Cooper v. National Transportation Safety Board
398 U.S. App. D.C. 123
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Cooper seeks review of an FAA/NTSB emergency revocation of his airman and medical certificates.
- The revocation based on allegedly false and non-disclosed alcohol-related driving arrest/suspension.
- Cooper had previously reported the arrest to the FAA in 2008 and was aware of the suspension.
- Question 18v on the 2010 medical certificate application added “arrest(s) and/or” but Cooper answered “no.”
- ALJ found no scienter; Board reversed and held willful disregard supported by Boardman precedent.
- Court reviews Board’s interpretation of § 67.403(a)(1) deferentially for reasonableness and consistency with the regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willful disregard suffices to prove intent under § 67.403(a)(1). | Cooper argues knowledge of falsity required; willful disregard is insufficient. | FAA/Board contends willful disregard shows actual knowledge via disregard of truth. | Willful disregard is a reasonable interpretation; intentional falsification shown. |
| Whether actual knowledge of falsity is required or willful disregard suffices. | Actual knowledge required, aligning with Hart; subjective understanding matters. | Willful disregard suffices to infer knowledge; reading the question is not required. | Willful disregard can establish intent without requiring actual knowledge. |
| Whether Board’s deference to FAA interpretation of § 67.403(a)(1) is proper. | Deference misapplied; need stricter scrutiny of scienter. | FAA interpretation reasonable and consistent with regulatory purpose. | Court accords deference; interpretation deemed reasonable. |
| Whether Cooper’s failure to read the question undermines a defense to falsification. | Reading the form is necessary to negate intent. | Failure to read does not defeat intentional falsification under willful disregard. | Failure to read supports willful disregard; not a defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. McLucas, 535 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1976) (defines purposeful fraud standard referenced for intent)
- Dillmon v. NTSB, 588 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (adopts Hart-like mens rea for § 67.403(a)(1))
- Singleton v. Administrator, 588 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (clarifies subjective understanding relevance)
- Manin v. NTSB, 627 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (states elements of intentional falsification)
- Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. Bamford, 150 U.S. 665 (1893) (illustrates knowledge of falsity in fraud)
- Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 108 F.3d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (context for interpretive deference on mens rea)