Court Opinion

ID: 9407379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 18:01:01.575824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.274457
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13765   Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13765
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       WARBIRD ADVENTURES, INC.,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                       Federal Aviation Administration
                          Agency No. FAA 2020-0534
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13765         Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 07/06/2023         Page: 2 of 6

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13765

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Warbird Adventures, Inc. (Warbird) petitions for review of
       a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision finding that, by
       providing flight instruction in a “limited category civil aircraft,” it
       violated the prohibition against operating such an aircraft “carrying
       persons or property for compensation for hire,” contained in 14
       C.F.R. § 91.315 and ordering it to pay a civil penalty. After careful
       review, we deny the petition.
                                               I.
              The following material facts are not disputed. Thom Rich-
       ard owns and operates Warbird, a ﬂight school in central Florida.
       Warbird provides ﬂight instruction in vintage aircraft classiﬁed as
       Limited Category aircraft. On January 31, 2020, Warbird operated
       one of its Limited Category aircraft with Ray Allain on board. Al-
       lain paid Warbird for ﬂight instruction.
              The FAA issued a Cease and Desist Order to Warbird to stop
       ﬂight instruction in Limited Category aircraft1 and instituted an

       1Once affirmed by the FAA, Warbird appealed the Cease and Desist order to
       the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In an unpublished
       opinion, the D.C. Circuit denied Warbird’s petition and addressed the argu-
       ment that flight instruction was not carrying under the regulation very briefly:
               Warbird argues that § 91.315 does not prohibit paid flight
               training. We disagree. A flight student is a “person.” When a
               student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is
USCA11 Case: 22-13765         Document: 33-1         Date Filed: 07/06/2023          Page: 3 of 6

       22-13765                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

       administrative enforcement action for violating 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
       As to the administrative enforcement action, Warbird and the FAA
       cross-motioned for summary judgment with Warbird arguing that
       the prohibition on “carrying persons” under § 91.315 does not
       cover ﬂight instruction. The ALJ held that “carrying” under the
       regulation is a broad term that includes ﬂight instruction and found
       Warbird violated the regulation. The ALJ assessed a civil penalty
       of $2,500.
              Both parties appealed the ALJ’s decision. The Federal Avia-
       tion Administrator affirmed the finding of the violation but modi-
       fied the civil penalty by increasing it to $5,500. Warbird now seeks
       review of the Administrator’s decision.
                                               II.
               We have statutory authority to “affirm, amend, modify, or
       set aside any part” of the Administrator’s order. 49 U.S.C.
       § 46110(c). But our standard of review is deferential; “we will up-
       hold the agency’s decision unless it is arbitrary and capricious, an
       abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.” Aerial Banners,
       Inc. v. FAA, 547 F.3d 1257, 1260 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see 5
       U.S.C. § 706(2). Thus, “we will set aside the FAA’s order on sub-
       stantive grounds only if the agency relied on improper factors,

               “carr[ied].” And when the student is paying for the instruction,
               the student is being carried “for compensation.”
       Warbird Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 843 F. App’x 331, 332 (D.C. Cir.
       2021) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-13765      Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 07/06/2023   Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13765

       failed to consider important relevant factors, or committed a clear
       error of judgment that lacks a rational connection between the
       facts found and the choice made.” Aerial Banners, Inc., 547 F.3d at
       1260 (internal quotation marks omitted). And the Administrator’s
       findings of fact “are conclusive” if supported by substantial evi-
       dence. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(c).
                                          III.
               In its petition, Warbird challenges the Administrator’s deci-
       sion finding that “carry” under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315 includes flight
       instruction. Specifically, Warbird argues that “carrying persons . . .
       for compensation or hire” in 14 C.F.R. § 91.315 does not include
       flight instruction. Because Warbird provided flight instruction to
       students, it could not have violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
               When interpreting an unambiguous regulation, “[t]he regu-
       lation . . . just means what it means—and the court must give it ef-
       fect, as the court would any law.” Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400,
       2415 (2019) (majority). “[T]he possibility of deference [to an
       agency] can arise only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous.” Id.
       at 2414. “[I]f the regulation satisfies the ‘genuinely ambiguous’ re-
       quirement, the agency reading must be ‘reasonable.’” Rafferty v.
       Denny’s, Inc., 13 F.4th 1166, 1179 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Kisor, 139
       S. Ct. at 2415). Then, “a court must make an independent inquiry
       into whether the character and context of the agency interpretation
       entitles it to controlling weight.” Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2416.
USCA11 Case: 22-13765      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-13765               Opinion of the Court                          5

              The regulation at issue states that “[n]o person may operate
       a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for
       compensation or hire.” 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
              Warbird argues that the regulation is unambiguous and that
       the ordinary deﬁnition of “carry” does not include ﬂight instruc-
       tion. Warbird argues that even if the regulation is ambiguous, then
       we should not rely on the FAA’s interpretation because it is incon-
       sistent with the regulation.
             We agree with Warbird that the regulation is unambiguous,
       but we do not agree that “carry” does not include ﬂight instruction.
       Like the Administrator and the ALJ, we ﬁnd that “carry” has a
       broad meaning and includes ﬂight instruction.
              The FAA has not deﬁned “carry” within its regulations.
       When construing regulations, we “give eﬀect to the natural and
       plain meaning of the words.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906
       F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2018). When determining the plain
       meaning, we look to the relevant dictionaries, such as Black’s Law
       Dictionary, which deﬁnes “carry” as “[t]o convey or transport.”
       Carry, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). When a person re-
       ceives ﬂight instruction, that person is present in the aircraft.
       While in the aircraft, the person receiving ﬂight instruction is being
       “convey[ed] or transport[ed]” by the pilot who is giving the instruc-
       tions. Id. Thus, a pilot giving ﬂight instructions is carrying the stu-
       dent for the purpose of the regulation.
              Further, as the FAA points out, other regulations that ad-
       dress operation of aircraft for compensation or hire have included
USCA11 Case: 22-13765     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                22-13765

       exemptions for ﬂight instruction. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.327; 14 C.F.R.
       § 119.1(e)(1). Thus, had the FAA wanted to exempt ﬂight instruc-
       tion from 14 C.F.R. § 91.315, it could have explicitly done so.
              Warbird also argues that the FAA’s interpretation of 14
       C.F.R. § 91.315 has changed and is not entitled to any deference.
       Because we conclude that the regulation is unambiguous and co-
       vers Warbird’s conduct (Warbird does not contest the ALJs under-
       lying factual determinations), we need not address Warbird’s re-
       maining arguments about the FAA’s interpretation of this regula-
       tion. See Palm Beach Cnty. v. FAA, 53 F.4th 1318, 1330 (11th Cir.
       2022) (“[I]f we find [the FAA] regulations to be unambiguous, we
       needn’t and won’t defer to the FAA’s view.”).
                                        IV.
               We find no reversible error in the agency’s final decision
       finding that Warbird violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.315 and assessing a
       civil penalty of $5,500. Warbird’s petition for review is DENIED.