Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Quesada
Supreme Court brief1961
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
yuan
— f i i ee <nonmnasones
ra 4
Leeann NS won ORI, canvenipoatons ; se alieen ones n coe penenannemeans ”
+ : F Nes JAMA BR BfrvN. 5) Ca
i . TT RS ee a ——_
' ‘ : oo
Supreme Court of the United. States
October Term, 1960 |
‘
No Go (
‘ +?
P
~ \
.
e
v *
4
4
s
PETITION FOR: A. WRIT. OF CERTIORARI TO
ik UNITED STATES ‘COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIL
INDEX
PAGE
r — a K .
. QpMOO BION 6 ois Sivdvny -ccccrccnsccncsccens
——— Se ae ——— we — a . - 2
Jurisdiction ........ Per preee Pe TT ETT eT TEE 2
Questions Presented .........5. = Sounas Sena eas 2
Constitution, Statutes and Regulations Involved ... 3
Statement ...... aR SO SINS A A Me nee 3
Reasons for Granting the Writ ...... py ae ey ale ee 7
RRS ce ee ec oa een a? 38
Supplements Pk eee ret pry ere rr ree 39°
ApPENDIX A—Constitution, Statutes - Regulations
_ Involved: ; ;
Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution. —la
Administrative Proeedure Act......... yee we la
Federal Aviation Act of 1958................ 10a
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938........ ewe eees 22a
Code of Federal Regulations...,............. : 23a
Aprenpix B—Opinion of the Court of- Appeals for
the Second Circuit, entered on April 21, 1960... 65a
APPENDIX C—Opinion of the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, entered on February 9, 1961. 76a
y
5
~ Citations
: PAGE
CasEs: :
American Federation of Labor v.” National Labor’
______ Relations Board, 308 U.S. 401, 408 (1940) ...... - 29
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United
States, 344 U. S. 298, 314 (1953) .......... wee. Ot
“Associated Industries ‘of New York State, Ince. v.
— Iekes, 134 F. 2d 694 (2d Cir.), cért. granted,
319 U. S..739,. vacated as moot, 320 U. S. 707
ee SE ee Gh MGEcs ape wee ss ce i”
Bowles v.. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944) ....... 31
6
Carter, In re, 177 F. 2d 75 (D. C. Cie. 1949) ; Id.
', 192 F. 2d 15 (D.C. Cir. 1951)"............ eee ae
Chicago & Southern Airlines, Ine. v. Waterman
Steamship Corp., 333 U. S. 103 (1948) ........ 3i
Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air Trans-
port, 201 F. 2d: 189 (D. C. Cir. 1952), certificate !
dismissed, 344 U.S. 4 (1952) eS Sar eae 29, 33
Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States,
316 U.S. 407 (1942) .......... aieeuens 9, 11, 13, 29, 30°
FCC v. National Broadcasting Co., Ane. (KOA),
319 U. PE varbawpedhscecegsasexqoesss 11,29.
FCC v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Ine., 337 U.S |
265 (29) .eunenes Sasa PNPUCKSa te xtssencees 33
Hood v. United States, 256 F 2d 522 (9 Cir. 1958) 26
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath.
341 U. S. 123, 151-153 (1951) ....:...18, 30, 31, 2, 31
Local 1424, IAM, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 362 U. S.
411, 417, n. 7 (1960)
* iij oe
Cases (Continued) : , |
Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 294 U.S. *
oe epee WeeaveceeaaKeire pees 34
~ Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States,.”
4 ee Me CUED oh ces cede cnccsesedececss 26
Opp Cotton Mills, Ine. vy. Administrator, 312 U.S. >.
PT REE oss pciw nb aescaedecwencecvaxs 13 -
Parker v. Fleming, 329 U. S. 531 (1947) .......... 11, 18
Parker v. Lester, 112 F. Supp. 433 (D..C. Cal. 1953)
aff'd 277.¥. 2d 708 og Re eee rer 33
Philadelphia Co. v. Securities Exchange Commis-
sion, 164 F. 2d 889, 899 (D. C. Cir. 1947), vacated
and dismissed as moot, 337.U. S. 901, (1949) ... . 29, 33
Powell v. United States, 300 U. S. 276, 284-85 (1937) 29
L. Singer and Sons v. Union Pacific RR., 311 U.S.
295, BOL (IMO) oer eteeeeeeees 18
United States v. Alabama Railroad Co., 142 U SS. |
Se fo teh ee cees CUL ea eu end ies 26
United States vy. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S. |
Cr firs Ves Ca eC eee. a oie, 26
United States v. Seatrain Lines, Ine., 329 ss CC
424, 432 (1947) . 62.2.2... ome Ner or 13
Vinson v. Hobby, 114 I’. Supp. 663 (D. ¢. W. Va.
: 1953) _ Blea Rn POO ae sd ee beuhanacans 21
LBW ike Ine. v. Federal Communications Com- .
mission, 170 F. 2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1948) ........ 29
%
_ See.
7 ?
STATUTES: ras
PAGE”
Aibninintrntive e Pieiies e Act, 60 ‘Stat. 237, as
amended 5 L. S. C. § 1001, et is : hs
§ 2(d) weeks aswesmeee ean Ye beeen cen ee ees ar ae
ME aac enn t en Ree ee meow SE Seawater. 38
LE Se pee ear ey epee ere © Oy rer es. 5,6
Se eakeh cu chee ced bee eee teense eet 1, 8, 33
Bi PRES De Gh AS an 21 Se green dhe wi se UR ae or 3, 8, 33
ST ere eee ee eaioies MECC BREE
Administrative. Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, as
amended, 5 U.S. C., § 1001, et seq.:
BT Beppe eaten Sune Fein Seats BAAD eee ae
CU ie ok teeta, —
iD SERRE PCRS ME eee eat eo 5,6
r°§ 1004 ee ee hae ee ei a aA wk we », 8, 33
RE nt eae eee ey
SSRI BPRS ena ak ges Pte, eae EE Rear 5, 8, 33
Civ rid Acronauties Act of 1938, G2 Gitat. 973 :.....:.: ". #
Civil. Air Regulations, Parts 20, 24, 29, 40, 41
SE og ey 5 TR Matty eae ee 3, 4,5, 24, 29
” ea eee eee Conn 25
RG ee ie ec as eters 2s
IEE hark adc bang cose niveau cas seees 30
RNIN coos rte ss ee yca see cas 36
Ora eh es 3
2 Fe Say sn rer IO EEE Ey remy. 20, 20
WD 5 6a oS ka ek rae ee eT eae he Reeees 4,9
—— .
* v é or
; | PAGE
Statutes (Continued) :
Ce eee ee SAAD te at 4,5, 28
a aa el ie AOR ne aut <i Bs
OF Ee aaa Oa Antsy Any hg Bat Oa ta 32, 37
tS aires Pat teat Baa ree ote
Fede val Aviation Act of 1958, =2 Stat. 731, 49
US. C. § 1301, et seq.:
LS RAN aim CRN), Zotibar drat Gain Monee pk GF At 13
9 sie) oS. ke eGR NCCE Re Wawa ee cape ED RTs 13
SRN stn ot eds ease ran ayaa, 4
SUSUR ie CMG SR ARORA MATA
rae eae IG IS ORR ASW ny SAAR OT kag Ihe 4,7, 12
OED SOD MEER EE wed, 21, 22
Re oe co oe. i Pa Oe ee §, 28
ODEs Se RICAN hth Merten 6 4,7,12
PR wioess Alcateneas PT oh NGAI. 28
$000 oo... 5.10 «2, 5,6, 7,8, 9, 10,41, 12, 13, 16, 17, >.
18,19, 20, 21, 22, 25427, 32, 37
Pe Sere ee acer eyelet pe
Federal “Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat, 731, 49
~ U.S.C. § 1301, et seq.:
{1300-1542 2... Creation veste Raterewry "29
$IDOR(B) Jones cen sccss sideeanuwneeen cers oo. a
NE ssa Chaann Fee nee ‘atlases 2 13
NE ss Sanus hecvas ocnultueea sand laxneaes 4
ROU Sahin c8k 42 cus es san wea a aees 1]
+
: vi.
PAGE
Sratetes (Continued):
§§ 1421-1430 ..... SER eee poree leeds cue «(8
hae >. f. SOT Tere ah renee 4,7,12
“RE RA le ee 14,21
ee ies ee gl i pana Se 7,9, 28
se i eg 4, 7,12
DE ci sntascnsckeeasewdenvieceracsaees 28
RES en ap GC RN CMe on 7
ECE alan a8 pang ated ated SET 27
$1429 ...... ROT 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 11, 18, 19, 20, 32, 37
© SESE AREY eee 18
ED Sra eR IE oa. re
Judical Code, 28 U. S. C:
on EOE oO Sa ae +e 9
| ., SE enue et es 5
Ey Grea REE ee 2 §
N. Y. Generat Construczion Law
OO Pos bonsai ae reich a, pee 13
— States Constitution -
Amendment V ....05.......0p.c0cseeeees 8, 27, 32, 34
CONGRESSIONAL MATERIAL
‘HH. R. Rep. No. 2360, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. +
are eee SE a ee ~ .12, 16, 17,23
-$. Rep. No. 1811, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. (1958).... °. 12
104-Cong. Rec. 13646 (1958) ......... nase 10
wy
Vii |
‘ PAGE
ConGREsSIONAL MarTeriaL (Continued) : |
Hearings Before: the Sub-Committee on Aviation .
of the Senate Committee’ on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce on S. 3880, 85th Cong. Sess. .
pages Sh aon es errr etre ye 15
pages 164- 165 ieee 65 C1560 b eters eeedanke 17
Hearings Before the Sub-Committee, of the House
Committee on Tnterstate & Foreign Commerce
on H. R2 12616, Soth Cong., 2d Sess. o4- 95 (W958) TT
Statement of Congressman Oren Harris, 104 c ong.
_ Ree. 1608] (1958) ........%: Ce aes ee" ee 4 17
Statement of Congressman Flynt, 104 cae Ree. - :
"16084 (1958) peed deena ks aoe eee eR A re '7
MiscELLAN BOUS .
Davis, Administrative Law, ‘$5.01, 5.06 (1958) .. 29
Gellhorn & Byse, Administrative Law, Cases and |
Comments, 774-75 (1954) ...........6. sa ete eee 32
N. Y. Genera! Construction Law, ¥en 13
Supreme Court uf the United States
October Term, 1960
No.
Ei
Vv
Ain Line Pivots Association, [NrerNATIONAL, an
unincorporated association, CLARENCE N, Sayen,-ete., et al.,
Petitioners,
4 cas against
. °
Kiwoop R. Quesava, individually and as Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Agency, o
4 yh. - Respondent.
ray
—
PETITION FOR / WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
“ THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Air Line*Pilots Association, International,. and the
individual. plaintiffs who are airline pilots and members
of Air Line Pilots Association, International, respectfully
pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment.
‘ot the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir-
cuit, entered in the above-entitled ease on February 9, 1961.
Opinions Below
~The opinion of the United States. Distriet Court ,for
the Southern District of New York‘ on the denial of, plain- ,
tiffs’ motion for a preliminary. injunction (Appendix to
Appellants’ Brief in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Cireuit, App. 315a-321)* is rgrortes at
*The Appendix to Appellants’ B rief in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit that was prepared for purposes
of plaintiffs” appeal from the order denying their motion for a
preliminary injunction was also the major portion of the record
on which, plaintiffs’ appeal from the order grantirig defendant's
motion for summary judgment was heard. References to it are
‘designated ‘ “App.”
182 F. Supp. 595. The opinion of the Court of Appeals
affirming the denial of plaintiffs’ motiori for a preliminary
injunction (Appendix B, infra, pp. 65a- 75a) is reported
at 276 F. 2d 892. The opinion ofthe District Court grant-
ing defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Supple-
_ mentary Appendix for Appellants in the United States
Court of Appeals | ‘for the Second Circuit, Qupp! App.
' 326a)° and the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming
the order granting defendant’s motion far summary judg-
ment (Appendix'C, infra, pp.-?6a-78a) have not yet been,
reported.
Jurisdiction
A judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the °
denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction
was dated and entered on April 21, 1960. The judgment
of the Court of Appeals affirming an @rder granting
defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss-
ing the complaint .was dated and entered on February 9,
1961. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). ?
Questions Presented eo.
1. Whether the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency may take action amending, modifying, suspending,
or revoking airmen certificates without complying with
Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958?
2, Whether’ the due process clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment to the United States Constitution requires that airmen
_whose certificates are amended, modified or revoked be
‘accorded notice and hearing before the action becomes
effective with respect to their certificates?
*The Supplementary Appendix for Appellants in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consists of. pages
324a to 333a. References to it are designated “Supp. Hassall
’ United States Constitution? _
Constitution, Statutes and Regulations Involved
- The pertinent provisions of the United States Con-
stitution, “yy Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731,
49 U.S. C. § 1301, et seqg.), the Administrative Procedure
Act (60 Stat. 237, as amended, 5 U, S. C. § 1001, et seq.),
and the Civil Air Regulations are get forth in Appendix
A, infra, pages la-64a, 14 C. F. R., far 20, 21, 29 and 40.
*
Statement
Air Line Pilots Association, Intermatiorial, is an unin-
corporated association which represents the professional
airline pilots employed by scheduled United States gir
carriers. The individual plaintiffs herein are airline pilots
- who. hold airman certificates and Airline Transport Pilot
Rating Certificates for which they had duly qualified prior
to June 27, 1959- under the provisions of Title VI of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S. €. 4§ 1421-1430
and the relevant provisions of the Civil Air Regulations,
14-C. F. R., Parts 20, 21 and 29 and the predecessor statutes
and regulations. Prior to March 15, 1960, the date that
the administrative action attacked herein became effective
the individual plaintiffs were employed as pilots by various
scheduled United States air carriers; and nineteen of them
_ had reached the age of 60. .Elwood R, Quesada was the
Administrator of the Federal ‘Aviation Agency at. the time
that the administrative action challenged herein was taken ;
Najeeb Halaby, ‘his suecessor in office, has since been sub-
stituted for Quesada as defendant herein.
4.
On June 27, 1959, defendant, by publication wat 24 Fed.
Reg. 5247-5249 (1959) (App. 278a-28la), gave notice’ of
' intention to amend Parts 40, 41, and 42 of the Civil Air
Regulations which deal with certification and operation
rules for air carriers. Prior to the proposed. amendment,
14 C. F. R. § 40.260 provided:
‘Wtilization of airman. No air carrier shall utilize
an individual as an airman unless he holds a valid
appropriaté airman certificate issued by the Admin-
istrator and i is otherwi ise qualified for: the particular
operation in which he is to be utilized. =
The ‘Administrator proposed to. ouienl this section by —
designating the above text as paragraph (a): and adding
thereto a new paragraph (b), as follows:
- ‘No. individual who has reached ‘his, 55th birth:
day shall be utilized or serve as a pilot in command,
or as second in command of a flight crew of 3 or |
more pilots, on a turbojet-powered aircraft engaged
in air carrier operations unless he held an aircraft
_ type rating for the particular aircraft either prior
to such birthday or the effective date of this regula-
: tion. In addition; no individual who has reached
. his 60th birthday shall be utilized or serve as a
pilot’ on any aircraft “a in air carrier opera-
tions.”’
The same amendment was to be made in 14.C. FR.
§ 41.48 and 14 C. F. R. § 42.40.
The authority cited by the Administrator for the above
amendments was Sections 313(a), 601, 602 and 604 of the
ogi Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1354, 1421,
422 and 1424.
Written comment®,' both for and against the proposed
amendments, were received by the Administrator, including
opposing comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International, and individual pilots. In addition, plaintiff
Air Line Pilots Association, International, on behalf. of
~ :
4)
the individual plaintiffs herein .and on its own. behalf,
requested the Administrator to, schedule a hearing at which
the proposed amendments’ could be considered (App. Ta),
“The Administrator denied the or request for a hearing
. insofar as the age 60 maximum was concerned ( APP. seat
262a)..
On December 1, 1959, the Sdibalstintas issued the fol-
lowing amendment to Parts 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Air
Regulations, 14 C. F. R.°§§ 40.260, 41.48 and 42.40:
‘*No individual who has reached his 60th birth-
day shall be utilized or serve as a pilot on any*
aircraft while engaged in air carrier operations.’’
(App. 262a) ae
7
The Administrator iaile: no finding that an emergency
existed and prov ided that the amendment was to take
effect on March 15, 1960. The Administrator did not amend
Parts 20, 21 or 29 of the Civil Air Regulations, 14C. F. R.
Parts 20, 21, and 29, dealing with pilot certificates, airline’
transport pilot rating, and physical standards for airmen,.
respectively.
Plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York for an
injunction.and for a declaratory judgment declaring the
amendment nujand void. The jurisdiction of the court
was based on 28 U. B.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. Plaintiffs
alleged that the amendments: were invalid: because they
had not been issued in eonformity with, and denied affected
pilots, the safeguards ofa) the procedural requirements of.
Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S. C.
$1429; or (b) the procedural requirements of Sections
4, 5, 7, and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 1003, 1004, 1006 and 1007; or (c) the require-
ments of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con-
ees
's *m eS. F.. R. § 42.40 the word “large” modifies the ‘word
“aircraft.” .
stitution. Plaintiffs also alleged that. the Administrator's _
action was, arbitrary and unreasonable‘and therefore con- .
stituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Con-~
stitution. os
; ? 2.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and .
defendant cross-moved for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs’ motion for. a ‘preliminary injunction was
denied by an order of the United States District) Court
for the Southern District of New York, filed on March
14, 1960 (App. 315a-321la). Plaintiffs thereupon appealed
to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The*Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the pre-
liminary injunction on thé ground that the action of the
Administrator constituted rule making and the Administra-
tor followed the procedural requirements for rule making
in Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. ¢.
§ 1003. The Court also held that the fact that the amend-
ment modified the licenses of airmen did not require the.
Administrator to follow the procedures set forth_in Section
609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. SC. § 1429.
~ On this point-the Court said:
‘“‘The plaintiffs strenuously urge that, however
things may be under the Administrative Procetlure
Act, the statutory. scheme of the Federal Aviation
Act shows that Congress intended to afford airmen
the greater protection of an individual. hearing before
their certificates may be modified, We disagree.
Section 609 of the Act, 49 U. S. C. -§ 1429, states
that ‘the Administrator may * * * reexamine any
civil airman,’ and if, as a result of such reexamina-
tion, the Administrator ‘determines that safety in —.
air commerce * * * and the public interest requires, -
(h>) may issue an order amending, modifying, sus-
peurling, or revoking * * * (any) airman certificate.’
The certificate holder must be advised of the
* ‘charges or other reasons relied upon by the Admin-
istrator’ for his action, and a. h@arging must be
afforded with a right of appeal and frial de, nox °
7
before the Civil Acronautics Board and ultimate
rights of review —in.the courts. of appeals. It is
“Clear that Congress intended that the section should
apply only when an order of the Administrator is
directed to un individual airman and is concerned
with conduct or other facts peculiar to that airman.
Use of. ‘airman’ in the singular, the reference to
‘charges,’ the word ‘order’ in contrast with ‘regula-
tion’ in § 601, and the statement that upon review
the Board shall not ‘be bound by findings of fact
of the Administrator’ all strongly suggest that
§ 609 is not intended to apply when a general diree-
tive of the Administrator is promulgated, though
the regulation may in fact modify airmen’s certifi-
cates. Cf. §§ 602, 604 of the Act, 49 U.S. C. §§ 1422,
1424. Moreover, were we to interpret 4 609 to apply
to a case like that before us, the area in’ which
§ 601 might operate would be severely restricted.”’
(Appendix B, infra, p. 72a).
Thereafter, on June 14, 1960, the United States Dis-
trict Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judg-
ment (Supp. App? 326a). Its action was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals in an order dated and filed on Feb-
ruary 9, “1961, on the same grounds on which the Court
of Appeals had based its decision affirming the order of
the District Court denying’ plaintiffs’ motion fora pre-
liminary injungtion (Appendix C, infra, pp. 76a-78a).
| _ Reasons for Granting the Writ
aha |
1. This case. involves an .important question \oe first
iMpression concerning the interpretation of § 609 of the
Federal Aviation Act of. 1958,49 U. S. C. 6 1429, to deter-
mine the degree of protection afforded the holders of air-
man certificates, air-worthiness certificates, production
certificates, air carrier operating certificates, and other
certificates issued uffder the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
499 U.S. C. $$ 1422, 1423, 1424, 1426 and 1427, against
-
—
*
; 8 ‘ , . 9
‘ or ae F nh
amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of their
certificates. The Administrator directéd air carriers not
_ to permit any pilot who was over 60 years of age to serve
as a pilot on any aircraft engaged in commercial air opera-
tions. See opinion .below, Appendix B, infra, page 66a,
tote 1. The immediate effect of the Administrator’s action
‘was to bar some 40 pilots from. continuing to practice
their profession on March 33, 1960, the effective date of
the: action (App. 255a).. Since then, the effect of the
Administrator’s action has been to automatically termi-
nate the rights of all pilots who reach the age of 60 to
pilot aircraft in commercial air operations. Thus, the
Administrator’s action has destroyed. the value of the
airman certificates issued to these pilots as a license per-
_ mitting them to fly aircraft in commercial air, operations.
Since the Courts below considered the: Admiistrator’s
action as ‘‘rule making’’, it has thus far been held that
neither Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S. C.
§ 1429, nor Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, 5 UD. S. C. §§ 1004, 1006, and 1007, required
the. Administrator to-hold a hearing prior to the promulga-
tion of the regulation.. For the same reason and because *
the Administrator’s action was directed to the air carriers
and not at the airmen’s certificates it has thus far been
held that individual pilots who reached age 60 prior to
the effective date of the Regulation and_those pilots who
have reached age 60 since then are not entitled to an.
opportunity to be heard before the Regulation is applied
to them. See opinion below, Appendix B, pages 72a-74a. |
Thus, by means of promulgating a regulation and directing
the regulation at the employers of the pilots affected by it,
the Administrator has prevented pilots holding valid air-
man certificates from obtaining a hearing at any stage, —
either before or after the administrative action is applied to”
> them to terminate their right to practice their profession.
9°
The importance of the question presented in this case
” is apparent from the fact that the Administrator. could
follow the very same procedure to adversely affect hi lders
of other certificates under the Federal Aviation Act.. For
example, a regulation directed at air carriers with respect
to the type of aircraft they could use, could render value-
less a type certificate issued under § 603 of the Act, 49
U.S. C. § 1423. Further, the same procedure, epuld be
followed by other agencies. Cf. Columbia Brockoesting
» System v. United States, 316 U. S. 407 (1942). Thus,
if thy administrative action herein is held to be valid, ‘the.
rights of other persons holding certificates under the
Federal. Aviation Act could also be modified, and even
destroyed, without providing them with notice or an oppor-
tunity to:be heard at any stage of ‘the proceedings.
_ The decisions below are erroneous ‘because they fail
. to give any effect to Section 609 of the Federal Aviation
Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1429. Section 609 provides as follows:
‘ ‘‘The Administrator may,*from time to time,
reinspect gny civil aircraft, aircraft engine,
_ propeller, appliance, air navigation facility, or air
agency, Or may reexamine any civil airman. If, as a
result of any such reinspection or reexamination, or
if, as a result of any other investigation made by
the Administrator, he determines that safety in air
commerce or air transportation and the public inter-
eo est requires, the Administrator may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking, in
whole or in part, any type certificate, production cer-
tificeate, air-worthiness certificate, airman certificate,
air carrier operating certificate, air navigation facil-
ity certifi¢ate, or air agency certificate. .Prior to
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any of
the foregoing certificates, the Administrator ‘shall
] - advise the holder thereof as to any charges or other
| reasons relied upon by the Administrator for his pro-
posed action and, except in cases of emergency, shall
provide the holder of such a certifieate an opportunity
to answer any charges and be heard as to why such
certificate should not be amended, modified, sus-
10.
pended, or .revoked. Any person whose certificate
is affected by such an.order cf the Administrator
under this section may appeal the Administrator's
order to the Board and the Board may, after notice
and-hearing, amend, modify; or reverse the Adminis-
trator’s order if it finds that safety in air commerce
or air transportation and the public interest do not
require affirmation of.the Administrator’s order.
In the conduct of its hearings the Board shall not
be bound by findings of fact of the Administrator.
The filing of an appeal with the Board shall stay
the effectiveness of the Administrator’s order unless
the Administrator advises the Board that an emer-
gency exists and safety in air commerce or air traus-
portation requires the immediate effectiveness’ of
‘his order, in. which event the order ‘shall ‘remain
effective and the Board shall finally dispose of the
appeal within sixty days after being so advised
by the Administrator. The person substantially
_ affected by the Board’s order may obtain judicial
. review of said order under the provisions of sce-
tion 1006, and the Administrator shall be made a A;
party to such proceedings. -
It is apparent that Section 609 provides substantial
safeguards to holders of. certificates. First, unless. the
Administrator finds that an emergency exists he must
provide the holder of a certificate with an opportunity
to ‘‘be heard as to why such certificate should as le
amended, modified, suspended -or revoked’’. Second, *
person whose certificate“is affected by such an stl gi
the Administrator under this section may appeal the
Administrator's order to the Board and the Board may.
after notice and hearing, amend, modify, cr reverse the
Administrator’s order if it finds that safety in air com-
merce or air transportation and the_ public interest do
not require affirmation’’ of the*-Administrator’s. order.
Third, in the conduct~ef its hearings the Board is net
‘*bound by. findings of fact of the Administrator’’. Fourth.
unless the Administrator advises the Board that an emer-
gency exists and that safety requires the immediate effec-
e
1L
tiveness of his order, the filing of an appeal with the
Board stays the effectiveness of the Administrator’s order.
And fifth, provision is, made for judicial review of the
Board’s order by the Courts of Appeal.
The coufts below held that the safeguards provided
in Section 609 are not applicable to an :amendment or
modefication of. a ‘certificate that-ig accomplished by means
of,a regulation. That the Administrator's action constitutes
an amendment anc modification of pilots’ certificates, and
indeed, an effective suspension and revocation of the certifi-
cates of pilots above the age of 60 to fly in commercial
air transportation, was admitted by’ the Administrator
and not questioned by the Court of Appeals (App. 262a- °
263a, 264a; Appendix B, pages 70a-72a). The deci-
sions of this Court in FCC v. National Broadcasting Co..
Inc. (KOA), 319 U. S. 239 (1943), Pagker v. Fleming, 329
U. S. 531 (1947), FCC v. WIR, the Goodwill Station, Inc.,
337 U. S. 265 (1949), and Columbia Broadcasting System
v. Unitcd States, 3.6 U. S.°407 (1942), leave no question
but that the action of the Administrator herein constitutes
an amendment and modification of pilots’ certificates. But
the Court below reasoned that the exercise by the Adminis
trator of his safety rule making power under Section 601(a)
of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U. S. C. §1421(a) was
not limited .by Section 609 of the Act, 49 U. S.C. 61429
even though it resulted in amending, modifying, suspend. .
ing or revoking airman certificates. See Appendix B, p.
72a. The Court said: .
‘ce ¢ @
it is clear that Congress intended that the
section should apply only when an order of the
Administrator is directed to an individual airman
and is concerned with conduct or other facts peculiar
to that airman. Use of ‘airman’ in the singular.
the reference to ‘charges’, the word ‘order’ in con-
trast with ‘regulation’ in 4601 and the statement
that- npon review the Board shall not ‘he bound
by findings of fact of the Administrator’ all strongly
Suggest that § 609 is not intended. to apply when a
lz
general directive of the Administrator is promul-
gated, though the regulation may in fact modify
airmen’s certificates. Cf. §§ 602, 604 of the Act,
49 U. S. C. $§ 1422, 1424. Moreover, were ‘we to
interpret § 609 to apply to a case like that befor
us, the area in which § 601 might operate would be
severely restricted.’’ (See Appendix B, p. 72a)
The Court also believed that the legislative history of
the Federal Aviation Act supported its conclusion. It said:
‘‘There is no indication anywhere that Congress
intended such limitation on § 601. Indeed, the legis--
lative history of the Federal Aviation Act and the
practice under the prior law show that Congress. .
intended the Administrator to have broad power
- to establish safety rules for the nation’s airways
without the delay attendant, upon numerous individual
hearings and ‘protracted appeals. The immediate
impetus to the legislation’ was a series of major
air crashes culminating in the midair collision of
two large airlines [sic] over the Grand Canyon in 1906
with the loss of 128 lives. Congress believed there
was a need for a more streamlined and efficient
means of safety rule-making in place of the system
of divided duties and responsibilities existing under
the Civil Aeronautics Act. The committee reports
make plain that the Administrator was to have sole
responsibility for safety rule-making under the new .
law, and’ that the procedures of § 609 were only
to come into operation when the Administrator modi-
fied or revoked ‘a certificate’. H. R. Rep. No. 2504,
85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); see S. Rep. No. 1811,
Soth Congy 2d Sess. (1958). The elaborate pro-
cedural requirements of § 609 are patently incom-
patible with the expedition with which Congress
intended that the Administrator should «ct in the
promulgation of safety rules. The clear rublic inter-
est in the speedy adoption of rules relating to. air
safety far outweighs any possible advantage in a
multitude of piecemeal and time-consuming hearing:
brought by each contesting airman.’’ (Appendix B,
pp. 72a-73a)
13
Court below are net supported -by the structure of the
Federal Aviation At of 1958 or by its legislative history.
Insofar as the decision of the Court is based on the use of the
__word *‘airman’’ in the singular, the reference to ‘charges’ :
and the use ‘of the word ‘‘order’’, it is subject .to the
criticism recently expressed by this: Court that ‘‘insights -
derived from syntactical analysis form a hazardous basis
for the explication of the major legislative’ enactments
se" See Local 1424, 1AM, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 362
U.S. 471, 417, n. 7 (1960). Further, it is clear from
decisions of this Court that the word ‘order’? is a word
that can refer to administrative action in the nature of
rule making. “See United States v. Seatrain Lines, Lue.,
3829 T. S. 424, 432 (1947); Columbia Broadcasting Sustem
v. United States, 316.U. S. 407 (1942); Opp Cotton Mills,
Inc, v. Administrator, 312 U. S8.°126, 147 (1941). And it is
accepted construction of statutes that use of the singular
includes the plural. See, e.g., N. Y. GENERAL CoNnsTRUCTION
Law, § 35.
It is iw are pd cmon that the conclusions in the
Both the structure and the legislative history of the
Federal Aviation Act indicate that Congréss intended that
rules promulgated by the Administrator that have the.
effect of amending, modifying, suspefiding or revoking air-
man and other certificates issucd under’ the Act should
be subject to the procedural requirements of $609. Thus,
the Act requires the Civil Aeronautics Board, arid not only
the Administrator, to consider ‘‘the promotion of safety
in air commerée’’ ini the exereise and performance of its
powers .aid duties under the <Act. _ Federal Aviation
_ Act, §$102(e), 102(b), 49 U. S.C. 66 1302fe), 1802(h).
. And ( 609 permits the Administrator to 1: ake action amend.
ing, modifying, suspending or revcking certifieates ‘fas a
result of any other investigation made by the Administra-
tor’’-and empowers the Board in reviewing the Administra-
tor’s action to ‘amend, modify, or reverse * * * if it finds
that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the:
14
public ‘interest do not require affirmation of the Adminis-.
trator’s order * * *.’’ This is not the scope of review
that is. afforded when the question is merely whether the |
Administrator’s findings of fact support action by him
amending, modifying, or revoking a certificate. When Con-
gress desired to limit the scope of review that the Civil
Aeronautics Board was to exercise over action of the
Administrator to such:narrow compass it did so by the
use of suitably narrow language. Thus, in § 602(b), which
‘permits an applicant for an airman certificate to appeal
from the Administrator's denial of a. certifieate to the
Board, on review-the Board is only to determine ‘‘ whether
the airman meets the pertinent rules, regulations, and
standards * * *.’’ See Federal Aviation Act, § 602(b),
49 U.S. C. § 1422(b). Thus, the language of the statute
indicates that Congress empowered the Civil Aeronautics
Board to review regulations of the Administrator that
amend, modify, suspend or revoke airman certificates.
This conclusion is reinforced -by the legislative history
of the Federal Aviation Act. While it is true that one
purpose of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was to vest
in the Administrator power to make air safety regulations
that was not subject to review by the Civil Aeronautics
Board, it was not intended that this power should extend
to regulations that amended, modified, suspended or
revoked certificates under the Act. This is apparent from
tk hearings, reports, and debate on the Act. For example.
when General Elwood R. Quesada appeared before the
Sub-Committee on Aviation of the Senate Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to testify on the bill that
later became the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the follew-
ing colloquy took place between him and Senator Monroney.
the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and floor‘ manager
of the bill in the Senate:
‘*‘Senator Monroney. * * *
‘‘As IT understand the bil! and the proposed
amendments, the possible differences that will need
15
to be spotlighted in the amendments that yon sug-
gest fall into three general categories:
-“*). The promulgation of a’r safety rules, which
is identical with the present bill, S. 3880, the differ-
ence being only in the degree of appeal.
_ ‘*Mr. Quesada: Yes, sir:
“*Senator Monroney. We are together on the
question of the right of appeal to the Board on
matters involving decisions by the Administrator
on airmen and on aireraft. —.
“Mr. Quesada. That is ccrrect.
‘*Senator Monroney. And we are perhaps closer
_together on the matter of decisiotis involving the
allocation of airspace being exempted from appeal.
The question is whether permission to appeal to the
Board on 1 or.2 other points should be inéluded..
It is probably only on 1 of the 3 matters relating
to air safety regulations, the right -of appeal in
1 out of 3 where there is some small degree of:
difference.’’ i. ;
Hearings before the Sub-committee on Aviation
of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce on 8. 3880, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pages
155-156. aoe oe
And during the debate on the bill, Senator Thye asked
Senator Monroney, ‘** * * Will the Civil Aeronauties
Board continue in existence if the bill is enaeted inte
lawt’? Senator Monroney replied:
‘*Indeed it will, save for the one function dealing
with safety rules which are now handled by the
Civil Aeronautics Board. * * * The provision dealing
with safety regulations is the one change with
respect to the present jurisdiction of the Civil Aero-
nautics Board which has been made. a
‘‘Under the provisions of this bill, even in that
respect the Board is given the. right to hear and
determine two types of appeals invoving airmen’s
certificates and the certification of- aireraft on
remspection by the Administrator.’’.104 Cong. Ree.
13646 (1958).
16
The reports. on the Federal Aviation Act also show
that Congress was aware that the Civil Aeronautics Boar
was empowered under Section 609 to review actions of
the. Administrator involving airman certificates and other
certificates. -H. R. Rep. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
distinguishes between the safety rule making area‘in which
the Administrator is to have plenary authority and the
area in which his actions are to be subject to revie w hy
the Civil Aeronauties~Boara. It states: |
‘‘The principal purpose of this legislation is te [
establish a new Federal Agency with powers adequate.
‘to enable in to provide for the safe-and efficient
use of the navigable aceapene by both civil and
military operations.”
7 * +
‘‘The Administrator of the New Federa! Aviation )
Agency (1) would be given full responsibility and
authority for the advancement and promotion of
civil aeronautics generally, including the promulga-
tion and enforcement of safety regulations * * *
‘*At the same time, the legislation would continue
the Civil Aeronautics Board, with the same authorily
it now has with respect to air carrier economic
regulation * * *. The Civil Aeronautics Board. is
given authority to hear and determine two types
of appeals. Appeals can be taken to the Board
from actions of the Administrator involving airmen’s
certificates and the certification of aircraft o”
reinspection by the Administrator.
.‘‘The new Federal Aviation Agency would bh
headed by a civilian Administrator with plenary
authority to—
‘*(a) Allocate airspace and control its use by
both civil ‘and military aircraft;
‘*(b) Make and enforce air traffic rules for both
civil and military aircraft;
‘*(e) Develop and operate a common system of
air navigation facilities for both civil and military
aircraft;
“(d) Make and enforce Safety regulations gov-
erning the design and operation of civil aircraft.”
(At pp. 1-2).
17
And see H. R. Rep. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 6-8,
29 (1958) ; Hearings Before the Sub-Committee on Aviation
of the Senate Committee qn Interstate and Foreign.Com-
merce on S. 3880, Soth Cong., 2d Sess: 164-165 (1958)
(Testimony of Elwood R. Quesada); Hearings Before a
Sub-Committee of the House Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce on H. R. 12616, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
94-95 (1958) (Testimony of James T. Pyle, Administrator
of Civil Aeronautics); Statement of Congressman Oren
-Harris, 104 Cong. Rec. 16081 (1958) Statenient of Coh-
gressman Flynt, 104 Cong. Ree. 16084 (1958).
This legislative history indicates that Congress intended
in Section 609 te provide a procedure which was to be
followed by the Administraior and the Civil Acronauties ~
Boaid whenever action was taken amending, modifying,
suspending, or revoking airman. certifieates and? other
certificates granted under the Act. Congress may well
- have concluded that the broad powers granted to the
Administrator that were not subjeet to review by the
Board should not include the power to‘take actions amend-
_ing, modifying, suspending or revoking certifieates granted
under the Federal Aviation Act because of the investnient
in training, time, and money. that is required to seeure’
an airman certificate or any other certificate under the Act.
But the Court below held that compliance: with the
procedural requirements of Section 609 of the Act ‘tare
patently incompatible with the expedition with which Con-
gress intended that the Administrator should att in the
promulgation of Afety rules * * *.°’ See Appendix B,
p. 73a. And the Administrator’ argued that requiring
that all action that amends, modifies, suspends or revokes
certifieates be taken. in compliance with the proceedures
of Section 609 of the Act would necessitate that all safety
rule making be promulgated in aecordance with Section
609 {App. 264a- 265a). That compliance with the procedure
Ve 18
set forth in Section 609 would not delay the promulgation
- of orders of the Administrator is clear onthe face of the
section. Section 609 permits the Administrator to take
immediate action amending, modifying,’ suspending or
revoking certificates whenever he believes that an emer-
gency exists. See Federal Aviation. Act, §§ 609, 1005, 49 -
U.S. C. §§ 1429, 1485. Nor is the argument that all safety
regulations would have to be issued in compliance with
Section 609 valid. Section 609 need only be complied with -
when thee action of the’ Administrator amends, modifies,
suspends, or revokes certificates. Not all safety régulation
would. result .in amendment or mpdificatioh of airmen
certificates or other certificates issued under the Act. The
question of whether a regulation amends, modifies, sus-
pends or revokes a certificate within the meaning of § 609 ©
“of the Act depends on the degree of the impact of the
regulation on the holder of the certificate. This is the
type of determination that admimistrative agencies and
courts are often called ‘upon to make in determining a
person’s standing to intervene in an administrative pra
ceeding or to appeal from administfative action. See, e.g.
Parker v. Fleming, 329 U. S. 531, 538 (1947); L.. Singer
_and Sons v. Union Pacific RR., 311 U. S. 295, 304 (1940);
FCC v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Inc., 337 U. S. 269
279-280 (1949) ; Concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Frank-
furter, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath,
341 .U. S. 123, 151-153° (1951). These cases make
it abundantly clear that not all action that may remotely
_ affect certificates would be consjdered as action ‘‘amend-
. ing, modifying, suspending, or revoking’’ the said certif:-
cates sq as to require that the- procedures set forth in —
Section 609 of the- Federal Aviation Act be -followed.
"In the instant case, the Adiministratér’s action does not
“give rise ‘to a far fetched claim that exercise of his rule
making authority has amended-and modified thé certificates «
of pilots. Instead, ‘the situation is one in which airmen
holding. valid certificates find that the value of their
.
a
. gal /
19
certificates and the license that it gave them to pilot aireraft
in air commeree—are nullified. Such action is clearly an
amendment and modiication, indeed, in the case of pilots
over the age of 60 a suspension and revocation, of airman
certificates. In taking such action, the Administrater should
de required to comply with the express procedural require.
ments of Section 609 of the Act.
2. But even if the Court should hold that the procedures
of § 609 of the Act need. not be followed when the Adminis-
trator adopts a regulation that has the effect of amending,.
-modifying, suspending, or *revoking airmany: certificates,
the Administrator's action that Is challenged herein is still
violative of the provisions of § 609 of the Act, 49 U.S. C.
§ 1429, and still raises important questions concerning ‘the
interpretation and application of that section of the Act.
In the instant case the Administrator has not only
denied adversely affected pilots an opportunity to be heard
» before ‘promulgation of the.regulation. He has also effec- °
tively prevented -the approximately forty pilots who lost
their jobs and the value of whose certificates to pilot .air-
craft in air commerce was destroyed on the effective date
of the age 60 regulation from securing a hearing at any-
stage, either before or after the regulation was applied to
them to’terminate their ‘right to. pilot aircraft in air com-
merce. Thus, the Administrator has combined the legis-
lative and adjudicative fwnctions. into one self- -executing
determination which sets the policy and fully accomplishes
the implementation of that policy by depriving a small
group of individuals of: their jobs and the value of their
licenses, without affording the individuals affected by his
action any opportunitysto question its validity or its appli-
eability to them. : ,
It is respectfully ‘submitted that, at the very least,
these forty airnien who were most immediately and direetly
affected by the regulation were entitled to make use of
the procedural safeguards of } 609 of the Feder al Aviation . ~
~
&
20
Act of 1958, 49 U. S. C. § 1429, before* the regulation
was applied to them to deprive them of theig jobs and the
value of their licenses. Indeed, it is difficult to see any”
scope far §.609 of the Act, if it is not effective to give
each of these forty pilots (in the absence of an emergency)
the right to a hearing before the Administrator and to °
appeal the Admniistrator’s determirfation to the Civil
Aeronautics Board before the regulation is applied to him.
_ That the action of the Administrator. constitutes in
fact and in law an amendment, modification, suspension.
‘ and revocation of the licenses of these forty pilots to pilot
aircraft in air commerce has been shown above. See p.
11, supra. That each of these forty pilots is therefore
entitled to a hearing at some time before the regulation
‘is finally held applicable to him is clgar from the face of .
“the statute, its legislative history and the past practice
under both the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S. C.
§§ 1301-1542, and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat.
973, ff. Seetion 609 of the Act requires the Adminis-
’ trator to advise a certificate holder of his reasons for
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking the certifi
_cate. And, unless an emergency exists, the Administrator
must give the certificate holder an opportunity, to be heard
‘on why the certificate should not be amended, medites,
suspended or revoked. ’
Tf the Ad inistrator had followed the statutory pre .
cedure with respect to the certificates of the forty airmen
most immediately and directly affected by the regulation,
each of them would, have kad an opportunity to’ raise the
issues of the validity of the regulation, and its applicability
to him. And each of them would have had. an opportunity
to —— a waiver under 14 C. F. R. § 29.5. |
~ Nor would such a hearing be a meaningless formality.
Even in the application of a regulation that hinges on the
question of a person’s age, difficult fact questions. 6.9:
. 6
21
the question of whether an individual airman was sixty ,
years old, might arise. . See Vinson vy. Hobby, 114 F. Supp.
663 (DS. W. Va. 1953). . 7
' In addition, in challenging the validity of the regula- 3
tion as applied to him before the Administrator, thé airman
would have an opportunity to convince the Administrator
that the regulation was invalid and that he w was entitled to a
waiver, :
Section 609 of the Act also prov ides for an —a
the Civil Aeronautics Board. The Board is not bound
by the Administrator’ s findings of fact and ‘‘may, after
notice and hearing, amend, thodify, or rev erse the Adminis- |
trator’s order if it finds that safety in air- commerce or
air transportation and the public interest do not require
afirmation’’ of the order. On such an appeal, each of the
pilots the value of whose certificates to fly’in air commerce
was destroyed, could question the Administrator's deter-
minations as to the validity of the regulation, its appli,
cability to him, and his right to a waiver.
The Court below concluded that the procedural safe-
guards-in ¢ 609 of the Act were ‘‘not intended to apply
when a general directive of the Administrator is praner.
gated, though the regulation may in fact modify airmen’s
certificates * * *.'. See Appendix B, p. ‘72a. The
statute does not support the Court's sialon Indeed,
under § 602(b) of the Act, 49 U.S. C. § 142: 2(b), even an
applicant for an airman certificate is e1 ntitled to haye the
Civil Aeronautics Boaid review tne Administrator’ 8 action
denying him a certificate. On such review the Board is
not hound by the Administrator's findings of fact, and it’
determines whether the Administrator has applied his
“general directive(s)’’ accurately since the Board decides |
“whether the airman meets the pertinent rules, régula-
tions, and standards * * *.””
It is clear that in*prov a procedarey safeguards for
_ airmen holding valid certificates im { 609 of the Act, Con-
en
gress intended to provide more extensive protection than
it provided for applicants for airman certificates in
§ 602(b). The fact that §609 empowers the Civil Aero-
nautics Board to amend, modify or reverse the Adminis-
trator’s order after notice and hearing
‘if it finds that safety in air commerce or air trans-
portation and the public interest do not require
affirmation of the * * * order * ° *,’’
indicates that the Board is to do more than determine
whether the Administrator has applied his ‘‘ general direc-
tive’ accurately. It is also to determine whether the
‘general directive’’ is valid as applied to the individual
airman. - , :
The legislative history lest the Federal Aviation Act
proves that this appraisal of the power of the Board under
Section 609 of the Act is correct. Thus, the House Report
on the bill that became the Federal Aviation Act states:
‘‘In transferring safety rulemaking functions to.
the new agency, thi» legislation does not strip the
Civil Aeronautics Board of all of its responsibilities
in the field of safety. Certain definite and very
important safety responsibilities are retained in the
Board. ' ° :
‘‘The Board,-as an independent, quasi-judicial
- body, will hear appeals from certain actions of the
Administrator affecting certificates. An appeal to
the Board is provided from a refusal by the Adminis-
trator to issue a certificate, except where the cer-
tificate is under suspension or has been revoked
within 1 year. es ;
‘‘When the Administrator revokes, modifies, oF
suspends a certificate under Section 609, an appeal
to the ‘Board is provided. ,
‘‘In order to expedite the safety-enforcement
process, section 609 of the legislation changes the
‘present law by permitting the Administrator to
amend, modify, suspend or revoke safety certificates
_ prior to formal proceedings before the Civil Aero-
nautics Board. However, in order to protect the
23
holders of certificates from arbitrary action, the
Administrator is required, except in cases of emer-
gency, before taking any, action to advise the holder
_of the certificate of the nature of the charges against
_him and. te-give the holder an opportunity to present
informally his defenses to the Administrator. If,
after this. informal presentation, the Administrator
is still of the opinion that the certificate should be
amended, modified, suspended, or. revoked, the
_ Administrator may take such action. Thereafter,
if the holder of the certificate disagrees with the
action of the Administrator, he may appeal to the
Civil Aeronautics Board, where he will be given a
full hearing complying in al’ respects with the
requirements of the ‘Administrative Procedure Act.
In this ‘hearing before the Board, the Administrator
will have the normal burden of proof to establish
facts justifying the amendment, modification, sus-
ension or revocation of the certificate.’’ (H. R.
ep. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 8° (1958).)
And see pagés 14-17, supra.
Moreover, it, is undisputed that, in twenty-two years
of practice under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, in—
every instance where a physical standard was to be applied
in derogation of the rights of the holder of: an existing
certificate, that individual was accorded the opportunity
for-hearing and review under the predecessor of present
Section 609 (Appendix, p. 298a).
Congress, in enacting. the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
approved the practices utilized under the Civil Aeronauties ~
Act of 1938 by which phiysical standards were promulgated
and then applied to individuals. By reenacting relevant
provisions of the prior statute, Congress adopted as
controlling. the prior practice. See letter from James
T. Pyle to Congressman Harris, H. R. Rep. No. 2360, 85th
Cong., 2d Sess: 29 (1958). Administration of the Federal
Aviation Act conformed to this € ‘ongressional intent until
the *Administrator issued the instant determination.
24
Physical standards for airmen promulgated under See.
tion 601 or its predecessor have always been incorporated
into Part 29 of the Regulations, entitled ‘‘Physical Stand. -
ards for Airmen.”’
Adjudications incorporating a trial-type hearing have
been the sole means by which these physical standards have
been applied. to airmen. Issuance, denial, amendment,
modification, suspension or revocation of airman certif-
cates have been the: results produced by these physical
standards adjudications. . *
In contrast, the Administrator has here established a
policy and revoked certificates in one step, and has held no .
hearings. To accomplish this, he has inserted the determi-
nation of physical standards into Parts 40, 4) and 42 of the
Civil Air Regulations, ostensibly directed at the air
. carriers rather than the airmen.
A study of physical standards cases under the Civil
Aeronautics Act of {938 and the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 has been prepared and is annexed hereto as Supple.
ment A. This study includes all physical standards case: |
reported by the Civili Aeronautics Board from July 21,
-1939 to and including November 18, 1959, immediately prior
to the date the instant determination. was issued.,
Each of these cases involves the application of a phy-
sical standard to an airman. All represent appeals to the
_ Civil Aeronautics Board from action by the Administrator
denying or revoking an airman certificate.
The study covered ‘approximately 115-cases. The cases
involved airmen with such defects as defective vision or
hearing, diabetes, hypertension, asthma, drug addiction,
tuberculosis, personality abnormality, heart disease, mental
illness, high blood pressure and epilepsy. Five of the
cases involved hearings on applications denied by the
Administrator solely because of the applicant’s age.
2
25
In over 45% of these cases, the Administrator’s denial
or revocation of a certificate was reversed by the Civil
Aeronanticae Board. In still others, appeals from such
action by the Administrator resulted ia a remand to him
for further consideration.
In every case, including the five *‘age’’ cases, the oppor-
tunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence was
extended to the airman affectéd. At the hearings, waivers
' were requested and frequently were granted by the Board, »
as the study shows. It is highly significant that the Board -
granted a waiver to one individual whose application was —
deniéd by the Administrator solely because he did not meet.
the age requirements contained in the Civil Air Regula-
tions. See 14 C. F.°R. § 20. 30.
Each of these cases, as the study shows, involved an
opportunity for the affected airman to be heard, and to
submit and rebut evidence. Furthermore, in every case,
the individual was afforded the opportunity to apply for
_ a waiver from the terms of the physical standard, as pro-
vided by Section 29.5 of the Civil Air Regulations. In
‘almost half the cases, a waiver was granted.
This study illustrates the uniform manner in which the’
procedures traditionally observed by the Board and the
Administrator have, in the past, operated to insure safety
- in air transportation while at the same time preserving
the rights of individual airmen. ‘The Administrator’s
action respecting pilots who have reached the age of 60 is
an unwarranted and radical departure from. such past
practice. i
The past practices referred to herein ave the practices
by which physical standards for airmen have heen included
only in Part 29 of the Regulations, and by. which individuals
have been afforded a hearing to defend their certificates
from revocation. This .practice should be given gredt
weight in the interpretation. of § 609 of the Act.
26
In the case of United States v. Alabama Railroad Co.,
142 U. S: 615 (1892), the Postmaster General’s change in’
. the previons interpretation of a statute dealing with the
rates for mail carriage by. railroads was challenged.
Upholding the challenge, and declaring that the Postmaster
General was bound by the practices resulting from prior
uniform interpretation of the statute, the Supreme Court
stated:
‘‘We think the contemporaneous interpretation thus
given by the executive department of the government °
and continued for nine years through six different
administrations of that department * * * should
be considered as decisive in this suit. It is a settled
doctrine of this Court, that, in cases of ambiguity,
the judicial department will lean in favor of a
construction given to a statute by the department
charged with the execution of such statute, and, if
such construction be acted upon for a number of
years, will look with disfavor upon any sudden
change, whereby parties who have contracted with
the government upon the faith of such construction
may be prejudiced.”’
And see:
United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S,
19 (1959) ;
Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States,
288 U. S. 294 (1933) ;
Hood v. United States, 256° F. 2d: 522 (1958).
But the Court below indicated that to give individual
airmen the right to hearing before their certificates were
modified might: require that some 18,000 pilot certificate
holders be given individual hearings. See Appendix B,
“p. 71a. It is clear that this is not the ease. Only those
pilots who reached age'sixty and had their license modified,
revoked or suspended would be entitled to a hearing before
the Administrator and to appeal to the Civil Aeronautics
™, ‘
Board. That this is a or number of people is apparent
from the fact that by 1962 there would only be a total of
about eighty active air carrier pilots in the above age
sixty group according to the estimate of the Administrator °
(App. 255a). -And see 49 U. S. C. § 1489. Furthermore,
once ‘the Administrator and the Civil Aeronautics Board
had held the regulation valid, the ruling would be binding
on the Administrator and the Board under the doctrine
of stare decisis and if the validity of the regulation were
later questioned by other airmen that issue could be dis-
posed of summarily. See Associated Industrics of Neu
York State, Inc, v. Ickes, 134 F. 2d 694 (2d Cir.), cert.
granted, 319 U.S. 739, vacated as moot, 320 U. 8S. -707
Nor would the fact that the Administrator is required
to grant each individual pilot who reaches the age of sixty
8 hearing before applying the regulation to him affect
safety in air commerce. Section 609 permits the Adminis-
trator to modify, amend suspend, or revoke airman certifi-
cates without a hearing in. cases of emergency and to
continue his order in effect while an appeal to the Civil
Aeronautics Board is pending.
Thus, there is no reason’ to believe that congress
intended to deny hearings and the other procedural safe-
. guards of § 609 of the Act to individual: pilots the value
.of whose airman certificates is destroy ed by action of the
Administrator.
3 The Constitutional question presented by this case
is of major importance in the field of public law. Peti-
tioners ask this Court to determine whether, under the —
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Con-
stitution, the Administrator may properly do away with’
the jobs and licenses of pilots by devising a method by
which, without any notice or opportunity to be heard, pilots
28 ¢
ure removed from their jobs and the value of their licenses
is destroyed through the actions of private persons, their
employers. While property rights of individuals in their>.
licenses and in their jobs may properly be limited by een-
,,Siderations of public policy which, in extraordinary cases,
require that observance of procedural safeguards be post-
poned, there is no warrant for a complete denial of notice
and hearing to persons whose ability to practice their
profession under a license granted by an agency of the
United States is destroyed. .
-. Nor is the action of the Administrator herein necessarily
limited to pilots. If the Administrator has the power to
destroy the value of pilot certificates by regulations that
‘ostensibly operate on the pilots’ employers without pro-
viding notice and hearing to the affected pilots, «does he
not have the power to destroy the value of a type certificate
for a particular aircraft without notice and hearing by
regulations that ostensibly operate on the potential pur-
chasers of that aircraft? See Federal Aviation Act, ‘4 603,
604(a), 49 U. S. C. §$ 1428, 1424(a).
On the effective date of the Administrator’s action,
some forty pilots were told by their employers that they
could no longer pilot aircraft in air carrier operations (App.
224a, 255a). Each of these pilots pos®ssed an Airline
Transport Pilot Rating Certificate which qualified him
under Civil Air Regulations to serve as pilot in command
a an aircraft engaged in air carrier operations. See 14
_ F. R. € 21.1 et seq., 641.48. When, by reason of the
poadeta bat s action, each of these pilots was removed
from his job in air carrier operations on March 15, 1960.
he was summarily deprived of (1) his license and (2) his
right to continue in the practice of a lawful profession.
Tne Administrator labeled his action a ‘‘regulation,”
which he purported to promulgate under:the rulemaking
power delegated to-him in the Federal Aviatiun Act of
Zo
1958. This label, however, is not controlling, since Courts
will independently examine the effect of administrative
action in determining what procedural safeguards must
.~ attend it. See Columbia Broadcasting System vy. United
States, 314 U. 8. 407, 416 (1942); American Federation of
Labor_v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U. 8S. 401,
408 (1940); Powell v. United States, 300 U. S. 276, 284-85
(1937); Philadelphia Co, v. Securities Exchange Commis-
sion, 164 F, 2d 889;-899 (D.C. Cir, 1947) ; Davis, ApMInis-
TraTIVE Law, §{ 5.01, 5.46 (1958). Constitutional protee-
‘tions are operative, regardless of the form, label or lan-
guage used: by the Administrator to describe his action, if
the effect of the administrative action is to limit or revoke
outstanding licenses to practice a lawful profession. See
Federal Communications Commission v. National. Broad-
casting Co. (K. O. A.), 319 U.S: 239 (1943); L. B. Wilson,
Inc. vy. Federal Communications Commission, 170 F. 2a 793
(D.C. Cir. 1948) ; Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air
Transport, 201 F. 2d 189 (D. C. Cir. 1952); Philadelphia.
Co. v. Securities Exchange Commission, supra.
It is highly unusual for licensees ‘o be forced to resort
to judicial proceedifigs to compel an administrative officer
to recognize that as a matter ot Due Process of. Law, the
revocation of a license and termination of the right to prac-
tice a lawful profession must be accompanied by notice and
an opportunity for the licensee to be heard. The individtial
evidentiang, hearing is invariably the sine qua nen ‘of the
normal, process of license modification or revocation. Agency
“rules”? or ‘‘regulations”’ are but one step in the accom-
plishment of the administrative purpose; the second step—
application of the ‘‘rule’’ or ‘*regulation’’ to individuals
Who fall within its general and prospective terms, awaits
subsequent adjudieatory enforcement proceedings. In such
circumstances, the individual hearing, required either by
due process, by statute or both, is held as a matter of
30
‘course when the second of these two steps is sought to be
accomplished. ln Columbia Broadcasting System v. United
States, 316 U. S. 407, 418 (1942), this Court said:
‘‘Most rules of conduct having the foree of law are
not self-executing but require judicial or administra-
tive action to impose their sanctivny with respeet to
particular individuals. Unlike an administrative
order or a court judgmént adjudicating the rights of
individuals which is binding only on the parties to
the ‘particular proceedings, a valid exercise of the
rulemaking power is addressed to and sets a stan-
dard of conduct for al!.to whom its terms-appiy. It
operates as such in advance of the imposition of
sanctions on any particular individual.’’ °
Coutrast the administrative determmation the consti-
tutionality of which is challenged in the instant case. This.
determination directed carriers to,remove forty pilots from
their jobs on a given date and thereafter to remove from
their jobs other pilots at the time that they reached the age
of 60. Thus, the carriers are used as the Administrator's
enforcement officers, and the necessity for subsequent en-
forcement proceedings alluded to in-the C.B.S. case, supra,
is obviated. The Administrator does net dispute the fdet
that his determination is to be enforced against individual
piluts, without giving them any notice or oppurtunity to be
heard, and, in fact, no hearings have been held.
The content of due process varies with the circumstances
of particular cases. This Court, in Joint Anti-Fascist Com-
mittee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 128, 164 (1951) wrote:
‘*The precise nature of the interest that has been ad-
versely affected, the manner in which this was done,
the reasons for doing it, the available alternatives te
the procedure that was followed, the protection imi-
plicit in the officer or the functionary whose conduct
is challenged, the balanee of hurt complained ef and
good accomplished—these are some of the considera
tions that must enter into the judicial judgment.”
It is appropriate to compare ‘the balance.of hurt com- °
plained of and good accomplished’? as a result of the Ad-
ministrator’s determination here. On the one band, in-
. dividual pilots have lost their Airliné Transport Pilot
Rating Certificates and the right to continue in the prac-
_ tice of their profession without any notice or hearing af-
forded. to them. Othe nirman certificates which they
possess have been substantia'ly limited.
Upon an examination of the **good accomplished’’ by
the Administrator’s action, which denies these airmen an.
opportunity to be heard, there appears in the instant case
u0 consideration of foreign policy such*as was held to
justify the denial of hearings to an applicant for a certifi-
cate of convenience and necessity in the case of Chicago
and Southern Airlines, Inc. y. Waterman Steamship Corp.,
333 UTS. 103 (1948). Nor are there émergency wartime:
conditions: such as were held to justify the denial of hear-’
ings to a landlord -prior to the a of a price regula-
tion in Bowles v Ww dlingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).
But the Administrator argues that the action taken
‘against the pilots who were over age 60 was necessary to
‘preserve safety in air carrier operations and to prev ent
an alleged hazard resulting from the possibility of suddén
incapacitation of pilots in air-carrier operations.
The decision of this Court in the- Joint Anti-Fadscist
Committee case, supra, however, teaches that the ivailable
alternatives to the procedure that was followed bear sig-
hificantly upon the meaning of due process in particular
situations. Somé of the available alternatives to the Ad-
Ministrator’s action which, would have provided affected
pilots with an opportunity to be heard were:
1. The Administrator could have condueted more fre.
quent and intensive examinations of ‘the praficieney. and
vhysica] condition of pilots who were over 60. Intensive
sgini-a annual examination of the phy sicial condition and
oo of all Pilots in air carrier operations are now
uired. See 14 C. F. R. §§ 40.302tD), 41.53."
2. The Administrator could have refused to renew the
medical certificate of pilots over age-60.
3. The Administrator could have removed pilots the
were over 60 from flight auty under Section 609 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act.
Surely the Administrator could have used one. of these
methods, or another method that gave the forty pilots
affected by his action. an opportunity to be heard’ before.
their right to practice their profession was terminated.
Moreover, if the Administrator. believed that an emer-
gency existed, he could have invoked the emergency powers
granted to him by { 609 of the Federal Ayiation Act. Sce
49 U.S. C. $1429; Getiuorn: ann Bysk, “ADMINISTRATIVE
Law, Cases anp Comments, 774-75 (1954).
Ignoring his emergency powers -nder the statut?, the
Administrator chose instead to act inja manner that Was
“both unconstitutional and unauthorized, ‘and that-permitted
months to pass. before his.action became effectiv e.
The substantia] and irreparable injury which has been
occasioned to the pilots who were 60 years old on the effee-
tive date of the Administrator’s action could have been
avoided without endangering public safety in any respect.-
The Administrator's choice of available alternatives is
therefore a significant factor in arriving at the meaning of
due process under the circumstances of this case. The
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that >
each individual affected by the Administrator’s actior be
accorded notice and the opportunity to be heard in gGefeuse
of his job and his lieénse. See, ¢.9., Joint Anti-Fascisi
Refugee Committce vo McGrath, 3841-U. S. 123 (A901):
Greene Vv. Meck lroy, 300-0. S. 474 (19 | In re Carter, 1¢7
F.2d fo (D.C. Cir..1949) 5 vi. 1a2 F.2d 35 (D.C! 1951);
Parker v. Lester, 112 °F. Supp. 433, (D. C. Cal. 1953), aff'd
227 F. 2d 708 (9th Cir. 1955); Civil Aeronautics Board v.
American Air Transport, 201 Kk. 2d 189-(D. ©. Cir. 1992 );
certificate dismissed, 244 U.S. 4 (1952).
Considerations of substantial and irreparable injury te
the licensee placed to one side, there are many other disad-
vantages which accrue from summary revocation of a
license. Primarily, however honest the Administrator's
intentions may be, his action thay be misguided. It is not
infrequent that the licensing authority itself is disposed
to alter its initial determinations on the basis o ey vide nce
-presented by a licensee at a hearing.
Furthermore, summary revocation forces -individuals
dissatisfied with the action of the licensing officials to
utilize judicial procedure. - Such judfeial proceediigs
involve, in most cases, an inquiry into matters which might
initially have been considered by the administrative officials
themselv es if. an administratiy e hearing had been held.
It is for these reasons, tufer alia, that the Courts have:
shaped the concept of due process into one which requires
a hearing-to precede administrative. action that’ ‘effects |
license revovation or property destruction, See Civil te ros.
nautics Board v, American Air Tiausport. 201 F. 2d 189
(D. C. Cir. 1952), certificate dismissed; 344 UL S. 4 (1952) +
Philadelphia Co. v. SEC, 175 F. 2d SOS (D.C. Cir. 1948),
vacated and dismissed as movt..337 U.S. 901 (1949) ;
‘and see Administrative Procedure Act, »S2(d), 2le). 5,
F,gnd 8,5 U.S.C. && 1001/d),- 1001 (©), 10042 1006. and
1007, “Gof
It is Tespect fuay submitted that the constititional ques.
tion presented herein strongly merits the consideration of
this Court.
34
4. This case Slso presents an important question ‘con.
cerning the inferpretation’ and application of the Du
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the ( onstitution
when administrative action is challenged | as arbitrary and
unreasonable.
The Court below stated that to sustain such a challenge
it must be shown that the administrative agency had no
reasonable basis for the exercise of its judgment; and cite
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, 344
U.S. 298, 314 (1953).; Norman v. Baltimore & Oltio Railioad.
294 U.S. 240 (1935) (App. B, p. 74a).
The instant case is one in which petitioner has shown
that the Administrator’s action was without a reasonabl:
basis. It is respectfull; submitted that if the power of
the Court to overturn arbitrary administrative action is te
_ be given any. effect, it should be exercised in this case.
According to an affidavit of General Quesada, he based
his age -60 action on the following :
“A review of the available studies on ‘the subject
. of the effect of aging by the medical staff of the FAA
reveal that there is progressive deteriovation ot
certain physiological and psychological functions with
age and that sudden incapacitation due to such
diseases as heart attack and stroke become more.
freqyent with advancing years * * *. Moreover the
sum of these studies led us to the conclusion that.
unfortunately, medical science at the present tim
does ‘not have any means of detetmining the
physiologic age of: any specifie individual, ner |
there any reliable. method of predicting accurately
the occurrence of sydden ineapacitation due to heart
attacks or strokes. This was illustrated signifieant!y
by a st udy of one large industrial group of employers
under close medical supervision over an extended
period... This study, which was. amplified by «i+
cussions between physicians of this large industrial
group and members of my medical staff, showed that
approximately 85°~ of the perwots w ho had a heart
attack for the first time, had the-attack within six
months to a year after a therongh medical ex-
amination in which the individual had been found
to he in weendition normal to his age and without
any evidence. bs iggest the imminenee of such an
attack."* (.App.~256a)
Having conclided that: generally, as people grow older
they are subject to mere ils of the bedy than when they
ure younker the Administratoy turned his attention to
“the problem * * * [of] what maximum age limitation
would proyide 7a reasonable standard and wonld at the
same time ‘give full consideration to the duty resting npow
air carriers to perform their serviees with the aren
possible’ degree of safety in the spubli interest."° * ° °°
(App. 257a)
To solve shin problens the Administrator usec’ statistics
showing the mortality rate. from heart disease and the
incidence: of death from strokes, in all white males in the
United States’ (App. 257a-258a). All the statisties relied
upon by the Administrator were based on samples that cy
sisted of people whe were ‘in a condition normal to * * *
(their) age” (App. Fla, Joba, 2Zora-Josa). °
But this sample does not have any relevance to the
airmen affected hy the Administrator’: action that .i< chal
ienged herein. In crder to pilot aireraft in air commerce
a pilot must have an Airline Transpert Pilot) Rating
See 14C. FL R. 6 41.481a). To secure such a rating a pilot
must ‘‘meet the physical standards of the first class pre-
scribed in Part 29 of this Subchapter.’ 14.0. FOR. 6 20.14.
These physical standards vo not make any allowanee fer
the ‘‘condition normal’’ to the age of the pilot. They are
fixed: standayds of evesight, hearing, general physieal con-
dition, blowd pre sstire, ere nlatory efficiency, anal the nery-
ous system. For example, the physical standards, of the
first class for airmen eoguate s:
36
“*(e) General physical condition. (1) Applicant
shall have no organic or functional disease or struc:
tural defect or limitation which would be likely to J
render him unable to safely perform the duties and
exercise the privileges of the grade of airman cer-
" tificate held or sought.
(2) Unless the adjusted maximum readings ap-
ply, applicant’s reclining blood pressure shall not ex-'
ceed the maximum readings for his age group, as
indicated in the table’ in this subparagraph. The .
adjusted maximum readings shall apply to any ap-
plicant, age 30 years or more, whose reclining blood
pressure exceeds the maximum readings for his age
group-and whose cardiac and kidney conditions, after
complete cardiovascular examination, are shown to
be normal. , ;
Maximum readings Adjusted maximum
(reclining blood (reclining blood
; pressure in mm. ) pressure in mm.)
Age group Systolic Diastolic Systolic —Piastolic
.. Seerere * 140 8S —- --
can ks eh 145 OD 155. GS
SE RNa re oees 155 96 165 100
oO and over ... 160 98 170 100
_ ‘*(3) Applicants 40 years of age or over shall
demonstrate a degree of circulatory efficiency com-
patible with the safe operation of aircraft at high
altitudes.”” 14 C. F. R. ¢ 29.2.
The pilot engaged in air carrier operations is examined
every six months to determine whether he- meets these |
fixed physical standards (14 C. F. R. 6 21.40(b)). It is there:
fore clear that a sample based on all white males in the
United States and on persons ‘‘found to be in a condition
normal to * * * (their) age’? is an arbitrary and’ unrea-_
sonable sample by which to set s andards for pilots of |
aireraft in air commerce. In add. ion to meeting fixed |
physical standards, such pilots undergo /proticiency tests
es
37
every Six months. See 14 CC. Fe R. $$ 40.302(b), 40.153.
And the Administrator has the statutory power to re-
examine any airman at any time he sees fit, 49 U.S.C.
— §:1429.
Here the Administrator admits that accident reports
do not provide any significant data on the effects of age as
a.causai factor of accidents (App:,255a).. Thus, no rela-
tionship has been-established between pilot ave and hazards
to safety ih air transportation.
As was pointed out in Joint ctnti-Fascist) Com-
mittve v. McGrath, 841 U.S. 123, 163 (1951), “the available
aliernatives to the procedure that. was followed** should be
considered in: determining whether administrative action
violates due process. As has been shown above, pages 31-32,
the available alternatives to the Admitistrator’s action in
barring all pilots above the age of 60 from practicing their
profession iu air commerce would have satisfied all safety
needs. Indeed, the feasibility of the use of these available
alternatives is indicated by the following recent newspaper
. report:
is ‘“U. &. Mar Ler Prrots Fit Arren Ack or 60
a to The New York Times
‘Las ANGELES, May 2—
Projects being conducted by the Federal Aviation
Agency's Bureau of Aviation Medi¢ine may permit
commercial airline pilots to fly after they reach 60
years.of age and may also make electrocardiograms
mandatory for all civilian pilots at eS intervals.
This was ‘disclosed yesterday * Dr. Krank K.
Raymond of Los Angeles, the e. ney *s Western re-
vional flight s Irgeon, in an interview at the opening
of a three-day. seminar for seventy aviation, medical,
examiners at ihe Biltmore Hotel.
‘Commercial pilots of 60 often have tde bodily
capabilities of men of 40, while some men of 40 age
38
. faster and are in the same physical category of the
normal man of 60,’ Dr. Raymond said.
) Studies of new medical standards for testing
. pilots, he said, may permit a man of 60'to cSntinue
flying, and disqualify some men in their forties be-
cause of premature aging.
Dr. Raymond said he favors annual or bi-annual
electrocardiogram heart examinations for all classes
of civilian pilots.’’ *See New York Times, May 3,
_ 1961, p. 75, col. 2. |
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Adminis-
trator’s action herein was without any reasonable basis
and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully urged
that this Court issue its writ of certiorart to review the
decision below.
Samveu J. Cowen,
Counsel for Petitioners,
Office and P. O. Address,
50 East 42nd Street,
New York 17, New York.
Henry WEIss,
BenJAMIN M. SHIEBER,
Hersert A. Levy,
of Counsel.
be
39
Supplement A=-1
*P. D. C.—Physical Disability Case.
*s* . . e ee . oe: . : ‘ .
cert. den. denotes denial, amendment, modification, revocation or suspension of airman certificate.
a Case No } : ! Was Opportunity
and/or Date of Type of Administrator's Examiner's CAB for Administrative = Was Waiver
Name Docket No __Order__ Physical Defect . Action Recommendations Action __ Hearing Granted? Granted?
Hooks _ 214 7/21/39 arm and leg amputee cert. den.** affirmed attirmed yes no
Kemper * 209 7/21/39 one eye blind cert. den. aff rmed attirmed yes no
Shields 210 7/21/39 leg amputee cert. den. reversed affirmed ves yes
‘Swank 213 7/21/39 leg amputee cert. den. affirmed \ affirmed yes no
Rinehart | 212 8/18/39. defective vision cert. den. affirmed \ affirmed yes no
Germain 208 8/25/39 leg amputee | cert. den. reversed \aftirmed yes ves
Wardlow 211 9/26/39 arm amputee - cert. den. affirme’| aftirmed ves no
Shreve . 240 10/20/39 leg amputee cert. den. reverse! aftirmed yes yes
Vautrin 304 10/20/39 defective: vision cert. den. reversed affirmed yes yes
Ricci - 239 ; 10/24/39 arm amputee cert. den. ' affirmed affirmed yes no
Schulenberger 241 10/24/39 atrophy of leg cert. den. affirmed ‘aftirmed yes no
Swanson 218 ‘ 12/5/39 leg amputee cert. den. reversed affirmed ves * yes
iseli SR-40 6/14/40 epilepsy rert. den. affirmed affirmed yes no "
Berrien SR-64 8/21/41 — defective vision cert. den. affirmed . affirmed, yes no *
London SR-167 1/6/42 defective vision _ cert. den. reversed reversed yes no
roc SR-435 . 10/ 16/4 epilepsy cert. den. affirmed affirmed yes no
ro G. SR-438 1/8/43 diabetes cert. den. “reversed reversed yes no
P. D.C. - SR-538 5/28/43 diabetes cert. den. affirmed , -affirmed yes no
E. C. MacDonough SR-589 9/22/43 defective vision cert. den. reversed affirmed yes yes
FAM. Flick | ~ SR-616 5/3/44 defective vision ~cert. den. —— reversed ves ‘Administrator's.
: : plaint dismissed:
C. H. Hicks SR-821 5/29/44 . drug addiction cert. den. —— affirmed ves no |
Malcolm Riess SR-881 6/12/44 defective vision cert. den. —_— - affirmed yes no
NW. N. Murrah SR-806 7/7/44 defective hearing cert. den. ‘affirmed reversed yes yes
K. K. Noble SR-870 7/ 19/44 ear disease cert. den. ahin affirmed , yes no: ———
Fr. oC. ord. #3192 10/10/44 hypertension cert.. den. —— affirmed yes no
and sinus '
. Supplement A-2
40
disease .
Case No ; Was Opportunity
and/or Date of Typeof . Administrator's Examiner's | CAB for Administrative Was Waiver
Name | Docket No Order Physical Defect Action Recommendations Action Hearing Granted? Granted?
Pr. AS not numbered 1/12/45 colostomy cert. den. affirmed affirmed yes no
?. oC ord. #3652" 5/8/45 . ear disease cert. den, reversed affirmed yes yes
r AG ord. #3689 5/18/45, “nervousness cert. den. affirmed reversed yes yes
P.D.C ord. #3702 5/22/45 coronary cert. den. affirmed affirmed yes no
P. DC. ord. #3717 5/29/45 purpora hemorrhagica cert. den. reversed ~ affirmed yes yes
RBs: ord. #3753 6/15/45 duodenal ulcer * cert. den. _reversed affirmed yes ' yes
P. B.C. * ord. #3752 6/15/45 epilepsy cert. den. affirmed ‘affirmed yes no
P. D. ord. $3777 6/27/45 - asthma cert. den. “reversed _ affirmed yes yes
P. B-C. ord. #3804 7/3/45 diabetes cert. den. —— reversed yes yes
PrP. BC. ord. #3816 7/6/45 defective vision _ ' cert. den. — reversed yes yes
P. D.C. ord. #3846 7/17/45 ~—-quiescent tuberculosis cert. den. eto reversed yes ves
P. D..€. ord #3850 7 /20/45 former seizures and _ cert. den. — reversed yes yes
; unconsciousness ;
P. D. C. ord. #3911. 8/3/45 high blood pressure cert. den. tins reversed " yes yes
P. D.C. ord. #3912 8/2/45, asthma _ cert. den. — reversed yes yes
gS ord.. #3929 - 8/8/45 scoliosis, collapsed cert. den. —- reversed yes yes
| lung, et al. : '
ae a ord. #4012 8/31/45 ear disease cert. den. — reversed yes yes
PDC ord. #4046 9/18/45 osteomyelitis cert. den. — reversed yes yes”
P.D.C. ord. #4300 12/11/45 Intraventricular cert. den. — reversed . yes yes
os , 7 sceptum
PDC. . ord. #4691 4/24/46 chronic mastoiditic cert. den. ne reversed yes yes
I. E. Swain ord. #4903 6/19/46 convulsive seizures cert. den. —— affirmed yes no
W. H. Dickerson ord. #4954 7/9/46 | influence of s*:lfa cert. den. nee reversed yes Administrator's
: drugs complaint dismissed
?. S-173 8/13/48 diabetes cert. den. reversed reversed ‘yes no |
P. D.C. S-178 10/6/48 " personality cert. den. reversed reversed - yes no
’ . abnormality ot .
P. D. C. $-213 1/24/49 — myasthenia gravis . cert. den. affirmed affirmed yes no
P. D.C. S-250 ‘6/28/49 diabetes cert. den. affirmed reversed yes yes
P. D. C. S-252 7/8/49 mental & nervous | cert. den. affirmed affirmed , yes — no
Name
P. D. G.
Po Sh
E. J. Huxtable, Jr
J. D. Lindsay
C. W. Langille
D. W. Miller
W. H. Hirschaut
M. G. Grigsby
J. H. Greene
G. F. Hall
at on™
Bee
P. D.-C.
Erwin J. Ring
Harry F. Schaett!
‘James M. Cowart .
Isiah R. Salliday
Ross Briegleb
C. L. Pangborn
1. Fallack
(. J. Oryehowski
Walter Steiges
Merrill Ericson
eee ee ee ee ee
Supplement A-~3
41
and/or Date of Type of
Name Docket No Order Physical Defect
P. D. C. $-253 7/12/49 mental incompetence
P. D. C. S-254 7/15/49 ductus arteriousus
E. J. Huxtable, fr. S-291 11/14/49 psychosis
J. D. Lindsay ~ S-314 2/20/50 asthma ana hayfever
C. W. Langille $-319 3/13/50 systolic heart
murmer
D. W. Miller . S-357 8/1/50 seizures
W. H. Hirschaut S-369 10/2/50 heart disease
M. G.. Grigsby . S$-381 10/31/50 ~ abnormality of
lity
1 H. Greene S-399 3/23/51 thromboangitis
obliterans
G. F. Hall S-419 6/6/51 mental disease
P.D.C. S-453 10/11/31 diabetes:
P. D.C. S-475 3/5/52 menial disease
PD. C. S-476 3/5/52 mental disease
Erwin |. Ring $-632 8/3/34 ‘diabetes
Harry F. Schaettle S-656 1217/54 healed myocard inf.
. James M. Cowart S-659 12/21/54 mental
Isiah R. Salliday $-729 4/2/36 onary arterio-
sclerosis
Ross Rriegleb S-730 46°56 age 17
C. L. Pangborn S-731 4+ 13/56 healed heart canditie
R. L. Fallack S-740 5/28/56 age 16
C. |. Orvyehowski S-733 8336 heart disease
Walter Steiges S-791 3/21/37 poor eyesight
Merrill Ericson S-807 6/6/57 —_~ diabetes
Administrator's Examiner's
__ Action Recommendations
cert. den afhirmea
cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. reversed
cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. reversed
| cert. den. affirmed
ceri. den. affirmed
_cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. reversed |
cert. den. affirmed -
cert. den. , reversed
cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. reversed
cert. den. ‘ affirmed
cert. den reversed
cert. den affirmed
cert. den. —
cert. den. affirmed
cert. den. —
cert. den. affirmed:
Administrator affirmed
refused :
waiver
cert. den. " affirmed
(limited cert.
granted )
affirmed
reversed
affirmed
aflirmed
attirmed
affirmed
affirmed
affirmed
remanded
affirined
reversed
affirmed
reversed
afhrmed
affirmed
affirmed
afirmed
reversed
rev sed
affirmed
reversed
rever-ed
attir med
Was Opportunity
for Administrative Was Waiver
Hearing Gtanted? Granted”
yes no
yes yes
yes no
yes yes
ves no
yes Administrator's
complaint dismissed
>
yes. no
yes no
ves —_—-
yes yes
yes yes j
ves \dmimistrater . com-
plaint distaissed
Ves yes
— + yes
yes ms
ves ¥es
Ves Th
Ves cs
yes e Ves
Ves ne
ves ves
ves ves
yes yes
' Supplement A—4_
42
3
Case No ‘. ‘ ere : ; . Was Opportunity
and/or Date of Type of Administrator’s Examiner's CAB ~. for Administrative ©§ Was Waiver -
_ Name Docket No Order Physical Defeet Action Recommendations Action Hearing Granted? Granted?
James M. Cowart ‘S-827 9/9/57 * ‘mental | cert. den. —— remanded yes meme,
Frank W. Casey S-828 9/9/57 schizophrenia cert. den. _ remanded yes - ——
Herman Schram S-843 11/15/57 — manic depressive cert. den. reversed remanded yes. ——
‘ ; psychotic, — | , : .
John Doe S-846 12/11/57 mental cert. den. affirmed affirmed ——yess no
Denford D. Finke S-864 . 4/1/58 age 16 cert. den. — affirmed * yes no
J. K. Bates, ét al. 21 tdses S-866 4/10/58 = —— _-cert. den. pao remanded yes ee
Russel H. Paschke 5S-894 "7/2/58 _ mental _ cert. den. - reversed affirmed “yes yes”
LouisL.Armold.. S898 _ ‘7/9/38 mental cert. den. reversed _ affirmed yes ves
J. ¥. Bates, et al. © 21 cases S-901 7/17/58 diabetes’ and heart Administrator's petition for stay of CAB remand denied.
Wm. R. Bernurd —S--921 9/18/58 . age 16 cert. den. affirmed yes no
Anthony T. Milazzo S-931 10/24/58 deaf mute * cert. den. _— reversed - yes yes
Fred A. Pharis S-938 11/17/58 age 14 cert. den. affirmed yes no .
. Frank W. Casey S-939 12/4/58 mental Request to reopen by Casey and Administrator after cert. den. Poard asks
for written reasons.
Lyn B. Haggins S-946 12/30/58 diabetes © cert. den. reversed affirmed yes yes
Eugene J. M. Lunch 5-947 12/30/58 diabetes cert. den. reversed affirmed _ yes . yes .
Cecil C: Curtis . S-948 12/30/58 diabetes cert. den. reyersed affirmed yes yes
Billy N. Gray . S-949 12/30/88 myocardial infarction — cert. den. reversed” affirmed yes yes
Isidore H.- S-950 12/30/58 ; myocardial infarction cert. den. reversed affirmed yes yes
- Langenderfer. é; Fy
Oren J. Casey S-953 12/30/58 diabetes cert. den. reversed affii med yes yes
Albert H. Stronstoiff S-951 12/2/59 . myocardial infarction cert. den. affirmed reversed yes ves
Stanley J. Portman S-967 3/3/59 diabetes . cert. den, reversed _ affirmed . yes ves
Eugene M. Quimby S-968 3/3/59 diabetes cert. den. . reversed affirmed yes yes
Frank W. Casey S-980 4/24/59 Schizophrenia | cert. den. | affirmed affirmed yes yes
(limited vert. .
. _ granted)
Jas. R. Whitman, Jr. S-985 5/11/59, diabetes cert. den. reversed affirmed yes ves
Frederick K. Ake = S-988 5/15/59 diabetes cert. den. reversed affirmed yes yes
Henry H. Cre dian 6/8/59 diabetes cert. den. reversed reversed no
as : a By
Supplement A-5- eter te nes a
‘ CaseNo. : ues f° ‘Hearing Granted? .
ras and/or Date of Type of - Administrator's Examiner's - CAB Was Opportunity Was Waiver
Name Docket No. __. Order __ Physical Defect Action Recommendations _ Action for Administrative Granted?
JK. Bates $-997. 6/19759 “heart disease cert. den. reversed ~~ affirmed yes "yes ‘
Daniel H: H. Casebeer S-999 ” | 6/23/59 . heart disease cert. den. affirmed afferned ves no
Marshal D. S-1003 6/24/59 diabetes cert. den. reversed a affirmed . yes yes
Hendrickson oy rae,
Jas. R. Whitman, Jr. S-1015 | 8/26/59 diabetes .) cert. den. — _ afhrmed . yes - no ,
George F. Baker ~ §-1024 11/18/59 Effective October 15, 1959, the Administrator amended Part 295 ‘by modifying the revulations to
Ernestine Bienman S-1024 t1/18/59 provide that a medical history or a clinival diagnosis of certain specified diseases oF. E conditi ms (diabetes,
Owen L, Butler S-1024 | 11/18/59 myocardiai, infarction, coronary Leart disease) shall be disqualifying for airman medica! ¢er ‘icates
- 7 ne visiovas fn of any type. Subjects in case #S-1024 all were denied certificates by the Xdministrator prior to
A. C. Holder S-1024 11/18/59 | : 5 ae ; Z ‘. ere
Wm. W. em Ir. 5-1024 1118/59 October 15, 1959 because ofa mania: history or clinical diagnosis of one of the three specitied maladies.
Silas R. Langlois‘ S-1024 - 11/18/39 _ The Civil Aeronautics Board Examiner granted a limited certificate to all of these individuals, in
Ralph B. Muse S-1024 _ 11/18/59 © accordance with the regulations in effect prior to October 15, 1959. The Administrator appealed to
"Ralph C. Parker S-1024 11/18/39 the Board from-the decision of the Examine¢ granting said limited certificates. and the Tteard. on ©
_ H.S. Seabrook S-1024 — 11/18/59 November 18, ‘1959, remanded these. cases tu the Examiner for reconsideration in the light of the
. Robert E. Tramp S-1024 11/18/59 amendments to Part 29. No final decision had been rendered at the time this study was prepared.
Ps)
la
Appendix A
JNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT V
Ne person shall be held to answer ‘for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a pres*ntment or in-
dictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to-be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
. - z 7
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT *
66 Stat. 237 et seg.; 5 U.S. C. 1001 ef seg.
Sec. 2. (c) Rute anp RULE MAKING.—‘‘Rule’’ means
the whole or any part of any agency statement of general
cr particular applicability and future effect designed to
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or poliey or to
describe the organization, procedure, or practice require-
ments of any agency and includes the approval or preserip-
tion for the future of rates, wages, corporate or financial
structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities,
appliances, services or allowances therefor or of valua-
tions, costs, or accounting, or practices: bearing upon any,
of the foregoing. ‘‘Rule making’’. means agency process
for the formulatton, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
(d)-OrpER AND absupIcaTIoN.—‘‘Order’’ means the
whole or any part of the final disposition (whether aff au
tive, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form) of any
agency in any matter other than rule making but including
licensing. -‘‘ Adjudication’? means agency process for the
formulation of an order. ; ;
(e) Licexst axp Licenstne.—**License’* includes the
whole or part of any agency -permit. certificate, approval.
* As of February 15, 1959.
2a 2
eee ‘Appendix A
registration, charter, riacmbership, statutory exemption or
other fora of permission. | ‘‘Licensing’’ includes agency
process. respecting the grant, renewal, denial, revocation,
suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation amendment,
modification, or ‘conditioning of a license.. |
(f) Saycrion’ anp ReLIEF.—‘‘Sanction’”’ includes the
whole or part of any agency (1) prohibition, requirement,
limitation, or other cofdition affecting the freedom of any. -
person; (2) withholding of relief; (3) imposition of any
form of penalty or fine; (4) destryetion, taking, seizure, or
withholding of property; (5) assessment of damages,
reimbursement, restitution; compensation, . costs, charges,
or fees; (6) requirement, revocation, or suspension ofa
license; or. (7) taking “of other compulsory or restrictive
action. ‘*Relief’’ includes the whole or part of any agency
(1) grant of money, assistance, license, authority, exemp-
’ tion, exception, privilege, or remedy ; (2) recognition of any.
cleim, right, immunity, privilege, exemption, or exception;
or (3) taking of any other action upon the application or
Petition of, and beneficial to, any person. er
(g) Acency PROCEEDING AND AcTIon.—*‘ Ageney proceed.
ing’? means any agency process-as defined «in subsections
(ce), (d), and (e) of this section. ‘Agency action”’ includes -
the whole or part of every agency rule, order, license, sanc-
tion, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure
to act. ia ote
‘Rete Makixe is
Sec. 4. {60 Stat, 238; 5 U.S. C. 1003] Except to the
extent that there is involved, (1) any military, naval. or
foreign affairs function of the United States or (2) any
matter relating to agency management or personnel or to
public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contract-—
(a) Notice.—General notice of proposed rule making
shall be publislied in the Federal Register (unless all per-
sons subject thereto are named and either personally served
or “otherwise have’ actual notice thereof in accordance
3a : e- y @
Appendix A
with law\ and shall include (1) a statement of the time,
place, aes nature of public rule making proceedings; -(2)
reference \to the authority under which the rule is pro-
posed ; and (3) either the terms or substance of the pro-
posed rulé or a description of the subjects and issues
involved. Except where notice or hearing is required by
statute; this subsection shall not apply to interpretative
rules, general statements of Policy, rules of ageney organi-
. zation, procedure, or practice, or in any situation in which”
the agency for good cause. finds (and incorporates *the
finding and a brief statement -of the reasops therefor in
the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon
are impractieable, unnecessary, or contrary to. the public
interest. mks | a
(b) Procepures.—After notice required by this section,
the agency shall afford interested persons an opportunity
to. participate in the rule making through submission of
Written data, views,’ or arguments with or without oppor-
tunity to present the same ora}ly in any. manner; and,
after consideration of alf relevant ‘matter presented, the
agency shall incorporate in any rules adopted a concise
General statement of their basis and pu@pose. Where
rules are required by statute to be made on the record ‘after.
opportunity for an agericy hearing, the requirements of
Sections 7 ard8 shall apply in plage of the provisions of
this subsection. Oe oe é
(ce) Errective DaTEs.“The required publication or
Service of any substantive rule (other than one granting or
recognizing exemjition or relieving restriction or inter-
pretative rules gid. statements of policy) shall be-made not
less than thirty days prior to the effective date thereof
except as otherwise provided by the agency upon good
cause found and published with the rule.
(d) Petirions.—Every agency. shall accord any inter-
ested person the right to petition for the issuance, amend--
ment, or repeal of a rule. | )
t ta
Appendix A
ADJUDICATION ; :
Sec. 5. [60 Stat. 239; 5 U. 8. C. 1004] In every case
of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the
record after opportunity for an agency. hearing, except to
the extent that there is involved (1) any matter subject to
a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo in any
court; (2) the selection or tenure of ani officer or employee
- of the United States other than examiners appointed pur-
suant to section 11;,(3) proceedings in’ which decisions rest
solely on inspections, tests, or elections ; (4) the condvet of
military, naval, or foreign affairs functions; (5) cases in
which an agency is acting as an ‘agent for a court; and {6)
the certification of ‘employee representatives—
(a) Notice.—Persons entitled to notice of an agency
‘hearing shall be timely informed of (1) the time, place and
nature thereof ;.(2) the legal authority and jurisdiction un.
der which the hffring is to be held, and ( 3) the matters of
fact and law asserted. In instances in which private per-
sons are the moving parties, other parties to the proceeding _
shall give prompt notice of issues controverted in fact or
law; and in other instances agencies may by rule require
responsive pleading. In fixing the times and, places for
hearings, due regard shall be had for the convenience and
necessity of the parties or their representatives.
(b) Procepure.—The agency shall afford all interested
parties opportunity for (1) the subffijssion and ¢onsidera-
* tion of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals
“of adjustment Where time, the nature of the ‘proceeding,
and the public interest permit, and (2) -to the extent that
the parties are unable so to determine any controversy, by
consent, hearing, and decision upon notice and in confermity -
with sections 7 and 8. - ee oe ee
‘(e) SEPARATION oF Functions.—The same officers who
preside at the reception of evidence pursuant to section 7
shall make the recommended decision or initial decision
. required by section 8 except where such officers become un-
ae
-
da oe
"Appendix A
available to the agency. Save té thie extent required Nor
the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized ‘by Jaw,
_ no such officer shall consult any person or party on any fact
in issue unless upon notice.and opportunity for all parties
to participate; nor shall such officer’ be responsible to or
subject to the supervision or-direction of any officer, em- —
ployee, or agent engaged in the performance of investigative
or prosecuting functioys for any agengy. No officer, em-
ployee, or agent engaged in the performance of investiga-
tive or prosecuting functions for -any agency in any ease
shall, in that or a factually related case, participate’ or
advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency
review pursuant to section 8 except as witness. or cuunsel
in public proceedings. . This subsection shall not apply in
determining applications for initial licenses or to proceed-
ings involving the validity or application of rates, facili-
ties, or practices of public utilities or carriers; nor shall it
_be applicable in any manner to the agency or any member
or. members of the body comprising the agency.
(d) Dectaratory Orpers.—The agency is authorizedgin
‘its sound discretion, with like effect as in the case of other
orders, to issue a declaratory order to terminate a con-
troversy or remove uncertainty.
: ‘ , 2 > a
Hearinos
ge *. [60 Stat. 241; 5 U. S. C. 1006) In hearings
which section + or 5 requires to be conducted pursuant to
| this section—
(a) Presmrxe Orricers.—There shall preside at the,
taking of evidence (1) the agency, (2) one or more members .
“oof the body which comprises the agency, or (3) one or more
_¢xaminers appointed as provided in this Act; but nothing”
in this Act shall be deemed to supersede the ecnduct of
specified classes of proceedings in whole or part by or
before boards or other offi¢ers specially provided for by or
a
®
6a oo —
Appendix A. °
designated pursuant to‘statute. The functions of all pre.
siding officers and of officers participating in decisions in
conformity with section 8 shall be. conducted in an im. -
partial manner. Any such officer may at any time with. —
draw if he deems himself disqualified ; and, upon the filing
‘n good faith of a’timely and’ sufficient affidavit of personal
vias or disqualification of any such officer, the agency shall
determine the matter as a part. of the record and decisior
in the case. j ek ere ,
(b) Hearine Powers.—Officers presiding at hearings
Shall-have authority, gubject to the published rules of the
agency.and within its powers, to (1) administer oaths and
affirmations, (2) issue subpoenas authorized by law, (3)
rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant evidence, (4)
take or cause depositions,to be taken whenever. the ends
of justice would be served thereby, (5) regulate the course
of the’ hearing, (6) hold conferences for the settlement or
‘simplification of the issues by consent of the parties, (7)
dispose of procedural requests or similar matters, (8) make
decisions or recommended decisions in conformity with
section 8, and (9) take any other action authorized by
agency rule consistent with this Act.
(c) Evience.—Except as statutes otherwise ,provide, 9
the proponent of a rule or order shall have the burden of
proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received,
but every agency shall as a matter of policy provide for
the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repeti-
tious evidence and no sanction shall be imposed or rule or’
order be issued except upon consideration of the whole ree-
ord or such portions thgreof as may*be cited by any party
and as supported by and in accordance with the reliable
probative, and substantial evidence. Every party shall
have the right to present his case or defense by oral or
documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to
conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a |
full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making’ or
fa
Appendix A
determining claims for money or benefits or applications
for initial licenses any agency may, where the interéat of
any party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures
- for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written
form. = |
(i) Recorv.—The transcript of testimony and exhibits,
‘gether with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, |
shall constitute the exclusive record for decision in accord-
-ance with section 8 and, upon payment of lawfully pre-
scribed costs, shall be made available to the parties. Where -
any agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the reeord, any party
shail on timely request be afforded an opportunity to show
the contrary. . | |
‘
* € 7
Sanctions AND Powers |
Sec. 9. [60 Stat. 242; 5 U.S. C.-1008] In the exercise
of any power.or authority— :
. (a) Iy Genenat,—No sanction shall be imposed or sub-
stantive rule or order be issued except within jurisdiction
- delegated to the agency and as authorized by law. =
_ (b) Licenses.-—In any tase in which application is made
for a license required by law and agency, with due regard
to the rights or privileges of all the interested parties or
adversely affected persons and with reasonable dispatch, .
shall set and complete any proceedings required to be con-
ducted pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of this Act or other pro-
_ Ceedings required by law and shall make its decision, Ex-
_ cept in eases of willfulness or those in which public health,
interest or safety requires otherwise, no withdrawal, sus-
Pension, revocation,-or annulment of any licensé shall be
“lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency ‘proceed-
ings therefor, facts or conduct which may warrant such
actions. shall have been called..to the attention of the li-
censee by the agency in writing and the licensee shall have
been accorded opportunity to demonstrate or achieve com-
Sa 4
pA ppendix a
pliance with all lawful réquirements. In any case in which
the licensee has, in accordance with: agency rules, made
timely and sufficient application ‘for a renewal or a new’
license, no license with réference to any activity of a cor-
tinuing nature shall expire until such application shall have
been finally determined by the ageney-—-
JupiciaL Review
Sec. ‘10 [60 Stat. 243; 5 U. S.C. 1009) Except se far
as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) agency ae-
tion is by law committed to ageney discretion—
‘(a) Rigut oF Review.—Any person’ suffering lega!
wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected
or aggrieved by such action within the meaning ofsany
relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.
(b) Form axp vENvE oF action.—The form of proceed-
ing for judicial review shall be any special statutory re-
view proceeding relevant to the ‘subject matter in any court
specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy there-
of, any applicable fotn of legal action (including actions
for declaratory judgménts or writs of prohibitory or man-
.datory injunction or hdbeas corpus) ‘in any court of- com-
petent jurisdiction. -Ageney actién shall be subject to ju- .
dicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial
enforcement except to the extent that prior, adequate, and
exclusive opportunity for such review is provided by law.
(c) REVIEW ABLE acts.—Every agency action made r-
viewable by statute and every final ageney action for which
there is né other adequate remedy in any court shall be sub-
ject to‘judicial review.. Any preliminary, procedural, or
_ intermediate agency action or ruling not -directly. review-
able shall be subject to review upon the review of the final
agency action. Except as: otherwise expressly required by
statute, agency action otherwise final shall be final for the
purposes of this subsection whether or not there has beet
presented or determined any application for a declaratory
order, for any form of. recorsideration, or (unless the
-
4
9a
> Appendix A
agency .otherwisé requires by rulé and provides that the
action meanwhile shall be inoperative) for an appeal to
“superior agency authority.
(d) INtTERm™ RELIEF.—Pending judicial review any °
agency is authorized, where it finds that justice so requires,
to postpone the effective date-of any action taken by it--—
Upon such conditions as may be required and to the extent
necessary to prevent irreparable injury, every reviewing
court (including every court to which a case may be taken
on appeal from or upon application for.certiorari or other
writ to a reviewing court) is authorized to issue all néces-
sary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date
of any agency action or to preserve status or rights pend-
ing conclusion of the review proceedings. .
(e) Scope or rEview.—So far as necessary to decision
and where presented the reviewing court shall decide ail
relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional ‘and stat-
utory provisions, and determine the meaning or applica-
bility of the terms of any agency action. It shall (A) com-
pel agency.action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably de-
layed; and (B) hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to he ( 1) arbitrary, capri-
cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in aecord-
ance with law’; (2) contrary to -onstitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity; (3) in exeess of statutory juris-
diction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory
right; (4) without observance of procedure required by
law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in any case
subject fo the requirements 6f "section 7 and & or other-
Wise reviewed on the record of an ageney hearing provided
by statute; or (6) unwarranted by the facts to the extent
that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing
court. In making the foregoing determinations the court
shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as
may be cited by any party, and due account shall he taken
- Of.the rule ef prejudicial error.
|
~ 10a
Ap pendix A
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958* |
72 Stat. 737 et seq.; 49 U.S. ©. 1301 et seq.
OTHER Powers axv Deties oF ADMINISTRATOR
1M. 8. f+. Gamepad
Sec, 313. [72 Stat: 752, 49 U. S- C. 1354] (a) The Ad-
ministrator is empowered to perform such acts, to condact
such investigations, to issue and amend such orders, and
to make and amend such general or special rules, regula-
tions, and procedures, pursuant ‘to and consistent with the
provisions of this Act, as he shall deem necessary to carry
out the provisi6ns of, and to éxercise and perform his pow-
ers and duties under, this Act... pt ee
&
* _»s.—¢—
~~ TITLE VI—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL.
‘ AERONAUTICS
Genera Sarety Powers anp Duties - .
Minimum Standards; Rules “and Regulations
Sec. 601. [72 Stat. 775, 49 U.S.C. 1421] (a) The Ad-
ministrator is empowered and it shall be his duty to pro.,
mote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing and revising: from time to time: fee
(1) Such minimum standards governing the design, ma: °
terials, workmanship, construction, and performance of
aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers as may be tfe-
quired in the interest of safety;
(2) Such minirium standards governing appliances as
may pe required in the interest of safety;
(3) Reasonable’ rules and regulations and minimum
standards governing, in’ the interest of safety, (A) the in-
spection,’ servicing, and overhaul of aircraft, aircraft en-
gines, propeHers, and appliances; (B) the equipment and
facilities for such inspection, servicing, and overhaul: and
* As of February 15, 1959. .
lla
Appendix A
(C) in the discretion of the Administrator, the periods for
and the manner in, which such inspection, servicing, and
overhaul shall be made,,including provision for examina-
.tions and reports by properly qualified private persons —
whose examinations or reports the Administrator may ac-
cept in lieu of those made by its officers and employees ;
(4) Reasonable rales and regulations governing the re-
serve supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, ap-
pliances, and aircraft fuel and oil, required in the interest
of safety, including the reserve supply of aircraft fuel
and oil which shall be carried in flight ;
(5) Reasonable rules and regulations governing, in-the
interest of safety, the maximum hours or periods of serv-
ice of airmen, and other employees, of air carriers; and
(6) Such reasonable rules and regulations, or Minimum
_ Standards, goverriing other practices, methods, and proce-
dure, as the Administrator may find necessary to protide
adequately for national security and safety in air ecommerce.
Needs of Service To Be Considered: Classifica
Standards, ete.
(by In preseribing standardsy,, rules, and regulations,
and in issuing certificates under this title, the Adminis-
trator shall give full consideration to the duty resting upon
air carriers to perform their services with the highest pos-
sible degree of safety in the public interest and to any dif-
ferences between air transportation ‘and other air com- .
merce; and he shall make classifications of such standards, |
rules, regulations, and certificates appropriate*to the dif-
ferences between air transportation and other air com-
tion of
merce. The Administrator may authorize any aireraft,.
_aireraft engine, propeller, or appliance, for which an air-
eraft certificate authorizing use thereof in air transporta-
—_€ e
: | SP. oi EE iN
oe ppe ndiz A
= ‘ , .
tion has been issued, to be used in other air coniinerce with.
F out the issuance of a further certificate. The Administra.
tor shall exercise and perform his powers and duties under
this Act in such manner as will best tend to reducé or elim.
‘inate the possibility of, ‘or Tecurrence of, accidents in air
transportation, but shall not deem himself required té vive
preference to either air transportation or other air COM:
merce in the administration and enforcement of this title.
2
S./ Exemptions’
a
a
‘(c) The Administrator;from time to time may grant ex-
emptions*from the requirements of any rule or regulation
prescribed under this title if he finds that such action would:
be in the public interest. . fet.
AIRMAN CERTIFICATES
Power to Issue Certificate
|. Sec. 602. [72 Stat. 776,49 USC, 1422] (a) The Admin-
istrator is empowered to issue airman certificates specity-
ing the capacity in Which the holders thereof ‘are author-
ized to serve as airmen in connection witlt aircraft.
: 7 Tssuance of Certificate ° :
(b) Any person may file with the Administrator an ap-
plication fer an airman certificate.” If the Administrator
finds, ‘after investigation, *that such PeETSON possesses
proper qualifications for, and is physically able to perform
the duties pertaining to, the position for which ‘the airman
certificate is sought, he shall issue such certificate, con-
taining such terms, conditions, and limitations as to dura-
tion thereof, periodic Or special examinations, tests of
physical fitness, and other matters as the Administrator
‘mnay determine to be nécessary to assure safety in air com-
“meree, Exeept in the ease of persons whose certificates
a
se
%
13a
-
s Appendix A 4
are, at the time of? denial, under order of SUspeision or
whose certHicates have been revoked within one year of the
date of sueh denial, any person whose application for the
issuance +» renewal of an airman certitieate is denied may
file with the Board a petition for review of the Adminis-
trator’ action. The Board shall thereupon assign such
petition for heating at-a place convenient to the appli-
cant’s plaee of residence o¢ employment. In the. conduet
oh such’ hearing and in determining whether the airman
meets the pertinent rules, regulations, ‘or standards, the
‘Board shall not be bound by findings ef fact of the Admin. -
istrator. At the conclusion of such hea ring, the Board shall
issue its decision as to whether the airman meets the per-
tinent rules, regulations, and standards and the Admin-
istrator shall be bound by such decision; Provided, That
the Administrator may, in his diseretion, prohibit or re-
‘trict the issuance of airman certificates to aliens, or may
make such issuance dependent on the terms of: reciprocal]
agreements entered into with foreien sovernments,
. Form and Recording of Certificate
(¢) Each certificate shall be numbered-and recorded by
the Administrator: shall state the name and address of,
and contain a description of. the person to whom the certifi-
cate is issued; and shall be entitled With the designation of
the class covered thereby. Certificates issued to all nilots
serving in-scheduled air transportation shall be designated
‘airline transport pilot’? of the proper Class. |
AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATES
Type Certificates : | 3
: ‘ < - ; : : ,
Sec. 603. [72 Stat. 776, 40 U.S. 0. 1425] (a)(1) The.
Administrator is empowered to issue tyzie certificates for
aireraft, aircraft engines, and propeliers: to specity in
l4a . , et
i A ppendie A
regulations the appliances for which the issuance of type
certificates is reasonably required in the interest of safety;
and to issue such certificates for appliances so specified.
(2). Any interested person may file with the Adminis.
trator an application for a type certificate for an aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance. specified in regu-
lations under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Upon re-
ceipt of an application, the Administrator shall make an
investigation thereof and may hold hearings thereon. The
Administrator shall make, or require the applicant to make,
such tests during manufacture and upon completion as the
Administrator deems reasonably necessary in the interest
of safety, including flight:tests and tests of raw materials
or any part or appurtenances of such ‘aircraft, aircraft
engine, prepeller, or appliance. If the Administrator finds
that such aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance
is of proper design, material, specification,. construction,
and performance for safe operation; and meets the mini-
mum standards, rules, and regulations prescribed by the
: Administrator, he shall issue a type certificate therefor.
: _ The Administrator may prescribe in any such certificate
the duration thereof and such other terms, conditions, and
_ limitations as are required in the interest of safety. The:
Administrator may record: upon any certificate issued for
aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers, a numerical deter- ©
mination of all of the essential factors, relative to the per-
‘formance of the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller for
which the certificate is banned
6
’
a ell
Production Certificate
(b) Upon application, and if it satisfactorily appears te
the Administrator that duplicates of any aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance for which‘a type certificate
has been issued. will conform to such certificate, the Ad-
ministrator shall issue a ‘production certificate authorizing
the production of duplicates of such aircraft, aircraft en-
a is
15a .
?
Appendix A
gines, propellers, or appliances. ‘The Administrator shall
make such inspection and may require such tests of any
aircraft, aircraft engine,. propeller, or appliance manutfac-
tured under a production certificate as may be necessary to
assure manufacture of each unit in eonformity with the -
type certificate or any amendment or modification thereof.
The Administrator may prescribe in any such production
certificate the duration thereof and such other terms, .con- | —
ditions, and limitations as are required in the interest of
safety.
Airworthiness ( ertificate
(c) The registered owner of. any aircraft may ‘file with
the Administrator an application for an airworthiness cer-
tificate for such aireraft. If the Administrator finds that
the aireraft conforms to the type certificate therefor, and,
after inspection, that the aircraft is in condition ‘for safe
operation, he shall issue an airworthiness certificate, The
Administrator may prescribe in such certificate the dura-
tion of such certificate, the type of service for which the
aircraft may be used, and such other terms, conditions, and |
limitations as are required in. the interest of safety. Each
such certificate shall be registered by the Administrator
and shall set forth such information as the Administr..tor
may deem advisable. The certificate number, er such other
individual designation ax may be required by the Adminis-
trator, shall be displayed upon each aireraft in accordance
with regulations _— by the Administrator.
Atm Carrrer emia CERTIFICATES
Power to Issue
Sec. 604. [72 Stat. 775, 49 U.S. C. F424) (a) The Ad-
‘ninistrator Is ahaconn to issue air carrier operating
certificates and to establish minimum safety standards for
‘the operation of the air carrier to whom any such certificate
vis issued.
16a
A ppendiz A
Issuance
_ (b) Any person desiring to operate as an air carrier
may file with the Administrator an application for an air
carrier operating certificate. If the Administrator finds, .
after investigation, that: such person is properly and ade.
quately equipped and able to conduct a safe operation in
-accordance with the requirements of this Act and the rules,
regu! ‘ations, andstandards prescribed thereunder, he shall
issue an air carrier operating certificate to such person.
Each air carrier operating certificate shall prescribe such
terms, conditions, and limitations as are reasonably neces-
sary to assure safety in air transportation, and. shall spe-
cify the points to and from which, and the Federal airways
over which, such person is authorized to operate as an air
raaniei under an air carrier oe certificate. ion
MAintTex ance OF Equirmet IN AIR TRANSPORTATION
Duty of Carriers and Airmen
Sec. 605. [72 Stat. 778, 49 U. S. C. 1425] (a) It shall be
the uty of each air carrier to make, or cause to be made,
such inspection, maintenance, overhaul, and«repair’ of all
- equipment used in air transportation as may be’ required
by this Act, or. the orders, rules, and regulations of the .
‘Administrator issued thereunder. And it shall be the duty
_ of every -person engaged in operating, inspecting, mait-
taining, or overhauling equipment to observe and comply
with the requirements of this Act relating thereto, and the -
. orders, rules, and regulations issued thereunder. |
Inspection
(b). The Administrator shall employ inspectors who
shall be charged with the duty (1) of making such inspec-
tions of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appl:
ances designed for use in air transportation, during manv-
facture, and while used by an air carrier in air transporta-
lla
Append ix A
tion, as may be necessary to enable the Administrator te
determin that such aircraft, aireraft engines, propellers, :
and appliances are in safe condition and are properly main-
tained for operation in air transportation ; and (2) of
advising and cooperating with each air carrier in the
inspection and‘ maintenance thereof by the air carrier,
Whenever any inspector shall, in the performance of his
duty, find that any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or
appliance, used or intended to be used by any air carrier
in aby transportation, is not in condition for safe operation,
he shall so‘notify the carrier, in such form and manner as
‘the Administrator may prescribe; and, for a period of five
days thereafter, such aircraft, aircraftsengine, propeller,
or appliance shall not be used in air transportation, or in
such manner as to endanger air transportation, unless found
by the Adwinistrator’ or his inspector to be in condition
for safe operation.
.
Aim NAvication Faci.ity RATING
Sec. 606. [72 Stat. 779, 49 U.S. C. 1426] The Adminis-
trator is empowered to inspect, classify, and rate any air
navigation facility availahle for the use 6f civil aircraft,
as to its suitability for such use. The Administrator is
empowered to issue a certificate for any such air naviga-
tion facility..
Air Acexcy Ratine
See. 607. [72 Stat. 779, 49 UL S.C. 1427) The Adminis-
trafor is empowered si oper for the examination and
rating of (1) civilian schools giving instruction in flying or -
in the repair, alteration, maintenance, and overhaul of air-
craft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, as to the
adequacy of the course of instruction, the suitability and
‘airworthiness of the equipment, and the competency of the
instructors; (2) repair stations or shgps for the repair,
alteration, maintenance, and overhaul of aircraft, aircraft
¢
18a.
Appendix A
engines, propellers, or appliances, as to the adequacy and
suitability of the equipment, facilities, and materials for, -
and methods of, repair, alteration, maintenance, and over-
haul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appli-
ances, and the competency of thez¢ engaged in the work or
giving any instruction therein; and (3) such other air agen-
cies as may, in his opinion, be necessary in the interest of
the publie.: The Administrator is empowered: to issue cer-
tificates for such schools, repair stations, and other agencies.
Fors or APPLICATIONS
. Sec. 608. [72 Stat. 779, 49 U. S. C. 1428] Applications
for certifieates under this title shall be in such form, con-
tain such infc ‘mation, and be filed and served in such man-
ner as the Administrator may prescribe, and shall be under’
oath whenever the Adminstrator so -requires.
AMENDMENT, Suspension, aND Revocation or Cratiricates
Sec. 609. [72 Stat. 779, 49 U. SC. 1429] The Adminis.
trator may, from time to time, reinspect any civil aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation facility,
or air agency, or may reexamine any civil airman. If, as
a result of any such reinspection or. reexamination, or if,.
as a result of any other investigation made by the Ad-
ministrator, he determines that safety in air‘commerce or
air transportation and the public interest requires, the
Administrator may issue an order amending, modifying,
suspending, or revoking, in whole or in part, any type
certificate; production certificate, airworthiness certificate,
airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air
navigation facility certificate, or air agency certificate.” .
Prior to amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any
of the foregoing certificates, the Administrator shall advise .
the holder thereof as to.any charges or other reasons relied _
upon by the Administrator for his proposed action and,
except in cases of emergency, shall provide the holder of
ce
19a, -
Appendix A ? -
such a certificate an opportunity to answer any:charges and
be heard as to why such certificate should not be amended,
‘modified, suspended, or, revoked. Any person whose certifi-
eate is aff@eted by such an order of the Administrator, under
this section may appeal the Administrator’s order to the
Board and the Board may, after notice and hearing, amend,.
modify, or reverse, the Administrator’s order if jt finds that
safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public
. interest do not. require affirmation of: the Administrator’s
order. In the conduct of its hearings the Board ‘shall not
_ be bound by findings of fact of the Administrator. The
filing of an appeal with the Board shall stay the effective-~
ness of the Administrator’s order unless the Administrator
advises the Board that an emergency exists and safety in
air commerce or air transportation requires the immediate
effectiveness of ‘his order, which event thé order shall .
remain effective and the er shall finally dispose af the
appeal within sixty days éafter being so advised by the
Administrator. The person, substantially affected by the
Board’s order ‘may obtain judicial review. of said order,
_ under the provisions of section 1006, and the Administrator
shall be made a ‘party to such proceedings.
PROHIBITIONS
Violations of Title
Sec. 610. [72 Stat. 780, 49 U. S. C. 1430] (a) It shall
be unlawful—
(1) For any person to operate in air commerce any
civil aireraft for which there is not currently in effect an
airworthiness certificate, or in violation of the terms of any
such certificate ; < %
(2) For any person 1 to serve in any capacity as an air- (—
man in connection with any qivil aircraft, aircraft engine, ;
propeller or appliance used or. intended for use, in air
commerce w ithout an airman certificate authorizing him to
a : 20a
Appendix A
serve in such capacity, or in violation of any term, condi-
‘tion, or limitation thereof, or in violation of any order,
rule, or regulation issued under this title;
{3) For any person to employ for service in conneéction
--with any civil aircraft used in air commerce an airman
who does not have an airman certificate authorizing him
to serve in the capacity for which he is employed;
_, (4) For any person_to operate as an air carrier with-
out an air carrier operating certificate, or in violationsof
the terms of any such certificate;
. (5) For any ‘person to operate aircraft in air com-
merce in violation of any other rule, regulation, or certifi-
cate of the Administrator under this title; and
. (6) For any person to operate a seaplane or other air-
craft of United States fegistry upon the high seas in
contravention of the regulations proclaimed by the Presi!
dent pursuant to section 1 of the Act entitled ‘An Act
to authoriz@ the. President. to proclaim regulations for
preventing cdllisions at sea’’, approved October 11, 1951
(Public Law 172, Righty-second Congress; 65 Stat. 46);
and a rors
(7) For any person holding an air agency or production
certificate to violate any term, condition, or limitation
thereof, or to violate any order, rule, or regulation under
this title relating to the holder of such certificate.
Exemption of Foreign Aircraft and Airmen
(b) Foreign aircraft and airmen serving in connection
therewith may, except with respect to the observance by
such airmen of the air traffic rules, be exempted from the
provisions of subsection (a) of this section, to the extent,
and uvon such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed
by the Administrator as being in the interest of the public.
Se e .
, 2la
Appendix A
JupiciaL Review or Orpers
Orders of Board and SNE: to Review
Sec, 1006. [72 Stat: 795, 49 U.S, C. 1486] (ay Any’
order, affirmative or negative, issued by mee Board or
Administrator under this Act, except any order in respect
of any foreign~air carrier subject to the approval of the
President as provided in section 801 of‘this Act, shall be
subject to review by the courts of appeals of the United
States or the United States. Court -of Appeals for the
District: of Columbia upon petition, filed within sixty days
after the entry of such order, by any person disclosing
a substantial interest in such order.’. After the expiration,
of said sixty days a petition may be ‘filed only by leave
of court upon a showing of reasonable gronnds for fdilure
to file the petition theretofore. tie) 6
Venue
(b) A petition under this section shall be filed in the
court for the circuit wherein the petitioner resides or has
his principal place of business or in the United States
Court of “Appeals for the Distriet.of Columbia,
Notice to Board or, Administrator; Filing of Transe Apt
(c) A copy of the petition shall, upon filing, be forth-
with transmitted .to the Board or Administrator by the
clerkM@f the court, and. the Board or Administrator shall
thereupon ceftify and file in the court a transeript of the
record, if any, upon which the order complained of was
entered. 7 . ; 7
Power of: Court j
(d) Upon transmittal of the petition to the Board or
Administfator, the-court shall have. exclusive jurisdiction
to affirm, modify, of set aside the order complained of,
4 waite or in part, and if need be, to order further pro-
S
22a
‘A ppendix A,
ceedings by the Board or Administrator. Upon good
cause shown, interlocutory relief may be granted by stay
of the order or by such mandatory or -other relief as may,
be appropriate; Provided, That no interloeutery -relicf
may be granted except upon at least five days’ notice to,
the Board or Administrator. _ ae
Findings of Fact Conclusive
(e) The findings of facts by the Board or Adminis:
trator, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be con-
_ elusive. No objection to an order.of the Board or Adminis-
trator shall be considered by the court unless such objection
shall have been urged before the Board cr Administrator »
or, if it was not so urged, unless there were reasonable
grounds for failtfre to do so. - ‘$
_
Certification or Certiorari
(f) The judgment and decree of the court affirming.
modifying, or sefting aside any such order of the Board
+ or Administrator shall be subject only to review by the
Supreme Court of the United States upon certification or
‘certiorari as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
States Code. :
“ ° ° ry
. CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938 -
AMENDMENT, SucPENsIoN, aND Revocation oF CERTIFICATES -
Sec. 609. [52 Stat. 1011] The Authority [Adminis
trator] may, from time to time, reinspect any aircraft.
aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, airs. navigation
facility, or air agency’ may reexamine any airman, and,
after investigation, and upon notice and hearing, may alier.”
amend, modify, or {the Board may] suspend, in whole or
in part, any type, certificate, production certificate, air-
worthiness certificate, airman certificate, air carrier oper-
ating certificate, air navigation facility certificate, or air
agency certificate if the interest ‘of the public so requires.
or [the Board] may revoke, in Whole or in part, any such
g "« °
23a
A een A “
certificate for any cause which, at the time of. revocation,
would justify the Authority [administrator] in refusing to
issue té the holder of such certifieate-alike ec rtificate. Tu
~~ Cases ‘of emergency, any such certificate may ve suspended,
in whole‘or in part, for a period nat in excess of thirty days, |
without regard to any requirement as to notice and hearing.
The. Authority shall immediately give notice of such sus-
psnsion to the holder of such certificate and shall enter
upon a hearing which shall be disposed of as speedily as
possible. During the pendency of the proceeding the
Authority may further suspend such certificate, in whole or
in part, for an additional period not in excess of thirty
days. A
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS *
) 14.¢. F. R. Part 20 (
Pinot axp Isstruetor Certiricates
—
APPLICABILITY | AND DEFINITIONS
§ 20.1. Applic ability of this part.* This paft preserihes
standard for the issuance of student, private, and com:
mercial pitot and. flight instructor «certificates and air-
craft and instrument ratings. Regulations for the issuance
of air line transport and lighter-than-air pilot certificates”.
are spécified in Parts 24 and 22, ne of this sub- >
chapter:
.
‘GENERAL
20.10 Application and issuance. (a) An application
‘ a a pilot certificate or any rating shall be made on a form _
furni:hed by the Administrator.
(b) A student, private, or commercial pilot ‘or flight
* lnsttuctor certificate with appropriate aircraft ratings shall
*As of December 31, 1956, except where otherwise expressl
indicated.
ein
~
>
24a
A ppendix Ay
be issued by the Administrator to an applicait who meets
the applicable requirements. Additional aircraft category, -
class, and type, ‘and instrumént ratings for which an li-
‘cant has been found qualified shall be issued in connection
with a pilot or flight instructor certificate. A pilot certifi
' eate with appropriate limitations shall be issued to an ap-
‘plicant who cannot comply with all the prescribed skill
requirements due to the special characteristics of the air-
craft used in the “flight test if he meets. all other require.
* ments for the issuance of the certificate‘sought.
(c) An applicant for a pilot ‘certificate who presents a
medical certificate issued under .the physical-deficiencies
' provision of Part 29 of this subchapter and meets all other
‘requirements for the isshance of the certificate sought shali
be issued a pilot certificate containing such operating limi-
tations as the Administrator may find are ‘eommensurate
with the physical deficiencies. spe om his medical cer-
tificate.
(d) The prescribed examinations and tests shall. be
given by a person designated by the Administrator.
STupDENT
$20.20 Age. 16 years is the minimum age for the is-
suance of a student pilot certificate. If an applicant is less
than 21: years of age and is not a regular or reserve met-
_ber of thé armed forges of the United States or enrolled in.
an established ROTC or other training program of- such
armed forces at the time of making application, he shall
submit with his application the written consent of either
parent or of his legal or natural guardian.
; ‘ * ee ; :
§ 20.22 Physical standards. An applicant shall hold at
least a valid third class medical certificate issued in ac-
cordance with the physical standards prescribed i in Hart 2 29
of this subchapter.
25a .
Appendix A
' Private
$20.30 Age. 17 years is the minimum age for the is-
suance of a private pilot certificate.
§ 20.32 Physical standards. An applicant shall hold at
least a valid third class medical certificate issued in accord-
ance with the physical stz-ndards prescribed in Part 29 of
this sabchapter. :
e e e
COMMERCIAL * ‘
§20.40° Age. 18 years is the minimum age for the: is-
suance of a commercial pilot certificate. . ,
§ 20.42 Physical standards. An applicant shall hold at
least a valid second class medical certificate issued in ac-
cordance with the physical standards prescribed in Part
29 of this subchapter.
° a) e
e
>; . 4C. FL R. PART 21
Airtine Transport Pinot Ratixe
% * #* ;
$21.1: Provision for issuance. ‘Pursuant to:the provi-
sions.of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, em-
powering the Administrator of 4‘ivil Aeronautics to issue
airman certificates specifying the capacity in which, the
holders thereof are authorized to serve’as airmen in con-
nection with aircraft, and requiring the Civil Aeronautics
Board to preseribe such reasonable rules and regulations
governing practices, methods, and proceedures as the Board
‘may find necessary to provide adequately for safety in.
* ar-commerce, airline transport pilots will be rated as to
- 26a
. Appendix A
competence in accordance with the provisions of-the regu-
lations in this part. °
§ 21.5 Definitions. As used in this part, terms are de-
fined as follows:
Category. A category is a broad classification ‘of uir-
craft with distinet, configuration and operating character-
istics such as airplane, rotorcraft, or glider.
Class. A class is a classification of aircraft within a |
category differentiating between single-engine, and multi-
engine and land and water configurations.
Flight time. Flight time is the total time from the mo-
ment the aircraft first moves under its own power for the
purpose of flight until the moment: it comes to rest at the —
end of the flight (block to block).
Maximum certificated take-off weight. Maxitmuny cer-
tificated take-off weight is the maximum take-off weight
authorized by the terms of the mi sess cer-
tificate.
Night. Night is the time between the tities of evening
civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight
as published in the American Air Almanac converted té
local time ‘for the locality concerned. |
* Note: The American Air Almanac containing the end-
ing of evening twilight and, the beginning of morning twi-
light tables m@&y be obtained from the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washinzton 29,
D.C. Information is also available concerning such tables
in the offices of the Civil Aeronautics Administration or the
United States Weather Bureau.
Pilot in.command, A pilot in command is the pilot, re-
sponsible for the operation and safety of the aireraft dur-
ing the time ‘défined as flight time. aa
27a
A ppendix A
Solo flight time. Solo flight time is flight time during
which the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft.
Type. Type is a specific classification of aircraft hav-
ing the same basic design including all modifications there- °
‘to except those modifications which result in a change in
handling or flight characteristics.
Minimym ReQuIREMENTS
§21.9 Eligibility. To be eligible-for an airline trans-
port pilot competency rating, an applicant shall comply
with the minimum requirements set.forth in § 21.10-21.18.
§21.10 Age. 23 years is the minimum age for the is-
suance of an airline transport pilot: rating.
§ 21.11 Character. Applicant shall be of good moral
ae
< - :
§24.12 Citizenship. An applicant for a pilot certifi-
a with an airline transport pilot rating may be a citizen
of any country or a person without nationality.
$21.13 Education. (a) Applicant shall be able to read,
write, and understand the English language, and shall be
able to speak the English language without accent or im-
pediment of speech which would interfere with two-way
radio conversation ; and
(b) Shall be a high school graduate or what is deemed
by the Administrator to be its equivalent from the appli-
cant’s showing of: general experience and aeronautical ex-
perience, knowledge, and skill.
§ 21.14 Physical condition. Applicant shall meet. the
sertieal standards of the First Class prescribed in Part
29 of this subchapter.
28a
Anpeéendix A
= $21.15 Aeronautical knowledge. Applicant shall be
familiar: with and Shail accomplish a satisfactory written
examination on: ;
(a) The provisions of Parts 1, 21, 27, 40, and 60 of this
subchapter, together with such parts of the provision: of
Parts 4a and 4b of this subchapter as are pertinent to the
‘operations of air carrier aircraft.
(b) The fundamentals of air navigation and the use of
formulas and of instruments and other investigational aids,
both in aircraft and on the ground, whith are deemed nec-
essary for the navigation of aireraft by instruments.
ec) The general system of weather collection and dis-
semination.
(d) Weather map, weather forecast, ‘and weather se-
quence abbreviations, Symbols, and nomenclature.
(e) Elementary meteorology, including modern know!-
edge of the eyclones as associated with fronts.
(f ) Cloud forms.
(¢) Department of ‘Commerce Weather — (lreu-
lar N, Instructions for Airway Meteorological Service, aud
all amendments thereto.
(h) Weather conditions, including ieing conditions and,
upper-air winds, affecting aeronautical activities.
(1) Air havigation facilities in use on the civil airways,
including rotating beacons, course lights, radio ranges.
and radio marker beacons.
(j) Data obtained from airplane weather observations
and meteorological data reported from observations made
by pilots engaged ‘in air carrier flights. b ;
Ak) The influence of terrain upon meteorological condt-
tions and developments, and the relation thereof to alr
carrier flight operations.
; | 29a
Appendix A
(1) Radio communication procedure as applied to air-
craft operation.
(m) The basie principles of loading and weight distri-
bution an@ its effect on flight characteristies.
§21.15-1 Written examination (CAA yolicies which
apply to’ § 21:15)—(a) Eligibility. The-airline transport:
oe
pilot rating written examination will be given to any person
who meets the eligibility requirements of %¢ 21.9 through
21.14 and 21.16.
(b) Contents. The examination consists of four see-
tions: (1) Civil Air Regulations, (2) meteorology, (3)
radio navigation, and (4) radio operations and procedures ;
each of which is graded separately. A minimum grade of
70 pereent is required to pass each section.
(c) Substitution of credit. An applicant may be cred-
ited with the successful completion of the meteorology sec-
tion of the airline transport pilot rating written examina-
tion if he possesses a currently valid flight navigator’s cer-
tificate or an instrument rating or if, vithin the last 2
‘Years he has successfully comipleted the meteorology section
of either the flight navigator or instrument rating exam-
ination. An applicant may be eredited with successful com-
pletion of the radio navigation section of the airline -trans-
port pilot examination, if he possesses: a currently valid
flight navigator’s certificate or if, within the last 2 vears,
he has successfully completed the air navigation section of
the flight navigator examination. If, however, the appli-
‘ant has previously taken the airline transport pilot exam-
ination and failed to pass these seetions, he may not sub-
stitute such credit for the written examination.
(d) Examination procedures. ~The examination: con-
sisting of the four sections mentioned in ‘paragraph. (b) of.
this section should be completed within one 6-hour session,
except that the supervising agent may, at his’ discretion
30a
Appendix A.
allow extra time in special circumstances. No examination
may be started unless’sufficient time remains to complete the
examination before the end of regular office hours.
(e) Report of grades. A report of grades received,
Form ACA-578A, will be mailed direct to the applicant.
Form ACA-578A will be accepted within a period of 24
months from the date of the examination as evidence of
the applicant’s having successfully completed the know!-
edge requirements for an airline transport pilot rating. A
“Form ACA-o78A, acceptable on September 1, 1996, will he
accepted by the Administrator until September 1, 1%5>.
_Ewxceptioy : Form ACA-S78A_ will be accepted by the
Administrator from an applicant during the applicant’
period of employment with an air carrier or operator, pro
vided the applicant has been continuously employed since
taking the examination, as a pilot with an air carrier or
operator,-and during this period of employment actively
participates in a pilot traihing program condueted by the
air cerrier or operator. |
21.16 Avronautical erpericnee. An applicant for an
airline transport pilot rating shall hold a valid commer:
cial pilot rating, or equivalent as determined by the Ad
ministrator, and shall meet the following ae wonsatical UX:
perience requirements :
(a) Ay plicant shall have had at least 250 hours of fligh"
time composed of time as pilot in command, or time as co-
pilot actually performing the duties and funetions of 2
pilot in command under the surveillance of the pilot in
command, or any-combination thereof. Of this time, al
least 100 hours shall have been cross-country flight time.
and at least 25 hours shall have been night flight time
Flight time shown in fulfillment of the requirements of this
paragraph may also be used for the purposes of paragraph
(b) of this section.
ola
-Appendiz A
_ (b) Applicant shall, have. had at least 1,200 hours of |
flight time as pilot within the last 8 years, of which
(1) 5 hours: shall have been had within 60 days imme-
diately preceding the date of application; >
(2) 500 hours shall have been cross-country flight time ;
(3) 100 hours shall have been night flight time;
(4) 7d hours shall have been instrument time under ac-
tual or simulated instrument conditions of which not less
than 50 hours shall have been in actual flight.
(c) An applicant who meets the requirements of para-
graph (a) of this section with other than 200 hours, of
pilot-in-command time. shall ‘have his certificate appropri-
ately endorsed: by the Administrator in accordance with
Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Avia-
tion. At such time as. the holder of a certificate so *en-
dorsed submits reliable documentary evidence ‘to the Ad-
ministrator that he has met the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, taking into account only time as pilot in
command, he shall be reissued a certificate without such
endorsement. |
Note: By the terms of Article 40 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, no person having a certificate
endorsed in accordance with the foregoing provision may
‘participate in international navigation as pilot in command
except with the permission of the State or States whose
territory is entered.
§21.16-1: Aeronautical experience (CAA rules which
“apply to & 21.16). (a) The following shall be considered
to hold the equivalent of a United States Commercial Pilot
Rating Certificate:
(1) Pilots of the U. S. armed services whose military
experience qualifies them for commercial certificates under
© 20.00 (b) of this subchapter. | -
. .
~
- 82a
Appendiz A
(2) Holders of foreign airline transport pilot or com-
‘mercial pilot licenses without limitations issued by mem-
ber states of ICAO.
‘(b) The holding of the equivalent of a commercial pi-
lot rating shall permit the holder thereof to meet the re-
quirements of. §§ 21.17 (a) (1) through (7) and 21.18 (}).
§21.16-2 Evidence of flight experience (CAA policies
which apply to.§ 21.16). (a) Flight experience required by
§ 21.16 sheuld be substantiated by a logbook maintained in
actordance With the requirements of § 43.43 of this sub-
chapter. - : iL :
© 91.16-3 Copilot expe rience’ (CAA policte s which aap
ply to § 21.16.(a)). A eopilot employed by a certificated
air carrier may credit ‘tas copilot actually performing the
duties and functions of a pilot-in-ecommand under the sur-
veillanee of the pilot-in-command”* that time during which
he performs all the functions of the pilot-in-command ' in-
cluding landings and takeoffs, en route flying, low ap-
prdaches, and ground functions.
(a) Flight time credited in this manner is subject to
the provisions of § 43.44 (b) (2) of this subchapter.
(b) .The actual flight time should be récorded and certi-
fied by the pilot-in-command tinder whose supervision the
functions were accomplished.
§ 21.17 Aeronautical skill. (a) Applicant shall demon-
strate satisfactorily his ability to pilot aircraft in normal
1 An air carrier should determine that a copilot has had sufficient
time and experience and has demonstrated his ability to perform
efficiently the duties of a copilot before permitting him to perform
. the functions of a pilot-in-command for the purpose of logging “pilot~
in-command time.” :
33a
Appendix A
take-offs, turns, landings, and the following maneuvers (the
maneuvers in subparagraphs (6) and (7) of this paragraph
shall be performed in an aircraft satisfactory to the examin-
: ing inspector of the Administrator) :
(1) From 3,500 feet, with engine fhrottled, a 360° turn
and a lending in normal landing attitude. _—-.
(2) From 2,500 feet, with engine throttled, a 180° turn
and a landing in normal landing attitude.
>
(3) A series of three shallow and three steep figure 8
turns and one 720° steep power turn in each direction. Dur-
ing these maneuvers, the pilot shall. not gain or lose more:
than 200 feet of altitude. . -
(4) A spiral in one dire¢tion from 3,500 feet, or higher,
with enginer throttled, and_a landing in normal landing,
attitude.
' (5) Subparagraphs (1) through (4) of this paragraph
shall be applicable when the flight tests are conducted in
aireraft of a gross weight in excess of 10,000 pounds: other- |
wise the pilot shall be required to demonstrate his aeronau-
tical skill in accordan¢e with § 20.45 of this subchapter.
(6) Emergency maneuvers such as simulated foreed
landings, spirals, side slips and climbing turns, and ré-
‘covery from stalls, maneuvers in multiengine equipment
_ with anthorized load with one engine inoperative, if rating
is sought on such equipment, and such other maneuvers as
the examining inspector of the Administrator may deem
necessary to demonstrate the competence of the applicant.
«)(?) A right-hand and a left-hand spin, each of at least
two full turns, with not to exceed 10 degrees error.
Note: The requirements of subparagraphs (1)-(7) of
this paragraphs and of § 21.18(b) may be met by the hold-
ing of a valid commercial rating.
ae |
- 7
_ Appendix A
- (b) Applicant .shall accomplish satisfactorily. a flight
test, solely by instruments, with respect to the following:
(1) Straight level flight for a given period of time.
(2) Moderate seaaed during 180° and 360° turns in
both directions.
(3) Minimum glides and simu climbs, and ap-
proaches to stalled attitudes of flight. .
(4) Climbing turns. | aa
(5) Stalls, skids, slips and spirals, and banks in exces:
of 45°, and recovery from the &
Nore:' ‘The requirements gare (1)-(5) of
‘this paragraph may be met by the holding of a valid instru-
ment rating.
(6) Such other maneuvers as the examining inspee efor
deems necessary. P
(7) A practical demonstration, while in flight or ander
simulated conditions, of estimating arriyal time, —
into account speed, wind, and drift.
§ 21.17-1 - Aeronautical ‘skill (CAA policies which ap-
ply to § 21.17). (a) An applicant will satisfactorily demon-
strate the following maneuvers to an Aviation Safety Agent
or a designated &irline transport pilot examiner by means”
~ of a flight check.? Tiis flight check may not be taken until
the written exainination has been satisfactorily completed .
anc the applicant has complied with the requirements of
21.31. ‘6
2 The examiner of agent will determine the order in which the
maneuvers are to be accomplished. See Appendix A for detailed
information relating to the. xequi:ed maneuvers. Appendix A no
filed with Federal Register Division.
s
35a
> Appendix A
(b) The following list of maneuvers will be ‘specifically
required for airiine transport rating in multiengine air-
craft:
Equipment examination (oral).
Preflight check.
Taxiing, or sailing and ee
Runups.
Takeoffs. : ‘
_Climbs and climbing turns.*
Maneuvering at slow speed.
Approaches to stalls.
Airport traffic pattern.
Landifig technique. |
Cross-wind takeoff and landing.
Traffic control procedure.
Steep turns (instruments only). a
Timed turns.®
Recovery from unusual attitudes.
Use of radio equipment.
Oriegtation.
Beam bracketing.
Cone (station) identification. -_
Instruntent approach procedures.
Missed approach procedures.
Use of directional radio.
‘Rapid descent and pull-up.
Engine(s) out procedure. _ F ,
_ Maneuvering with engine(s) out.
Maneuvering for landing at weather minimums.
Takeoff and landing with engine(s) failure.
Emergencies.
Smoothness and eoordination. °
a udgment.
* Not required if applicant holds instrument rating.
36a
Appendix A
-(e) The following list of- maneuvers will be ssiiiliiile
required for airline transport pilot rating in single-engine
aircraft : 4
Equipment examination (oral).”
a Preflight check. ?
Taxiing, or sailing and docking.
Runup. ,
_ Takeoffs. rere
Climbs and climbing turns.*
Maneuvering at slow speed,
Stalls.
Airport traffic pattern.
Accuracy approaches and spot landings.
Landing technique.
-Cross-wind takeoff and landing.
_ Traffic control procedures.
Steep turns (instument only).
Timed turns.®
Recovery from unusual attitudes.
_ Use of. radio equipment. .
- Orientation.
Beam bracketing.
Cone (station) identification. -
Instrument approach procedures.
. Missed approach procedures.
Use of- directional radio.
Rapid descent and pull-up.
4 Maneuvering for oe at weather minimums.
' Emergencies.
Smoothness and coordination. ite
J er.
.
3 Not required if applicant holds instrument rating.
37a
oe —— A
(a) The following list. of maneuvers will be specifically
* required of ATR multiengine pilots who fe a ply for addi-
tional type ratings:
Equipment examidation (oral).
Preflight check. __
Taxiiing, or sailing and docking.
Runups.
Takeoffs. _
Maneuvering at slow speed. .
Approaches -to stalls. ,
Airport traffic pattern. A
Landing *echnique.
9 Cross-wind takeoff and. landing.
Traffie control procedures.
Steep turns (instrument only).
Recovery from unusual attitudes.
Use of radio equipment.
Missed approach procedures.
Rapid descent and pull-up. —
Engine(s) out procedure.
Maneuvering with engine(s) oute
Maneuvering for landing at weather minimums.
Takeoff and landing ween engine(s s) failure.
Emergencies. :
Smoothness and coordination. ,
Judgment.
$21.18 Radio skill. (a) An_appiicant- shall. der.on-
strate his ability to interpret International Morse Code
signals, and shall accomplish a sati§factory flight. test iri a
hooded at with respect to’ the following:
(1) Tuning radio.
38a
Appendix A
(2) Orientation. Such orientation shall include the. use
‘of the radio direction finder with sufficient tests to deter-
mine the ability of the pilot to:
° (i). Home on a radio station.
(ii) Determine whether the aireraft | is » heading toyard %
or away from the station.
(iii) Obtain accurate fixes by the use of radio compass.
(3) Following radio range.
(4) Locating cone of silence.
(5) Letting-down-through on the range by the approved
instrument approach procedure for the — airport
used in comma with the test.
— (6) Such other’ maneuvers as the examining inspector
deems necessary.
_ (b) Such maneuvers as are necessary to demonstrate
competence to satisfactorily pilot an aircraft from _—
control seat. None of the maneuvers provided for in § 21,17
and this section shall be disregarded, but any such maneuv*r
may be modified by the examining inspector of the Admin. .
istrator to such extent as may be necessary for reasonable
and safe operation of the aircraft used in the particular
maneuver. Such inspector will report any such modifica-
tion to the Administrator in writing. ©
ArrLiNz£ Transport Pitot CoMpeTency CERTIFICATE
§ 21.20 Aircraft rating. The aircraft which the appli-
cant is deemed competent to pilot shall be prescribed. in .
his certificate by category and class, and type if the air-
craft has a maximum certificated take-off weight of more
‘than 12,500 Ibs. and, in the case of unconventional airplanes.
. such descripition as is appropriate to define clearly the com-
39a io
\
Appendix A
petence of the applicant. Competence to pilot aircraft shall )
‘be demonstrated in aircraft of the category and ‘class and,
if appropriate, the type for which the rating is sought.
§ 21.20-1 Air¢graft rating (CAA policies which apply to
§ 21.20(a))¢ Flight test maneuvers as outlined in § 21.17-1
td): will be used in determining competency of airline trans-
port pilots for aircraf
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.