08/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7

FACSIMILE MESSAGE Kyle E. Lomazow FEDERAL AVJATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL ANM-7

. 1601 LIND AVENUE S.W. RENTON,WAS:HINGTON 98057 PAGE 01/05

The information contained inthis facsimile message is legallyprivileged and confidential information and is intended only for the use ofthe individual named on this cover sheet. Ifthe reader ofthis message is notthe imended recipient, you are hereby notifi.ed that any use, dissemination, distribution, orcopy ofthis facsimile is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 425-227-2007.



### DATE:

TO: FAXNO.:

PHONE NO.:

RE: 

### August6, 2013 HearingDocketClerk 

## 202-493-5020 NO. 

### PAGES: FROM: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. Email: 

### DMS No•. FAA-2011-1293


# COMPLAINANT'S HEARING BRIEF 6 including cover Mary Ann Smith 

## 425-227-1007
425-227-292508/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/05

1 ?. 3 4 5 6 i 

### s

10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 KYLEE.LOMAZOW FAA OFFICEOF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227·1847 FACSIMILE: (425) 227-!007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

OMSNo. FAA-2011-1293 

### In the Matter of: COMPLAINANT'S HEARING BRIEF 

### Cornerstone A viaticn, Inc. Judge Richard C. Goodwin

26 

### To; Honomble Richard C. Goodwin:
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 H 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 PROCEDURALIDSTORY 

### The Complaint in thiscase was filed on December 15, 2011, 

### The Complaint alleged Respondent

:·**~** '. 

### failed to comply 

### with its approved tmining·course, a violation of 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (C.P.R.) Section (§)141.95(b)(7) by issuing a graduation certificate to a student that did not contain a statement ofthe cross"country training the student had received. It

### also alleged Respondent failed to certify a student's record upon termination ofthat student's training.

On January 9, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting Complainant's Motion for Decision and Renewed Motion for Decision, limiting the Hearing to Sanction only.

On December 8, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting Complainant's Motion for Limited Summary Judgment in case FAA-2011-0489, 

### finding that the violations charged had been established, and limiting the hearing to the question ofsanction.

OnJuly 11,2013,

### the Court granted Complainant's Motion to 

### cancel the scheduled hearing and allow Complainant and Respondentto file hearing briefs in lieu ofahearing

Complainant's Hea.ring Brief Cornerstone Avla.tion, Jnc.- F AA·20I 1·1293 Page I ofS .,

## .. , ,'
K YL.B E. LOMAZOW, FAA ATiOR'N'SY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-100708/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/05

) 2 3 4 .s

6 7 B 9 10 11 l2 13 FACTS In determining an appropriate sanction, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) follows the sanction guidance found in FAA Order2150.3B. In these cases, the FAA followed that guidance. Respondent is a small business, and has been in business for nine years.

In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA considered the violations committed by Respondent in these cases as non-operational and inadvertent. Respondent has ahistory ofbeing cooperative withthe FAA as it investigates violations, to the extent ofdisclosing Federal Aviation Regulation violations to the FAA. This fact was taken into account in determining an appropriate
H sanction. 15 ··-. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39**~0** 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 <8 49 50 51 52 53 These were purely recordkeeping violations, where there was no concern that the pilots whose training records were incorrect were competent and qualified to exercise the privileges oftheir newly-earned certificates.



## ARGUMENT

Standard Under49 United States Code (U.S.C:) §**46J'O~(a)(S)(A),** a "small business concern is Hable to the Government for a civil penalty

# ofnot more than $10,000

..." The maximum penalty was adjusted to $11,000 on 

### June 15,2006. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.305 (Table)/

In determining an appropriate civil penalty, the Agency considers seven factors: 

### In the Matter 

### of Warbelow'sAir Ventures, 

### Inc., FAA Order :No. 2000-3 at 16-17 n. 22 and 21 (February 3, 2000).

The Agency has the burden of justifying the amount ofcivil penalty sought. 14 C.F,R. 

### § l3.224(a); 

### In I 

### he Matter 

### of Lu:xembr.i.rg, FAA Order 1994-18 (June 22, 

### 1994) at 

### 4: To guide the :FAA's prosecutorial discretion, the Agency has promulgated penalty guidelines, which are found in FAA Order 2150.3B Chapter 7 and Appehdix B dated October 

### J, 2007 (Sanction Guidance). The Sanction Guidance contains tables that establish specific penalty ranges for differenttypes of vio1ations.2 The startil'lg point for a sanction determination is the middle ofthe sanction range

.. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Pa.ragraph 3,c. The FAA's sanction determination does not, however, reflect a fixed mathematical computation; in addition to the published penalty ranges, it takes into accou11t thirteen factors set forth in Chapter 7, Paragraph 4 ofthe sanction guidance, which address the issues setforth in 

### Warbelpw,' These factors are used to adjustthe sanction

,' ,. '• '' upward ordownward from the middle ofthe recommended range.

128 U.S.C. §2461 (Note). 2**S~mction Guidance~**  Appendix B.
J Those factors are: Complainnnt's Hearing Brief Cornerstone Aviation, Inc.- PAA-2011·1293 Page 2or S KY1.S: ri. L.OMAZOW, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227"1 847: FAX: (425) 227-100708/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/05

l 2 3 4 5 6 7• 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 ], 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 :3?. 33 34 35 36 3i 38 39 10 41 42 The FAA Order reflects the Administrator's general views about appropriate civil penalties;.civil penalties mustreflect the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. Folsom'sAir 

### Service, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008). The weightto be given to each·of these factors is within the discretion ofthe Complainant; "the Complainant maintains relative prosecutorial discretion in detennining the case's final aggregate weight in proposing the level of civil penalty." 

### In I he Matter ofWilliam A: Luker, Jr., FAA Docket No. CP09SW0008, 2010 

### WL 1989430 (May 13, 2010) (Order ofChief**J~dge** Yoder Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment). Although a

### Departme~t dfTransportation Administrative Law Judge is not statutorily bound to follow the Administrator's guidance, "[a]n administrative agency is entitled to substantial deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate for a violation ofits regulations. The agency's choice ofa sanction is not to be overturnedunless it is unwarranted in law

# or withoutjustification in fact." 

### NL Industries. Inc, v. Dept. ofTransportati011, 901 F.2d 14), 144 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Further,the Administrator has the ability to Impose the Agency's sanction policy on appeal ifthe assessed civil penalty is not consistent with the policy, 

### In the matter ojWarbelow 'sAir 

### Ventures, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2000·3 (February 3, 2000) at 20; 

### In the matlera/Northwest Airlines, FAA OrderNo. 1990-37 (November 7, 1990) at 8-9.



### Sanctiun Guidance As discussed, the Sanction Guidance establishes sanction ranges for different types ofviolations. For violations committed by Part 141 pilot schools, the ranges are found in Figure B-3-d. The Sanction Guidance for the violations.under

### iliis .docket are:

Violation Sanction Range

43 a. Nature ofthe violation;

. 4 4 b. Whetherthe violation was inadvertent and rtpt deliberate: 45 c. The certificate holder's level ofexperience; .4 6 d, The attitude ofthe violator: 47 e. The degree ofhazard: 48 f. Whetherthere was action taken by the employer or otherauthoril)' against the employee that committed the 4 9 violation(s);
so g, Usc ofthe certificate; 51 h. Violation history;
52 i. Deeisionallaw; 53 j. Ability to absorb the sanction; k. Consistency ofSanction; ]. Whctberthe violation WaS reported V<liuntJ!irr,ly; and.
m. Corrective Action, ' : · ·complainant's Hearing Brief Cornerstone Aviation,**In~.- FAAM2011~**  1293 P!ll\o 3 ofS KY1.2 P., l

..OMAZOW, FAA AtrORNEY TEL:**(~25) 227·18~7:**  FAX: (425) 227-100708/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/05

J. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 11 18 l. 9 20 21 22 2J 7.4· 25 26 27 ?,8 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 n 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 B-3-d(5) Improper Crediting to, or graduation ofstudent (14 C.F.R. §§ 141.95(b)(7))
B-3-d(8) Fatlure to rnaintain training record (14 C.F.R. § 141.10l(c)) Moderate to Maximum

Moderate to Maximum

The Administrator seeks a total sanction of$5,000 in this .case.
The sanction soughtby Complainant in this case is near or below the bottom ofthe range given in the sanction guidance, considering there**~e** two violations here and the maximum sanction under 2150.38 would be $?2,000. The moderate range for each violation is $7,700 and therefore, the proposed sanction of$5,000 sought by Complainant is less than the moderate range for a single violation, letalone two.
Furthermore, these violations were not reported voluntarily, but rather discovered upon inspection by 

### an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. Respondent did send notices to all CFI's and assistant chiefinstructors that no graduation certificates are to be signed by anyone other than the chiefinstructors, but that is the type ofaction that should be expected ofa flight school and therefore not areason for a significantmitigation ofthe sanction. Respondent has not addressed at all the fact that the graduation certificates at issue here did not comply with 14 C.F.R. § 141.95(b)(7).

The Administrative Law .Judge should deferto the Administrator's selection ofsanction under 

### NL Industries, Inc., 90I F.2d at 144, and enter an Order assessing the full $15,500 penalty sought in the three (3) Complaints.

CONCLUSION The Court should deferto the Administrator's selection ofsanction under NL 

### Industries, Inc., 901 F.2d at 144. Complainant respectfully requests that this Court entering an Order imposing the full sanction sought in the Complaints. Any deviation from the Sanction Guidelines has been to Respondent's benefit. Respondenthas presented no evidence warranting afurther reduction of sanction.

Cornplainant 1s Hearing**Brl~f** Cornerstont:: Aviation, Inc,·- F**AA~:ZO** I 1-1293 Pnge4of5**KYl.~** E. UJMA.ZOW, FAA ATfORNf::Y TEL: (42>) 227"1847: FAX: (425) ;127"100708/05/2013 07:00 4252271007 ANM7

l 2 3 

## ' 5 6 7 8**~** 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 .1.7 18**1~** 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certifY that the foregoing Complainant's Briefhas been served via facsimile and FirstClass mai 1this date, to the following: ·
Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 

### New Jersey Avenue, 

### S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm E11-3l0 Washington, D.C. 20590 FAX: (202) 366-7S36

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C. 20591 FAX: (202) 493"5020


### Susan Horstman · ChiefExecutive Officer Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. 337North 2370 Wcst#130 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 FAX: (801) 355-2754

3< Dated this 61 11, day of**Augus~** 2013. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 <2 <3 44 45 46 41 48

### ·~ 50 51 ">2 53

Compla.ino.nt's Hearing Brief**Comerston~** Aviation, Inc.- FAA

..:zOl I-1293 PageS of5

# 4~zz**~ ~/'c!)_-~/**  MARY ANN 

### MITH Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7)**F~deral** Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2925

KYLE E. LOMAl.OW, FAA AlTORNEY TEL: (42lj 227·1847: f'AX: (425) 227·1007 PAGE 05/05