723 F.3d 210
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- FAA revoked Taylor's pilot and medical certificates for an intentionally false answer about a DUI arrest on MedXPress.
- Taylor answered 'no' to a question about arrest/conviction history despite a 2008 arrest for drunk driving (no conviction).
- FAA investigated under 14 C.F.R. § 67.403(a)(1) for false statements on a medical-certificate application.
- ALJ found Taylor's testimony not credible and upheld the FAA’s interpretation that willful disregard can show actual knowledge; revocation order affirmed.
- NTSB affirmed the ALJ’s decision; the district court reviews for arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with law and defers to agency interpretations; due process challenges rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor violated § 67.403(a)(1). | Taylor contends misreading the question led to falsehood. | Taylor knowingly made a false certification by not reading the question. | Yes, violation established. |
| Whether the FAA’s interpretation should receive deference in sanction "choice of sanction" review. | Board defers to FAA; argues it is rubber-stamp and due process concerns. | NTSB's review is deferential but requires reasoned consideration of factors; not rubber-stamp. | Deferential, not rubber-stamp; sanctions review proper. |
| Whether MedXPress’s interface unjustly entrapped users. | Button encouraging blank-item defaults allegedly downplays question seriousness. | Interface does not obscure questions; certification requires truth and warns of liability. | No entrapment; not a due-process issue. |
| Whether the pre-Pilot’s Bill of Rights § 44709(d)(3) due process challenge has merit. | Argues the provision and practice deprive de novo or heightened review. | Standard of review is APA-like and sufficiently protective. | No due process violation; standard of review appropriate. |
| Whether the Board’s overall review violated due process by "rubber-stamping" the FAA’s sanction. | Argues the Board was constrained by agency policy and lacked independent review. | Board weighed aggravating/mitigating factors and compared similar cases. | No due process violation; proper review under statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. NTSB, 660 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (interpretation of § 67.403(a)(1) shows willful disregard suffices)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (agency interpretations deserve deference when reasonable)
- Chevron, USA, Inc. v. N.R.D. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency authority to interpret statutes)
- Lead Indus. Ass’n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deference to agency rulemaking)
- Hinson v. NTSB, 57 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (split-enforcement regulatory division among agencies)
- Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1991) (distribution of regulatory/enforcement/adjudicatory functions)
- Taylor v. Huerta (Porco v. Huerta cited), 472 F. App’x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (related NTSB/FAA case on similar issues)