Manin v. National Transportation Safety Board
393 U.S. App. D.C. 299
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Manin petitions for review of an NTSB order affirming FAA emergency revocation of multiple pilot certificates for failing to disclose criminal history on medical certificate applications.
- FAA revoked Manin in 1994 for falsification on a passport, then renewed certificates in 1995 after proper disclosure.
- In 1995 and 1997 Manin was convicted of disorderly conduct but failed to disclose those convictions on several medical renewal applications.
- FAA discovered the convictions in 2007, prompting an emergency revocation order in 2008 based on alleged multiple falsifications.
- ALJ denied summary judgment; the Board affirmed, rejecting Manin’s laches and stale-complaint defenses and treating intent as based on Board construction of the questions.
- We vacate and remand because the NTSB departed from precedent on both laches/stale-complaint and the knowledge-based interpretation of intent, without explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the NTSB depart from precedent on laches and stale complaint? | Manin argues laches applies despite stale-complaint rule. | Board treated laches as inapplicable when stale complaint rule applies. | Remand for reconsideration of laches. |
| Did the Board improperly narrow the scope of laches by relying on stale complaint rules? | La ches may apply even when stale complaint rule is inapplicable. | Board had long-held view limiting laches to stale-complaint contexts. | Remand for reevaluation consistent with precedent. |
| Did the Board err by disregarding Manin's subjective understanding of question 18(w) in evaluating intentional falsification? | Manin understood the question to exclude minor offenses; his understanding matters. | Applicant's interpretation of the question is irrelevant to intent. | Remand to reconsider intent with pilot's subjective understanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. Babbitt, 588 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (intent requires knowledge of reporting obligation, not just knowledge of conviction)
- Dillmon v. NTSB, 588 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pilot's subjective understanding of the question governs intent element)
- Ramaprakash v. FDA, 346 F.3d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (reasoned decision making required when changing agency policy)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, 613 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency departure from precedent requires explanation)
- Peterson v. NTSB, 7 N.T.S.B. 1247 (N.T.S.B. 1991) (prejudice and delay considerations in laches context)
- Shrader v. NTSB, 6 N.T.S.B. 1400 (N.T.S.B. 1989) (prejudice assessment in laches defense requires more than mere delay)
- Wells v. NTSB, 7 N.T.S.B. 1249 (N.T.S.B. 1991) (broad reach of laches beyond stale complaint context)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 318 U.S. 80 (S. Ct. 1943) (courtbidden to sustain agency action on grounds not relied upon)