Opinion ID: 164784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional Contentions By Zoltanski

Text: 50 We quickly dispose of Zoltanski's additional arguments for reversal. First, she contends that the Administrator changed the elements of a § 107.20 violation from those argued by the FAA before the ALJ and the Administrator. We reject this contention because throughout this litigation the FAA has consistently adopted the position that the test is whether a reasonable person would have thought that she had cleared security. Second, she contends that the Administrator actually found her in violation of 49 C.F.R. 1540.109, which was promulgated in 2002 and thus not in effect on October 21, 1999. This argument has no basis in the record, and we reject it. 51 Next, Zoltanski contends that the Administrator denied her due process by interpreting § 107.20 to prohibit  any failure to obey any instruction by a private security employee, an unconstitutionally vague standard under which a person of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Aplt. Br. at 39-40 (internal quotation marks omitted). This argument is without merit because the Administrator did not adopt that interpretation. The actual interpretation restricts coverage of § 107.20 to individuals who should reasonably know that their conduct is in contravention of the airport's security requirements. Zoltanski conceded the permissibility of such an interpretation in her reply brief.