In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 23, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

NORTHEASTERN 

AVIATION CORPORATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2011EA110045 

Respondent 

ORDER CLARIFYING FAA PARTY AND THE COURT'S JURISDICTION, 

AND DIRECTING PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE IN FUTURE FILINGS 

On April 15, 2015 and June 18, 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 

However, the record demonstrates that the FAA has filed multiple pleadings and motions, 

and in some ofthese materials has mistakenly identified the FAA Administrator as the 

complainant litigant in this case, and/or the FAA as part ofthis Court. 

For example, on June 30, 2015 the FAA filed an Administrator's More Specific 

Statement ofNumber ofViolations, in which it asserted that the FAA Administrator was the 

complainant litigant in this proceeding. Subsequently, on December 3, 2015, the FAA also filed 

an Amended Notice of Appearance, in which it asserted in the jurisdictional caption that this 

Court was an employee of the FAA. 

A. Clarification Regarding the Court and Jurisdiction 

The FAA's written materials that mistakenly identify the FAA Administrator as the 

complainant litigant in this case, and/or the FAA as part of this Court are incorrect. It is an error 

1 April15, 2015 Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and 

File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan; and June 18, 2015 Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures. 
that keeps occurring in FAA civil penalty cases, despite having been previously addressed by 

this Court? The error is not insignificant, and should be corrected by the FAA in all future 

filings. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16(h)-(i), and the FAA's Rules ofPractice,3 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.F.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.F.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.F.R. § 13.203. 

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

fact, independent of the FAA. 

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

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

Administrative Law Judge, who is not an employee ofthe 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 separation requirements ... [the Judges are not] subject 

to the [FAA's] control or supervision. 

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

2 See, e.g., Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., Dkt: F AA-20 14-0867, Order Clarifying FAA Party and the Court's 

Jurisdiction, and Directing Procedural Compliance in Future Filings (Feb. 27, 2016); Compass Systems & Sales, 

Inc., Dkt: FAA-2015-2440, Order Clarifying Court Jurisdiction and Directing Procedural Compliance in Future 

Filings (Feb. 18, 2016); Jet Logistics, Inc., Dkt. FAA-2013-0290, Order Granting Protective Relief and Directing 

Procedural Compliance (May 29, 2014). 

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

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

Page 2 of4 
This bright line separation is necessary to maintain not only a fair adjudication system but 

also to preserve the appearance offairness.4 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 as a litigant 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.P.R. §13.235. 

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

Court) should stop identifying the FAA Administrator as either the Complainant or as the Court 

in these proceedings. This Court's jurisdictional caption should be utilized in this case, and 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 Administrator and his regional counsel remain 

committed to an administrative adjudication system that is fair and impartial. 

B. Conclusion 

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

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

4 See, 55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27 551 (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 of 4 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA shall stop identifying the FAA Administrator as the Complainant or as part of 

the Court in this action. 

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

the jurisdiction caption on page 1 of this Order). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 4 of4 
Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ms. Camille J. Castillo 

Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Edward J. Longosz, II 

Ms. Evelyn D. Sahr 

Respondent's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL: 202-659-6619 I 202-659-6622 

FAX: 202-659-6699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.