Rudd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Rudd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2017] AATA 1334 (24 July 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/3819
Re:Richard Rudd
APPLICANT

AndCivil Aviation Safety Authority
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member T. Tavoularis
Date:24 July 2017
Date of written reasons: 23 August 2017
Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal dismisses the application.
...............................[sgd]....................................
Senior Member T. Tavoularis
CATCHWORDS
INTERLOCUTORY DECISION – Jurisdiction question – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decision – where Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to review decision – where application dismissed pursuant to s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 25, 27A, 42A
Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)
Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998(Cth)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Dennis Pearce, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2015, 4^th edition
WRITTEN REASONS
Senior Member T. Tavoularis
23 August 2017
INTRODUCTION

On 28 June 2017, Richard Eric Rudd (“the Applicant”) filed an Application for Review of a decision purportedly made by a “Ms Christine Buckland, Investigating Officer”. The Applicant says Ms Buckland is part of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority apparatus but that is not readily apparent from the subject document which comprises a single page.
As attachments to his application,[1] the Applicant provided two documents:
1Copy of ‘Executive Summary’ by Ms C. Buckland 19 July 2016, and her decision, as a result an [sic] ‘investigation’ into my advice to CAsA [sic] of the criminal action of Retski in using a carriage service to make an obscene and threatening phone call to myself.
2A Statement of Reasons as to why I claim the decision is wrong.
…
[1] There were two additional attachments, a cheque representing the payment of the relevant filing fee and photocopies of the Applicant’s driver licence and concession card.
The purported reviewable decision bears the title ‘Executive Summary’ at the top, while at the bottom, there is a reference to ‘Page 3’. It is clear that this document may be part of a sequential series of other pages. It is not apparent from this document exactly what the totality of the larger document (if any) comprises.
The document was presented to me for an assessment of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. On 24 July 2017, I determined that the subject document was not reviewable by the Tribunal. As a consequence, I ordered the dismissal of the application pursuant to s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“AAT Act”).
Section 25 of the AAT Act enables an enactment to provide for the review of decisions made under that or any other enactment.[2]
[2] Dennis Pearce, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 4^th edition, 2015, p. 20, para 3.1.
A determination of whether the Tribunal can review a decision requires a consideration of three matters;-
·Does an enactment confer jurisdiction?;
·Has a “decision” been taken?; and
·Has that decision been taken under the enactment conferring jurisdiction?[3]
[3] Ibid.
The preliminary issue is, therefore, whether an enactment can be identified such as to empower a decision-maker to make a decision (in writing) capable of review by this Tribunal.
The Tribunal has the competence, authority and responsibility to determine whether it has jurisdiction to review a decision. Further, the Tribunal can enquire into the existence of necessary facts to found its jurisdiction.
RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE
Upon receipt of the application on 28 June 2017, the Tribunal, via its registry, noted the Applicant’s description of the decision sought to be reviewed. The Applicant’s description read as follows:
CASA person “investigates” a criminal action of another Casa [sic] officer, and finds in his favor against the run of probabilities.
The Registry then wrote to the Applicant on 3 July 2017 and, inter alia, told him these things:
We have received your application for review of the decision made the Civil Aviation Safety Authority [sic] (the respondent). You are asking us to review a decision about an investigation into a potential breach of CASA’s Code of Conduct.
Can we review this decision?
We can only review this decision if a Commonwealth law says that we can.
We cannot find any law that says you can make an application to us about the decision.
It therefore seems we cannot review your decision.
…
On 8 July 2017,[4] the Applicant responded to this communication with the following:
[4] This correspondence was received by the Tribunal on 13 July 2017.
The chain of actions leading to Ms Bucklands [sic] final decision / conclusion is as follows…
1…I sent an email and the sound file of the obscene and threatening phone call to (then Acting) now CEO Carmody which was passed on to the ICC/Industry Complaints Commissioner Hanton. That decision was made by Carmody.
2..The “investigation” was not carried out by the ICC for some reason, as has been the case in the past to carry out investigations. Also in the past CAsA [sic] has downgraded findings of criminality by the ICC, to just be dealt with as code breaches.
3..Ms Buckland of “People and Culture” division was instructed to carry out an ‘investigation’ and derived her conclusion.
4..The actions of Ms Buckland to arrive at her conclusion constitute conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision.
5..Her Executive Summary p3.. ‘the decision’ of her “investigation” into the matter, is but one page of many, all pages earlier denied to me by CAsA [sic] FOI.
6..The few pages I do have were only given over to me by direction of the OAIC, who are further reviewing the whole “investigation” document. There may be more material allowable to me.
7..Regardless of that, her conclusion.. the ‘decision’ is, in my honest belief , seriously biased, corrupted by the agency that employs her for the required result, and which on the basis of given probabilities, is patently wrong.
8. During the course of this investigation I was never contacted by Buckland, the ICC or CAsA [sic], nor was I ever advised of the resulting finding.
….
It is clear the Applicant does not have the full suite of documentary material detailing the facts and circumstances giving rise to production of the document he now propounds as a reviewable decision. This position may change, subject to his further attempts to obtain additional documents from CASA and/or any other parties he considers relevant.
For the purposes of this decision, I can only proceed on the material before me. That material, as mentioned earlier, only comprises the document entitled ‘Executive Summary’ dated 19 July 2016, apparently signed under the hand of a Ms Christine Buckland, Investigating Officer.
The present question is whether that document can activate the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the purposes of a de novo review of the facts and circumstances involving the content of that document.
WHAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN REVIEW
This Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct reviews of reviewable decisions of civil aviation matters with reference to the following legislative instruments:
·Civil Aviation Act 1988
·Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988
·Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
·Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
I have gleaned this jurisdictional paradigm for the Tribunal in relation to civil aviation matters by reference to the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction List which is current to 31 December 2016.[5] For the sake of completeness, I will list each of the abovementioned legislative instruments and each specific section or regulation inherent to each, pursuant to which a decision can be made that, in turn, may become the subject of review in this Tribunal.
[5] Available on the aat.gov.au website:
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Section 31(2) (63 of 1988) (105 of 2003)

Various sections

The following decisions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority:

-     to refuse to grant or issue a certificate, permit or licence under the Act or the Regulations;

-     to cancel, suspend or vary a certificate, permit or licence, granted or issued under the Act or the Regulations;

-     to impose or vary a condition contained a certificate, permission, permit or licence granted or issued under the Act or the Regulations;

-     to cancel, suspend or vary an authorisation, contained in such certificate, permission, permit or licence granted or issued under the Act or the Regulations, but not suspend an authorisation under s 30DC, or suspend or cancel an authorisation under Division 3D;

-     to reinstate under s 30EF(3) a civil aviation authorisation that has been suspended or cancelled under Division 3D.

Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988
Regulation 9(1) (SR 161 of 1988) (SR 103 of 1993)

Regulations 8(2), 8(3)

The following decisions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) or an authorised person:

- to refuse or grant subject to conditions an application for approval to construct a building or structure under reg 8(2);

- to impose, vary or revoke conditions subject to which an approval was given or with respect to the marking or lighting of a building or structure under reg 8(3).

Regulation 11(1)

The following decision of CASA: to give directions under reg 11(1).

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Regulation 297A (SR 158 of 1988) (SLI 80 of 2013) (SLI 274 of 2013)

Reviewable Decisions

Made under

The following decisions made by CASA:

Regulations 30A, 33B, 33D, 33G, 33H, 33I, 42M, 42R, 42ZG, 42ZK, 42ZS, 42ZW, 42ZX, 5.14, 5.20, 5.21, 5.24, 5.34, 5.36, 5.38, 5.58, 5.215, 135A, 181G, 181I, 181J, 181M, 181O, 181P, 262AN, 265, 269, 298A(4)

-     refusing to approve a change to a certificate of approval

section 30A

-     refusing to issue an airworthiness authority;
-     or issuing an airworthiness authority subject to conditions section 33B

-     refusing to grant an aircraft welding authority section 33D

-     refusing to renew an aircraft welding authority section 33G

-     refusing to approve a change to an aircraft welding authority section 33H

-     imposing a condition on an aircraft welding authority section 33I

-     refusing to approve a system of maintenance section 42M

-     refusing to approve a change to an approved system of maintenance section 42R

-     modifying a change to an approved system of maintenance and approving the modified change section 42R

-     refusing to approve a system of certification of completion of maintenance section 42ZG

-     refusing to approve a change to a system of certification of completion of maintenance section 42ZK

-     refusing to grant an exemption from, or a variation of, a requirement to which Division 7 of Part 4A applies; or granting or approving the exemption or variation subject to conditions section 42ZS

-     refusing to approve the appointment of a person as a maintenance controller; or approving the appointment of a person as a maintenance controller subject to conditions section 42ZW

-     suspending or cancelling the approval of a person’s appointment as a maintenance controller section 42ZX

-     refusing to issue or renew a balloon flight crew rating section 5.14

-     revoking a person’s approval to give balloon flying training for the issue of a balloon flight crew rating, or a grade of flight crew rating section 5.20

-     refusing to issue an aircraft a balloon class endorsement (within the meaning given by subregulation 5.01(1)) section 5.23

-     revoking an approval of a person’s appointment as a chief balloon flying instructor section 5.58

-     refusing to issue a special flight authorisation section 135A

-     refusing to approve an application for an RVSM airworthiness approval section 181G

-     suspending an RVSM airworthiness approval section 181I

-     cancelling an RVSM airworthiness approval section 181J

-     refusing to approve an application for an RVSM operational approval section 181M

-     suspending an RVSM operational approval section 181O

-     cancelling an RVSM operational approval section 181P

-     refusing to approve an organisation to administer the operation of limited category aircraft engaged in special purpose operation mentioned in subregulation 21.189(3) of CASR section 262AN

-     suspending a license or authority (within the meaning given by subregulation 263(1)) section 265

-     varying, suspending or cancelling an approval, authority, certificate or license (within the meaning given by subregulation 263(1)) section 269

-     that CASA is satisfied that a person has committed an act mentioned in subregulation 298A(1) section 298A(4)

Regulation 297A(2)

-     Application may be made to the AAT for review of a decision that is mentioned in items 7,8,11 or 12 of table 297A(1), and is made by a person who is an authorised person for the provision under which the decision is made.

[Notes:
1.The list of reviewable decisions is set out in reg 297A(1). The following instruments have introduced or amended the list of reviewable decisions: SR 158 of 1988; SR 410 of 1991; SR 487 of 1991; SR 174 of 1992; SR 279 of 1992; SR 325 of 1992; SR 380 of 1992; SR 93 of 1994; SR 187 of 1994; SR 224 of 1995; SR 111 of 1997; SR 166 of 1999; SR 8 of 2000; SR 221 of 2002; SR 319 of 2002; SR 350 of 2002; SR 105 of 2003; SR 232 of 2003; SR 134 of 2004; SR 345 of 2004; SLI 273 of 2008; SLI 76 of 2011,SLI 77 of 2011; SLI 80 of 2013 and SLI 274 of 2013.
2.The list of reviewable decisions has also been further amended by SLI 274 of 2013. These changes commenced on 1 September 2014.
3.These regulations also provide that a decision under reg 99.415 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 is a reviewable decision.]

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Regulation 201.004 (SR 237 of 1998) (SR 166 of 1999) (SR 262 of 1999) (SR 204 of 2000) (SR 227 of 2000) (SR 350 of 2002) (SR 58 of 2003) (SR 189 of 2003) (SR 232 of 2003) (SR 134 of 2004) (SR 345 of 2004) (SLI 41 of 2007) (SLI 64 of 2009) (SLI 277 of 2010) (SLI 328 of 2010)(SLI 77 of 2011)(265 of 2011) (SLI 80 of 2013) (SLI 274 of 2013) (SLI 275 of 2013)(SLI 204 of 2014)(SLI 245 of 2015)
Regulation 297A(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

Reviewable decision

Made under

Decisions made by CASA under a provision of these Regulations:

-     refusing to grant or issue an authorisation; or

-     cancelling or suspending an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder;

-     varying an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation holder; or

-     refusing to vary an authorisation.

Decisions made by CASA under a provision of these Regulations:

-     imposing a condition on, or varying a condition of, an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder

The following decisions made by CASA:

-     refusing, because of regulation 47.131B, to cancel the registration of an aircraft Subpart 11.D

-     refusing to grant an exemption Div 11.F.1 or 11.F.2

-     refusing to consider an application for a type certificate r 21.043

-     refusing approval to remove or alter information on a critical part 21.855

-     agreeing that it is impractical to mark information on a part 21.870

-     refusing to issue an instrument of approval or exclusion 39.004(2), 39.004(3)

-     refusing to revoke or amend an Australian airworthiness directive 39.007

-     directing that an authorisation issued by a continuing airworthiness management organisation to a pilot licence holder can be changed or cancelled 42.640

-     refusing approval to place a design, mark or symbol on an aircraft 45.060

-     refusing approval to display different markings 45.065

-     refusing approval to display different marking, or no markings, for the purposes of an exhibition 45.070

-     refusing approval to display different words, or no words, for the purposes of an exhibition 45.100

-     refusing approval of a method of displaying aircraft markings 45.135

-     refusing approval to attach an aircraft identification plate other than in accordance with regulation 45.125 45.140

-     refusing, because of subregulation 47.110(9), to amend the Australian Civil Aircraft Register and give a certificate of registration 47.110

-     cancelling the registration of an aircraft 47.132

-     assigning fewer dealer’s marks to an aircraft dealer than were applied for by the dealer 47.175

-     refusing to appoint a person as a DAME or DAO Subpart 67.B

-     cancelling the appointment of a person as a DAME or DAO 67.095

-     refusing to exclude an aircraft or aeronautical product from the operation of a provision of Part 90 90.010

-     refusing to approve a standard operations manual 137.040

-     refusing to accept:

-     an application for an AOC submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(1); or

-     a manual or schedule of differences that is submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(4); or

-     an application for the variation of an AOC submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(5)
137.045(6)

-     refusing to approve a proposed amendment to an operations manual 137.080

-     refusing to approve a proposed amendment to a schedule of differences 137.085

-     refusing to approve a proposed amendment to a standard operations manual 137.090

-     giving a direction 139.145

-     designating, or refusing to designate, an aerodrome as an aerodrome to which A-SMGCS applies 139.252

-     refusing to register an aerodrome; or

-     suspending or cancelling the registration of an aerodrome
subpart 139.C

Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision mentioned in reg 201.004(5) that is made:

(a) under a provision of these Regulations; and

(b) by a person mentioned in reg 201.004(4) that may make the decision under the provision.

For the purposes of reg 201.004(3), the decisions include the following:

(a) a decision refusing to grant or issue an authorisation;

(b) a decision varying an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder;

(c) a decision refusing to vary an authorisation;

(d) a decision imposing a condition on, or varying a condition of, an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder.

[Notes:

1.     The list of reviewable decisions is set out in reg 201.004 of these Regulations.
2.     Regulation 297A(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provides that application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision under reg 99.415 of these Regulations.
3.     Regulation 297A(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 has been amended by SLI 274 and 275 of 2013. SLI 275 commenced on 18 December 2013 and SLI 274 of 2013 commenced on 1 September 2014.
4.     Regulation 202.344 ceased on 26 June 2015: reg 202.344(5)
5. SLI 204 of 2014 introduced r 47.131A and substituted the old 47.132. These amendments commenced immediately after the commencement of section 3 of the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Act 2013.
6.     SLI 245 of 2015 amended the reviewable decisions list with effect from 4 July 2016, as follows:
-repealed regulation 45.155;

-repealed and substituted regulations 45.090, 45.105 and 45.150; and
-introduced regulations 45.070, 45.100 and 45.135.

7. SLI 246 of 2015 amended the reviewable decisions list with effect from 15 December 2015 by repealing regulations 202.343, 202.344 and 202.345.

As is made clear in the abovementioned AAT Jurisdiction List, there is no general power in the Tribunal to review decisions made under any Commonwealth legislation. The abovementioned tabular outline is predicated on the basis that the Tribunal can only review a decision if an Act or other legislative instrument specifically provides that the decision is subject to review by the Tribunal.
From my examination of the abovementioned list of provisions, I cannot locate a section or regulation that properly founds a jurisdictional basis for review of the document now propounded by the Applicant to constitute a reviewable decision.
There is clearly a deficiency in the documents obtained thus far by the Applicant. This position may change depending upon his efforts to secure the release of additional material from other parties. That is a matter for him.
For present purposes, I am not able to locate any enactment conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review that which the Applicant seeks to be reviewed in his application.
Accordingly, the provisions of s 42A(4) of the AAT Act must apply. Those provisions are:
Dismissal if decision is not reviewable
(4) The Tribunal may dismiss an application without proceeding to review the decision if the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.
CONCLUSION
I conclude that the document[6] annexed to the Application dated 19 July 2016 is not reviewable by the Tribunal.
[6] Specifically, the document entitled ‘Executive Summary’ apparently under the hand of Ms Christine Buckland, Investigating Officer and dated 19 July 2016.

I certify that the preceding 26 (twenty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member T. Tavoularis

..................................[sgd]......................................
Associate
Dated: 23 August 2017
Notations
1.Although not of a mandatory nature or otherwise determinative on the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the propounded decision, reference should, for the sake of completeness, also be made to section 27A of the AAT Act. That section makes it necessary for the person who makes such a decision to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to give a person, whose interests are affected by the decision, notice of two things:
(a)The making of the decision;
(b)The person’s right to have the decision reviewed.

Here, the propounded decision of Ms Buckland does not contain any notice to this effect. Such a notice, and/or a summary of rights of review, may or may not appear in any other additional documents obtained by the Applicant.
2.The propounded decision has a reference to “s 47E(c)” at the top of the page. Out of an abundance of caution, I searched each of the four below mentioned enactments for the presence of any such section. I could not find any reference to “s 47E(c)” in of the following enactments:
·Civil Aviation Act 1988
·Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988
·Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
·Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

[2017] AATA 1334

24 July 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Reviewable Decisions	Made under
The following decisions made by CASA:
Regulations 30A, 33B, 33D, 33G, 33H, 33I, 42M, 42R, 42ZG, 42ZK, 42ZS, 42ZW, 42ZX, 5.14, 5.20, 5.21, 5.24, 5.34, 5.36, 5.38, 5.58, 5.215, 135A, 181G, 181I, 181J, 181M, 181O, 181P, 262AN, 265, 269, 298A(4)	- refusing to approve a change to a certificate of approval	section 30A
	- refusing to issue an airworthiness authority; - or issuing an airworthiness authority subject to conditions	section 33B
	- refusing to grant an aircraft welding authority	section 33D
	- refusing to renew an aircraft welding authority	section 33G
	- refusing to approve a change to an aircraft welding authority	section 33H
	- imposing a condition on an aircraft welding authority	section 33I
	- refusing to approve a system of maintenance	section 42M
	- refusing to approve a change to an approved system of maintenance	section 42R
	- modifying a change to an approved system of maintenance and approving the modified change	section 42R
	- refusing to approve a system of certification of completion of maintenance	section 42ZG
	- refusing to approve a change to a system of certification of completion of maintenance	section 42ZK
	- refusing to grant an exemption from, or a variation of, a requirement to which Division 7 of Part 4A applies; or granting or approving the exemption or variation subject to conditions	section 42ZS
	- refusing to approve the appointment of a person as a maintenance controller; or approving the appointment of a person as a maintenance controller subject to conditions	section 42ZW
	- suspending or cancelling the approval of a person’s appointment as a maintenance controller	section 42ZX
	- refusing to issue or renew a balloon flight crew rating	section 5.14
	- revoking a person’s approval to give balloon flying training for the issue of a balloon flight crew rating, or a grade of flight crew rating	section 5.20
	- refusing to issue an aircraft a balloon class endorsement (within the meaning given by subregulation 5.01(1))	section 5.23
	- revoking an approval of a person’s appointment as a chief balloon flying instructor	section 5.58
	- refusing to issue a special flight authorisation	section 135A
	- refusing to approve an application for an RVSM airworthiness approval	section 181G
	- suspending an RVSM airworthiness approval	section 181I
	- cancelling an RVSM airworthiness approval	section 181J
	- refusing to approve an application for an RVSM operational approval	section 181M
	- suspending an RVSM operational approval	section 181O
	- cancelling an RVSM operational approval	section 181P
	- refusing to approve an organisation to administer the operation of limited category aircraft engaged in special purpose operation mentioned in subregulation 21.189(3) of CASR	section 262AN
	- suspending a license or authority (within the meaning given by subregulation 263(1))	section 265
	- varying, suspending or cancelling an approval, authority, certificate or license (within the meaning given by subregulation 263(1))	section 269
	- that CASA is satisfied that a person has committed an act mentioned in subregulation 298A(1)	section 298A(4)
Regulation 297A(2)	- Application may be made to the AAT for review of a decision that is mentioned in items 7,8,11 or 12 of table 297A(1), and is made by a person who is an authorised person for the provision under which the decision is made.

Reviewable decision	Made under
Decisions made by CASA under a provision of these Regulations: - refusing to grant or issue an authorisation; or - cancelling or suspending an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder; - varying an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation holder; or - refusing to vary an authorisation.
Decisions made by CASA under a provision of these Regulations: - imposing a condition on, or varying a condition of, an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder
The following decisions made by CASA:
- refusing, because of regulation 47.131B, to cancel the registration of an aircraft	Subpart 11.D
- refusing to grant an exemption	Div 11.F.1 or 11.F.2
- refusing to consider an application for a type certificate	r 21.043
- refusing approval to remove or alter information on a critical part	21.855
- agreeing that it is impractical to mark information on a part	21.870
- refusing to issue an instrument of approval or exclusion	39.004(2), 39.004(3)
- refusing to revoke or amend an Australian airworthiness directive	39.007
- directing that an authorisation issued by a continuing airworthiness management organisation to a pilot licence holder can be changed or cancelled	42.640
- refusing approval to place a design, mark or symbol on an aircraft	45.060
- refusing approval to display different markings	45.065
- refusing approval to display different marking, or no markings, for the purposes of an exhibition	45.070
- refusing approval to display different words, or no words, for the purposes of an exhibition	45.100
- refusing approval of a method of displaying aircraft markings	45.135
- refusing approval to attach an aircraft identification plate other than in accordance with regulation 45.125	45.140
- refusing, because of subregulation 47.110(9), to amend the Australian Civil Aircraft Register and give a certificate of registration	47.110
- cancelling the registration of an aircraft	47.132
- assigning fewer dealer’s marks to an aircraft dealer than were applied for by the dealer	47.175
- refusing to appoint a person as a DAME or DAO	Subpart 67.B
- cancelling the appointment of a person as a DAME or DAO	67.095
- refusing to exclude an aircraft or aeronautical product from the operation of a provision of Part 90	90.010
- refusing to approve a standard operations manual	137.040
- refusing to accept: - an application for an AOC submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(1); or - a manual or schedule of differences that is submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(4); or - an application for the variation of an AOC submitted later than required under subregulation 137.045(5)	137.045(6)
- refusing to approve a proposed amendment to an operations manual	137.080
- refusing to approve a proposed amendment to a schedule of differences	137.085
- refusing to approve a proposed amendment to a standard operations manual	137.090
- giving a direction	139.145
- designating, or refusing to designate, an aerodrome as an aerodrome to which A-SMGCS applies	139.252
- refusing to register an aerodrome; or - suspending or cancelling the registration of an aerodrome	subpart 139.C
Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision mentioned in reg 201.004(5) that is made: (a) under a provision of these Regulations; and (b) by a person mentioned in reg 201.004(4) that may make the decision under the provision.
For the purposes of reg 201.004(3), the decisions include the following: (a) a decision refusing to grant or issue an authorisation; (b) a decision varying an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder; (c) a decision refusing to vary an authorisation; (d) a decision imposing a condition on, or varying a condition of, an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder.