The Honorable Stefan R . Underhill, of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for the Distr ict of * Con nec ti cut , s it ti ng b y de s ign ati on . 1 09- 0892- ag R at ner v. Federa l A vi at i on Ad m i ni s t r at i on UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to sum mary or ders filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a docu ment file d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term

of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, on the thir d day of March, t wo thousand an d ten. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER ,

Circuit Jud ges , S T EF A N R. U ND ERHI LL ,

District Judge. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x C ARY R AT NER , Petitioner

,

-v .- No . 09 -0 892 -ag F ED ERAL AV I A T I ON A DMI NI S T R A T I ON ,

Res po nde nt
.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR P ETIT ION ER: C ARY R AT NER , Eas t H ill s , N Y, pro se . F OR RES P ON DE N T: A NG EL C O LL AKU , Office of the Chie f Counsel, Federal A viation Adminis tr ati on , Was hi ngt on , D .C.2

Petition for

review of a Janua ry 12, 2009 de cision of the Federal Avia tion Administration (“FAA”).
UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED tha t th e p etitio n fo r re vi ewis DENIED. Petitioner Cary R atner (“petitioner”) petitions for review of the Janua ry 12, 2009 order of the FA A de cis io nm aker

af fi r mi ng the d ecis io n b y the A dm inis tr ati ve L aw J ud ge ( “AL

J ”) im po s in g a $2 ,75 0 civil pe nalty a gainst him for violating the Haz ardous M aterials Re gulations (“HMR”). We assume the par ti es ’ f amilia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s , p r oce du r al his to ry, an d the i s s ues onapp eal. Petitioner argues on appeal that (1) the FAA should have brought an a ction and filed the complaint a gainst his company rather than ag ainst him individually beca use he was conduc ting company bu s in es s whe n h e of

fe r ed the c las s if

iedhaza r do us mat er

ial to J etB lu e Air

ways fo r “ch ecke d b aggag e” transpor t; (2) the ALJ abused his discretion in not crediting testimony that was favorable to petitioner, and the ALJ was biased a gainst petitioner; and (3) the evide nce a gainst Ra tner was insuff icient, not cr edi bl e, an d h ear s ay. Pu r s uan t t o the A dm inis tr ati ve P r oce du r e Act , we w

ill up ho ldan ag enc y de cis io n u nl es s it is “ar bi tr ary, ca pr

ici ou s , anabu s e of

di s cr et io n, or other wis e no t i n acc or dan ce wi thlaw. ” 5 U .S. C. § 706 (2)( A) ; Gr ee n I sl and Po we r A uth . v

. F ERC , 577 F.3d 148, 15 8 (2d Cir. 2009). Our inquiry must be “s ear chi ng a ndcar ef

ul ,” b ut un der this def er ent ial s tan dar d we cann ot

s ub s ti tu te ou r

ju dgm ent fo r th at of th e agen cy. NRDC

v. FAA , 564 F.3d 549, 55 5 (2d Cir. 2009) (cita tions omitt ed). We must uphold a fi ndin g of fa ct unles s th ey ar e “u ns up po r te d b y s ub s tan ti al ev id enc e . . . .” 5 U. S.C. § 70 6( 2) (E) ; United States v. Int’l Bro therhood of T eamsters, 24 7 F .3d370 , 38 0 ( 2dCir . 20 01) . “S ub s tan ti al ev id enc e is mo r e than a mere scintilla ” and refers to “s uch releva nt evidenc e as a rea sonable mind might ac cept as ade quate to s up po r t a c on clu s io n. ” Id

. (citation omitted). Further , we show “speci al deferenc e” to any credibility det er mi nat

io ns mad e by

th e AL J , “who hadth e op po r tu ni ty to ob s er ve the w itnes s es ’ d eme ano r .” Yellow Freig

ht Sys. Inc. v. Reich , 38 F. 3d76, 81 ( 2dCir . 19 94)

. With r es pec t t o the ar

gum ent th at the FAA s ho ul d n ot

hav e br ought

an ac ti onagai ns t him individual ly, but ag ainst his company only, i t is enough to say that the FAA is authorized to pursue enf or cem ent act io ns agai ns t any per

so n who vio lat es th e HM R by o ff er in g unlab eledhaza r do us mat er ial s fo r tr ans po r t i n co mm er ce. See 49 C.F.R . § 171.8 (amended by 75 Fed. Re g. 5376-01 (Feb. 2, 20 10)) (d ef inin g a “p er s on ” as , int

er ali a , “anin di vid ual , co rpo r ati on , co mp any, as s oci ati on , f ir m”). As to the remaining issues on appeal—that the ALJ improperly weig hed the credibil ity of witnes s es andth e evi den ce was no t s uf fi cien t o r was im pr op er

—ther e is no in di cat

io n that th e F AA decisionmake r abused his dis cretion in upholding the A LJ’s findings, or that the ALJ’s findings were un s up po r te d b y s ub s tan ti al cr edi bl e evi den ce. Cf. Sim s v. Blo t , 534 F.3d 117, 13 2 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that a court has “abused its discretion” only “if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a cle arly erroneous ass essment of the evide nce, or rendered a de cision that cannot be l ocated within the range of permiss ible dec isions.” (internal quotation ma rks, citations, and alterations omitted)). I n addit io n, th er e is no evi den ce o n thi s r eco r d t o s up po r t p et it io ner ’s as s er ti onth at the ALJ was bi as ed aga inst him.3 CONCLUSI ON We ha ve considered a ll of petitioner’s challeng es to the FAA’s order and hav e found them to be without merit. For

the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court