L;.:PIOFJ^/VCPpfMilOif e th e U X Departmen t

o f Transport^&£ ^ ¥ lU w iw? ' Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ^ ^^. « 

### MA R t 5 ?-Gt

O ' i 9 

## HEARIM G DOCKE T

) I n th e matte r

o f ) DM S No . FAA-2009-018 0

) FA A Docke t No . CP09SO000 2 PINNACL E AIRLINES , INC . ) ) ) COMPLAINANT' S OPPOSITIO N T O APPELLANT' S PETITIO N FO RLEAV E

T O FIL E AN ADDITIONA LBRIE F Complainant , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , files thi s Oppositio n t o Appellant' s Petitio n fo

r Leav e t o Fil e a

n Additiona l Brie f

i n th e above-captione dcase . Responden t

Pinnacl e Airline s (Pinnacl e o r Respondent) , ha s petitione dfor leav e t o file a

n additiona l brie f

o f u p t o (15 ) fifteen pages . However , Responden t ha s faile dt o demonstrat e goo dcaus e t o file a n additiona l briefe r

further argumen t

o n th e issue s i n thi s case . Unde r

th e FAA' s procedura l rules , "[a ] party may no t file mor e tha n on e appeal brie f o r repl y brief " 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233(f) . Leav e t o file a n additional brie f

shal l b e grante donl y "i f

th e party demonstrate s goo dcaus e for allowin g additiona l argumen t o n th e appeal. " Id . (emphasi s added) . Th e issue , then , i s whethe r Responden t

ha s demonstrate dgoo dcaus e for allowin g additiona l argument . Se e I n th e Matte r ofStebbins , Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 2005- 9 at

1 (2005 ) (denyin g leav e t o file a n additiona l brief) . Respondent' s motio n i s premise do n it s belie f that portion s o f

Complainant' s argumen t ar e "unsupporte do r

contradicte db y th e record " an dit s desir e t o "correc t an d clarif y an y misleadin g o r

unclear portion s o f

th e Complaint's " brie f

Se e Appellant' s Petitio n for

Leav e t o Fil e an Additiona l Brie f However , Complainant' s argumen t i s 1clea

r an dsupporte db y th e record . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §13.23 3 (d)(1) , Complainan t "specificall y refer[ed ] t o th e pertinen t evidenc e containe di n th e transcript " i n support o f it s argument . Complainan t provide dcomprehensiv e citation s t o th e recor di n support o f al l it s arguments . I f

th e recor dcite s d o no t

support th e argument , that

wil l b e apparen t upo n revie w b y th e Decisionmaker . Additiona l briefin g an dargumen t i s no t warrante d o n th e basi s claime db y Petitioner . Whil e th e FA A Decisionmaker r ha s found , i n ver y limite dcircumstances , tha t i t was permissibl e for

apart y t o file additiona l brief s for th e ver y narrow , limite dpurpos e o f identifyin g factual error s i n arepl y brief , that i s no t wha t Responden t

seek s leav e t o do . Responden t

heis instea dsough t

leav e t o file a

n additional (15 ) fifteen pag e brie f respondin g t o Complainant' s arguments . Eve n i f Pinnacl e believe dther e wer e factua l inaccuracie s or

tha t Complainan t misstate s aspecifi c factual statemen t o r testimon y i n th e recor di t relie s o n i n support

o f it s arg;\iment , thi s woul dno t justif y affordin g Pinnacl e anothe r opportunity t o addres s th e merit s o f th e cas e o r

counte r Complainant' s arguments . Complainant' s repl y brie f addresse donl y th e argument s raise db y Responden t i n it s appeal. ^ Bot

hpartie s hav e briefe dth e issue s o n appeal an dther e i s n o nee dt o permi t additiona l briefs . Se e I n th e Matte r o f Continenta l Airlines , FA A Orde r No . 97-3 4 a

t 4- 5

' I n th e Matte r

o f Sanfor dAir , Inc. , FAA Orde r No . 97-2 2 at

1- 2 (1997) , th e Decisionmake r wa s presente dwit

hamotio n fo

r leav e t o file a

n additiona l brie f

t o addres s perceive dfactual error s in complainant' s repl y brie f Responden t

wa s strictl y limite dt o identifyin g specifi c factual error s in detail . Id . at 2 . Th e additiona l brie f

wa s limite dt o factual error s anddi dno t allo w additiona l briefin g o n th e argument s o r

th e merit s o f

th e appeal . ^ In th e rar e circumstanc e th e Decisionmake r ha s foundthat

goo dcaus e ha s bee n show n t o respon dt o argumen t

raise din Complainant' s brief , it wa s becaus e Responden t demonstrate dthat

ane w argumen t wa s mad e that

coul dno t

hav e bee n anticipate do r briefe din it s initial brief . I n th e Matte r

o f Federa l Expres s Corporate , FA A Orde r No . 2000-2 3 at

1- 2 (2000) . I n tha t

case , th e Administrato r

allowe d additiona l briefin g o n th e very narro w questio n pose din aspecifi c argumen t identifie db y Respondent . Id . at 2 . I n th e presen t

case , n o nove l o r

unanticipate dargument s wer e mad e in Complainant' s brie f(1997 ) (orde r denyin g leav e t o file a

n additional brief) . Th e partie s hav e ha dth e opportunit y t o cit e t o th e recor di n support o f thei r respectiv e argument s an dth e record speak s for itself . Th e argument s i n th e Complainant' s brie f ar e clearl y articulate dan d supporte db y direc t

citation s t o th e recor dtha t support it s argument.' ' Th e FA A Decisionmaker

i s i n apositio n t o revie w th e argument s an devidentiary support , cite db y eac hparty i n th e brief

s provide dfor

unde r th e procedura l rules , an ddetermin e whic h positio n i s supporte db y th e record . In sum , Responden t

ha s faile dt o demonstrat e "goo dcaus e for allowin g additional argument " pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(f) . T o allo w further argumen t

woul d b e contrary t o th e Decisionmaker' s prio r holding s an dcaus e undu e delay an dpossibl e prejudice . WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s that th e FA A Decisionmaker den y Appellant' s Petitio n for Leav e t o Fil e an Additiona l Brie f

Respectfull y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l Enforcemen t

Division, AGC-30 0 

### OcUa Z ^au f aPont o Attorney , AGC-30 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 (202 ) 267-986 3

^ Whil e Respondent' s witnesse s may hav e offere dtestimon y tha t i s contrary t o th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s findings andth e agency' s evidence , tha t testimon y i s i

n th e recor dandalread y before th e FA A Decisionmaker . Th e mer e existenc e o f competin g testimon y doe s no t mea n tha t what wa s cite db y Complainan t

i s "contradicte din th e record " a s Responden t claims .Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y Federa l Expres s acop y o f Complainant' s Oppositio n t o Appellant' s Petitio n fo r Leav e t o Fil e an Additiona l Brief/ « th e Matte r

o f Pinnacl e Airlines , DM S No . FAA-2009-0180 , FA A Docke t No . CP09SO000 2 addresse dto :

W . Chri s Harriso n Directo r o f Lega l Affair s Pirmacl e Airlines , Inc . 168 9 Nonconna hBoulevar d Suite 11 1 Memphis , TN 3813 2 I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y Federa l Expres s acop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : FAA Decisionmaker Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y U.S . Mai l th e origina l an dtw o copie s o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : FA A Decisionmake r Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 

# C^/tk o ated : Marc h12,201 0