High Exposure, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2615
___________
HIGH EXPOSURE, INC.,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Respondents
___________
Appeal from the Decision and Order of the Federal Aviation Administration
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 18, 2002
Before: NYGAARD and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and O’NEILL, District Judge.
(Filed: April 29, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
High Exposure, Inc., petitions for review of an order of the FAA assessing
a civil penalty against it in the amount of eleven hundred dollars for violating sections
91.119 (a), (b), and 91.13 (a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. See 14 C.F.R. §
91.119(a),(b) (2001); 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 (2001). We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §
46110(a) (1994). The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural posture
underlying this matter; therefore, because we write solely for the benefit of the parties we
will proceed directly to High Exposure’s contentions.
I.
High Exposure asserts that the ALJ’s findings were not supported by
substantial evidence. We disagree. While alleging that the ALJ committed numerous
errors, at bottom petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that it
operated the aircraft in question below the permissible flight ceiling. In reviewing an
appeal from an administrative body, we are bound by the agencies factual findings if
supported by substantial evidence. See Air East, Inc., v. NTSB, 512 F.2d 1227, 1233 (3d
Cir. 1975). We have throughly reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the
record contains ample evidence that the plane was operated by petitioner, and that the
plane flew below the permissible ceiling on the day in question.
For example, in regard to establishing that the plane was in fact operated by
petitioner, the ALJ relied on the testimony of two FAA inspectors who witnessed the
plane on the day in question, as well as the testimony of the president of the High
Exposure, who admitted that his company’s plane was towing a banner in the vicinity on
the day in question. Further, there was testimony from the advertising agency to the
effect that it contracted with High Exposure to tow the banner, which the FAA inspectors

-- 1 of 2 --

observed on the day in question. With regard to the ALJ’s finding that petitioner’s plane
flew below the permissible ceiling, there was testimony as to the altitude of High
Exposure’s plane from another pilot who passed the petitioner’s plane. Based on the
foregoing, we cannot say that the ALJ’s findings were not based on substantial evidence.
As a result, we will affirm the FAA’s Order.

-- 2 of 2 --