2011 ). Minors found in violation of section 91.11 under 

this interpretation are subject to enforcement action and sanction. 

Because of the continuing high number oflaser-related flight crewmember interference 

occurrences and the high risk to safety they present, the FAA's Acting Administrator has 

determined that a special emphasis enforcement program is warranted for violations of 14 

C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120 resulting from such occurrences. 

ACTION: Until further notice, the following special emphasis enforcement program is in effect 

for violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120 committed by an individual 

when he or she aims a laser beam at an aircraft: 

1. Informal action (oral or written counseling) and administrative action (warning notices or 

letters of correction) are not used to address such violations. 

2. A single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation by an individual generally 

warrants a civil penalty in the moderate range ($2,200-$4,399). 1 

1 An individual who holds an airman certificate should appreciate the potential for danger 

associated with directing a laser at the crew operating an aircraft. Accordingly, a violator's 

status as an airman is an aggravating factor that may warrant a civil penalty above the moderate 

range for a single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation. 

H-4 
05/01/12 2150.38, Chg 4 

Appendix H 

3. For a deliberate violation by an individual not holding an airman certificate, the FAA 

may seek a civil penalty up to the statutory maximum of $11,000 per violation under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A). 

4. For a deliberate violation by an airman certificate holder, regardless of whether the 

airman was exercising the privileges of his or her certificate at the time of the violation, 

the appropriate sanction generally is revocation of the airman certificate. A civil penalty 

in the maximum range may be appropriate in addition to certificate revocation. 

5. The FAA's Regional Counsel Offices will coordinate with FAA's Office of Chief 

Counsel, Enforcement Division, in initiating and processing these legal enforcement 

actions. 

H-5