02/07/201 1 14:0 8 FAX

01/26/201 1 09:1 1 202493514 2 425227100 7 FA A * DM S ANM 7 0002/01 8 PAG E 02/1 8

1
3 4 5 € 7 a 9 1 0 1 1 3- 3 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 € 2 7 2 8 ?. 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 S 3 S 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 Q B l 5 2 S 3 

### -'RTMEN TO F
Scott R

. Morri s FA A Offic e o f

Regiona ] Counse l 160 1 Lin dAve. , S W Renton , Washingto n 9805 7 Telephone : 425/227-141 7 Facsimile : 425/227-100 7



### _UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C ,

I n th e Matte r

of SKYWES T AIRIJNES , INC

. FAA DOCKE T NO

. CP09NM001 2 DM S NO , FAA-2009-097 9 FAA Cas e No

. 2009NM06004 2 COMPLAINANT' S BRIE F

PROCEDURAL SUMMAR Y O n Februar

y 3,2010 , th e Complainant issue da n Amende dComplain t

t o whic h Responden t filedatimel y Amende dAnswer

. I n it s Answer , Responden t admitte dt o Sectio n I an dSectio n II(1)-(12 ) an d(15). ^ Responden t denie dth e factual allegation s i n Sectio n H (13) , (14) , an d(16 )

a s wel l a s denie dth e violation s alleged , an draise dtw o afEinnativ e defenses

. O n September J , 2010 , tl « Administrativ e La w Judg e (ALT ) se t th e hearin g i n thi s matte r

for December

1 - 3 , 2010

.

STATEMEN T OFFACT S Sk y Wes t Airline s i s th e larges t

regional ai r

carrier i n th e Unite dState s andi s authorize d t o conduc t

it s operation s usin g N232SW , N567SW , N580SW , N41ISW , N430SW , N9 ] 3EV ,

^ Se aDM S Documen t FAA.2009-0979.0014 , CoMPiAiNftUT' s S*j«crio^-BRK P - CP09NN001 2 SKXMSS T AlBtiNB s - 2 0 0 9NMOS004 2 Pag e i o £1 7 SCOT T R , MOJIRIS , FA A ATTOAV¥ T
TEL t 425.227.1417 ; PAX : 4rS,S27.100 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202493514 2 01/26/201 1 09:1 1 425227100 7 FA A + DM S ANM 7 g|003/01 8 PAG E 03/1 6

1 2 3 4 5 « 7 S 9 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 5 I S 1 7 l e 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 E 2 7 2 9 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 6 4 9 S O 5 1 S 3 5 3 an dN668C A unde r

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Regulation s Part 12 1 - ^ It s operation s specification s (OpSpccs ) authoriz e i t t o perfor mde-icin g operation s consisten t with it s groun d deicin g progra mmanual StandardPractic e (SP ) 2800 , Part IX. ^ Th e S P require s Sk

y Wes t personne l t o appl y th e deicing/antj.-icin g flui dbeginnin g at th e lef t win g ti p o f

a n aircraf t an d continu e aroun dth e entire aircraf t unti l arrivin g a

t th e startiutt

g point

. Thi s identifie s th e lef t win g
a s th e representativ e surface

. Th e fluidapplicatio n can begi n at anothe r locatio n o n th e aircraft , bu t onl y Will i th e prio r approva l o f th e pilo t in comman d(PIC).' * When deicing/anti-icin g flui di s applie dt o fligh t

contro l surfaces , SkyWes t persoime l are require dt o appl y i t fromth e leadin g t o trailin g edg e an dfromth e win g an delevato r tip s towar dth e fuselage

. On February 17,2009 , SkyWes t wa s conductin g operation s at th e Sal t Lak e Cit y Airport , Utah

. Thes e operation s include ddejcing/anti-icin g operation s at Spot s 3 an d2 1 o

n Ui e airpor t prio r t o it s aircraf

t departing, ^ Th e weathe r

conditio n tha t

da y consiste do f

ligh t rain , an dsnow ,
an dicin g condition s wer e forecaste dfor an dpresen t

at th e airport

an dsurroundin g vicinity, ' Th e weathe r condition s were suc h tha t frost, ice , o r

sno w wer e reasonabl y expecte dt o adher e t o aircraft. * On February ] 7 , 2009 , Aviatio n Safet y Inspector s Jaso n Grai n an dBe n Blaue r conducte d surveillanc e o f

SkyWes t deicing/anti-icin g operation s a t th e Sal t Lake City Airport , Utah

. They drov e t o an dentere dth e airpor t movemen t

are ausin g agovernment

ca r tha t ha daffixedt o i

t

' Se e Amande dComplain t II.1,3- 5 (DM S Document FAA-2009-0979-0010 ) andAnswe r (DM S Docuraenr

FAA

2009-09900014)

. ' Se e Amende dCompUia t n. 2 an dAnswer

. • * Se e Anj^de dComplain t 11.1 0 an dAnswer

. Se e als o Exhibi t C-8

. ^ Se e Ameride dComplain t II

. 1 1 andAnswer

. * Se e Amende dComplain t II.6- 7 an dAnswer , an

dExhibi t C- 1 A

. " * Se e Amende dComplain t It.S- 9 an dAnswer , • Tr

. at 20 , line s 1 0 - 2 0 an dTr

. a t 234'line s 4-9

. CoMpiAiHAMT ' s SANCTIO N HXIB F- CP05iIM001 2 STcmsS T AisUstitB e - 2009NM06004 2 pag e 2 o f

1 7 SCOT T R

. MOUIM , PAft

. ArroRniEy TEli i 425.227.1417 ; PAX : 425.a27.10ff 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202493514 2 01/26/201 1 09:1 1 425227190 7 FA A * DMS ANM 7 @1004/01 8 PAG E 0d/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 $ 7 B 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 l a 1 9 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 S 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 larg e magneti c sign s with th e letter s FA A i n blac k o n awhit e background. ' They brough t with the mhandhel dradio s tha t allowe dthe mt o liste n i n t o th e uniqu e radi o frequency transmission s tha t wer e occurrin g at

th e deicing/anti-icin g locations , "* They als o ha dv^th them , piece s o f paper , an extrac t

o f Sk y West' s de»icing procedures , an da n Elemen t Performanc e Inspectio n document. ' Durin g thei r observation s o f

thes e operation s o n Febrtiar y 17 , 2009 , the y observe d SkyWes t persoime l begin , th e fluidapplicatio n o f aircraf t a t th e win g roo t

an dspray toward s th e win g tip , They becam e concerne dabou t ho w thes e operation s were bein g conducte dbecaus e tha t

wa s no t thei r recollectio n o f

ho w th e SkyWes t

deicin g manua l se t

fort h ho w aircraf

t wer e t o b e sprayed.' ^ The y observe dseve n aircraf t bein g straye droo t

t o ti p i n wha t

the y believe dwa s contrar y t o SkyWest' s approve dprocedures.' ^ Tbe y als o observe dSkyWes t personne l

commenc e flui dapplicatio n o n th e right win g instea do f

th e lef t wing.^' * They beardn o communication s benve« n th e groun dcre w andth e flight cre w prio r

to , o r after , i n whic h approval fo r thi s wa s give n b

y th e aircraf

t pilo t i n command.' * Followin g eac h o f th e observe d deicing/anti-icin g application s th e aircraf t wer e dispatche dan ddeparte dth e Sal t Lake Cit y Airport , Utah." * Afte r observin g th e deicing/anti-ictn g operation s o f th e aircraft , the y approache da SkyWes t truck.'' ^ I

n thi s truc k

wa s Tyler

Lewi s who the y learne dwa s th e perso n i n charge.' *

* Tr

. a t 24 , lin e 2 0 - Tr , a

t 25 , lin e 8 , ^ ' Ti

. a i 31 , line s 1 1 - 12

. Se e als o Tr

. at2I9 , lin e 1 9 - Tr , a t 220 , lin e 3

. * » Tr.at31 , line s 8-11 , " Tr

. at 32 , line s 9 - 12 ; Tr , a

t 34 , lin e 1 2 - Tr

. a

t 35 , lin e 6 ; an despeciall y Tr

. a t 53 , lin e 7 - lin e 19

. Se e als o Tr

. a t 4 3 - 52 ; Tr

. a t

220

. " Tr

. a t 55 , line s 3 - 14 ; Tr

. at

100

. line s 1 5 - I« ; Tr

. a

t 101

. line s 3 - 12 ; Tr

. at

103 , lin e 1 9 - Tr

. rt

104

. line , 5 ; Tr

. a t 112 , line2 1 -Tr.a t

113,Iine3;andTr

. at222-225

. " Tr

. ai 53 , line s 1 1 - 13 ; Tr , a t 22 2 - 225 ; an dExhibit s C-i , C-5 , C-6 , 5e « cdso Exhibit s C- 2 an dC-10

. ^ ^ Tr

. a t 58 , line s 7 - 1 5 an dTr

. a t 235 , lin e 1 6 - Tt

. a

t 236

. lin e 1

. ^ * Se e Amende dComplain t II , 1 5 an dAnswer , Se e als o Exhibi t C-11

. " Tr , a t 64 , line s 1 7 - Tr

. a

t 65 , lin e IB

. '•' ^ Tr

. at 65 , lin e 1 9 -Tr

. at

66 , lin e 2 , COMPIArmyfTT' S BANCTIOJI BRIE F- CP09NM0U1 2 SKTWBS T AlRIilbiE S - 2009NM06004 2 Pag e 3 o f

1 7 SCOT T R

. MORRIS , FA A AMQWB V
TEL : 425.227.1417 ; PAX ; 42S.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FAX 202493514 2

01/2S/201 1 09:1 1 425227100 7 FA A + DM S

ANM 7 il005/01 8 PAG E 05/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a s 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S l e 1- 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 S 2 ^ 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3fi
. 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 e 4 7 4 B 4 9 fiO 5 1 5 3 5 3 The y explaine dwha t the y observed " an dMr

. Lewi s admitte dt o the mtha t h e kne w hi s deicin g employee s wer e no t

followin g th e correc t

procedtire s andwoul dimmediatel y correc t it.'^ ° Tli e inspector s the n departe dth e airport , returne dt o thei r office s an dreviewe dSkyWest' s entir e deicing/anti-icin g program."^ ' A t thi s poin t the y wer e convince dtha t tlierc was , i n fact , a violatio n o f

Sk y Wes t procedure s s o hispecio r

Grain contacte dSkyWes t an dinforme di t

o f hi s observations.^ ^ Al l told , o f th e eleve n aircraf

t the y observe ddurin g thei r surveillanc e o n February 19 , 2009 , th e de-icin g procedure s use do n seve n o f thos e aircraf

t wer e no t pe r SkyWest' s approve dprogram. ^ ARGUMEN T A

. Th e recor dclearl y estabhshe s tha t SkvWes t conducte dde-icin g operation s contrar y t o it: s operation s specifications , an dthereafter dispatche dseve n aircraf

t i n violatio n o f

it s operation ^ speciGcation , There are n o substantiv e factual issue s i n dispute

. Th e Responden t i n it s Answer

t o th e Complain t

admitte dal l o f

th e factua l allegation s excep t

thos e i n paragraphs , 13,14 , an d16

. Bot h Inspecto r

Grain an dBlauc

j testifie di n n o uncertai n term s tha t the y observe dSkyWes t personne l commenc e fluidapplicatio n o n th e right win g instea do f

th e lef t win g o f th e aircraf

t tha t are subjec t

t o thi s Complaint , an dthat thi s wa s don e withou t

th e approval o f

& e PI C a s require db y it s manual

. The y als o observe dde-icin g bein g conducte dfromroo t t o wing-ti p nthe x tha n wing-ti p t o roo t a s require db y SkyWest' s de-icin g program . Bot h inspector s observe dth e de-icin g an dboth listene dt o th e uniqu e radi o .frequency wher e suc h communicatio n

" Tr

. a t 65 , line s 1 4 - 1 8 en dTr

. a t 188 , line s 1 B - 22

. " Tr

. a t 66 , lin e 5 - Tr

. a t

67 , lin e 11 ; Tr

. a t

409 , lin e 1 0 - Tr

. a t

4)2 , lin e 4 , Se e als o Exhibit s C-2 ( pag e 2) ; C- 3 (las t 3 sentences) ; C-1 0 (las t paragraph) ; an dC-13

. Se e generally , Tr

. a t 226 , line s 13-16

. ' ^ TT

. a t 67 , line s 1 2 - 14 ; Tr

. a t 67 , Kn e 2 2 - Tr

. a t

69

. lin e 8

. Se e Tr

. u 72 , tin e 1 - Tr

. a t 7^ , lin e 4 an dExhibi t C-8 , pag e 4 , (als o ideinifie da s pag e 1 1 o f 2 0 o n th e to p right

o f th e document) , paras . B. 6 an d13

. " Tr

. a t 74 , line s 6 - Tr , a t

75 , lin e 4 ; Tr

. ar

80 , Ibe s I I - Tr

. a t

81 , lin e 6 ; an dExhibt t

C-9

. " Tr.a t 75 , line s 5-17

. COM&UiMMir'S SJUICTIOB J BMB P - CP09NM001 2 SlWWEa t Ai)u,iiU! 5 - 20O9NW06O04 2 Pag e 4 o f

1 7 SCOT T H

- MOWIS , FA A A*T©»NEY
TEL : 425.227,1417 ; FAX ; <12 5 , 22 7

. 10O 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FAX 202433514 2

61/26/201 1 09:1 1 425227100 7 FA A + DM S ANM 7 21006/01 8 PA6 E 06/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 16 ' 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 S 2 6 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 6 4 7 4 6 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 betwee n th e deic e cre w an dpilot s wotd doccur , an dthey di dnot observ e anyon e approac h tli e flight cre w o n th e tarmac
. T

t i s als o establishe dtha t

SkyWes t was require dt o compl y vvit h it s OpSpe c A02 3 in th e conduc t of it s de-icin g operations

. Ai r carrier s are not

free t o deviat e from it s operation s specifications.^" ' Finally , th e factua l allegatio n in disput e withi n paragrap h 1 6 of th e Complaint , i s whethe r o r no t SkyWes t complie dwit

h it s approve ddeice/anti-icin g program . Give n th e requirement s of SP280 0 an dA023 , it

di dno t compl y with it s programfo r th e seve n aircraf t identifie di n th e Complaint

. Therefore , betwee n th « pleadings , th e testimon y o f Inspector s Crai n an dBlauer , an dth e Complainant' s Exhibits , al l o f th e factua

l allegation s are establishe db y aclea

r preponderanc e of

th e evidence

. Th e onl y real issu e i n thi s cas e i s th e appropriat e sanctio n for

thes e violations

. B

. Th e propose dsanctio n i s stinporte dbv th e fact s an dth e Adroinistratai' s sanctio n guidanc e se t fort h mFA A Order

2150.3B

. Whil e th e maximu mstatutor y civi l penalty for

violation s of

th e provision s o f

1 4 C.F.R

. Part s 11 9 an d12 1 i s $25,00 0 per occurrcnce^ ^ an dper

flight,^* th e Adiainistrato r ha s provide d publishe dpolic y guidanc e fo r Agenc y employee s t

o follo w whe n determinin g a n appropriate civi l penalty for

agive n case.^^ TTii

s guidanc e i s containe di n FA A Orde r 2150.3B , i n particula

r Chapte r 7 an dAppMidix B

. Th e guideline s ai dComplainant' s penalty detemainatio n throug h a Sanctio n Guidanc e Matrix

. Th e Matri x set s ou t specifi c penalty range s for eac h typ e o f

violatio n
an dprovide s arang e withi n whic h a n appropriate sanctio n shoul db e sought

. Complainajit' s

" T> , a t 6 9 lin e 2 - Tr

. at

70 , lin e 1 ; Tr

. a t

412 , lin e 5 - Tr

. a t

413 , lin e 8 , Se e Exhibi t

C-7

. ' ^ 4 9 U.S.C

. 4630. 1 (a)(1)

. Se e als o FA A Order 2)50.3B , Cha

p 7 , paia

. 3 « Se e 4 9 U.S.C

- 4630Ka)(^)

- " I f Responden t

attempt s l o clai mtha

t some other

sanctio n i s appropriat e i

n tbi s case , i t

i s well-senlc dthat

th e FAA' s detetmlaatio n t o institut e a . civi l penalt

y proceedin g rather

than employin g som e lesse r for mo f sanctio n (suc h a s alette r o f correction ) i s amatte r

committe dt o th e Agcucy' s soun ddiscretion

. S* e I n th e matte r ofOffShoreAir , FA A Orde r

2002-7,200 2 W

L 104230 4 (Apri

T 15,2002 ) andI n th e maite r o f Wyaa , FA A Orde r

92-73,199 2 W

L 73322 0 (Dec

. 21,1992)

. Se e alt o I n th e matte r o f Bosio»-Main e Airways , FAA No

. CP08SO0002 , 200 S W L 348580 2 (Augus t

8,2O08)(tnitiB

j decision)

.
OOHfLkDU^IT' S SJOaCTIC H BRIt r - CPO9MM001 2 SKVWES T AlULire S - 20D9NM06QO-4 2 Pag e s c f

1 7 SOOT T R

. MOJUUS , PA X A,TT01wr! f
TEL i 425.227.1*17 ; FAX : 425.227.1D0 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FAX 202483514 2 FA A • ^ DM S

w w > ^\JJ. ^ ANM 7 @1007/01 8 PAG E 07/1 8

1 2 3 4 S e 7 B 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S I S 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 D 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 € 2 7 2 6 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 a 4 9 5 0 S l 5 2 S 3 

### sanction determination nevertheles s doe s not merel y reflec t afixe dmathematica

l computation bu t considers amultitud

e o f factors set fo r i n Chapte r 7 , paragrap

h 4

. Usin g thes e factors , the Complainan

t adjusts th e sanction eithe

r upwar do r downwar dfrommiddle o

f tli e recommende

d sanction range.^ * Th

e Complainan

t ha s identifiedthirteen (.13) factors t o conside r whe n determining the appropriat

e sanction fo

r th e violation s associatedwit

h thi s casc.^ ' I

n Folso m' s Air Service , Inc. , FA

A Orde r N o 2008-1 1 (Novembe

r 6,2008) , the Administrato

r heldtha t FA A Orde r reflects the Administrator' s genera l view s abou

t th e civi l penalt y range s tha

t ar e appropriat e fo r differen t type s o f violations

. I

n short , acivil penalt

y mus t reflect th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violations

. Folsom's , supra . Unlik e the Nationa

l Transportation Safet

y Boar d(NTSB ) AL.Ts,^

' Departmen

t o f Transportation (DOT

) ALJ s ar e not statutoril y boun db y th e Adminisfrator' s guidarce

. However, th e AL J i s bouri dto follow Agenc

y guidance an

dth e Adminisfrato

r ha s assertedth e powe

r t o impos e th e ^ency' s sanction policy on. appea l i f a n AL. T assesse s acivi l penalt

y tha t i s no t consisten t wit h the policy

. Se

e I n th e maite r ofWarbelow ' s Ai

r Ventures ^ Inc. , FA A Orde r No

.

" Th e guidanc aprovide s tha t th e middl e o f

eac h recommetidc dsanctio n rang * i s where on e begin s for asingl e violatio n withou t

aggravatin g o r

raitigaiing factors

. FAA Orde r 2150. 3 B , app . B , para , 3(c ) [p

. B-2 ] * ' Thos e fectors are : a . Natur e o f

th e violation ; b

. Whedierth c violatio n wa s inadvenen i an dno t deliberate ; c . Th e certificate holder' s leve l o f experience ; d

. Th e attitud e o f

th e vjolatar ; e . Th e degre e o f

ha»rd ; f Whethe r

ther e wa s actio n take n b y th e employer o r othe r authorit y fo r agains t th e employe e tha

t connninc dth e violaiion(s) ; g . Us e o f

th e certificate ; h

. Violatio n history ; i

. Decisional law ; j

. Abilit

y t o absort

i th e sanction ; k

. Consistenc y o f

Sanction ; L Whether

(h e violatio n v^a

s Reporte dVoluntarily ; and , m . Correctiv e Action

.

COMPIAINANT' S awiCT-O K BMB F- CP09NM001 2 SxyWssT AiRLine s - 2009NM06004 2 pag e 6 o f

1 7 SCOTT R

. M0i«lI3 > FAAATTOBME V TEI, : 425.227.1417 J FAX : 423.527,100 702/07/201 1 14:0 9 FA X 01/26/281 1 09:1 1 202483514 2 425227100 7 FA A • > DM S ANM 7 21008/01 8 PAG E 08/I B

1 2 3 4 5 e 7 9 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l « 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 E 2 6 2 7 2 S 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 S 3 e 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0

• 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 $ 4 7 4 B 4 9 S O 5 1 5 2 S 3 2000- 3 (Februar

y 3,2000) , a

t 20 ; In th e matte r

o f Northwes t

Airlines , FA A Order

No

. 1990-3 7 (Novembe r

7 , 1990) , a

t g-10

. Fro mth e outset , th e Complainant acknowledge s that

i t ha s th e burde n t o justif

y th e
amoun t o f civi l penalty i t

seeks

. I n th e Matte r

o f Luxemburg , FA A Order

] 994-1 8 (Jvm

e 22 , 1994) , However , i t

i s als o wel l establishe d"[a] n administrativ e agenc y i s entitle dt o substantial deferenc e i n assessin g th e civi l penalty appropriate fo r aviolatio n o f

it s regulations

. Th e Agency' s choic e o f

asanctio n i s no t

t o b e overturne dunles s i t i s unwarrante di n la w o r

withou t justificatio n i n fact " N

L Industries

. Inc

. v . Dept

. o f Transportation , 90 1 F.2 d141 , 144 (D.C

. Cir

. 1990).'' " I n thi s case^ th e sanctio n i s no t only appropriate bu t

full y supporte dunder

th e Administiator' s sanctio n guidance.^^ I n thi s cas e w e are no t

talkin g abou t

aperso n that

i s o n her first airplan e flight

wh o commit s
arelativel y mino r

violation

. Ai r

carrier s are hel dt o alug h dut y o f care . Indeed , the y ar e obligate d
t o perfor mthei r service s wit

h "th e highes t

possibl e standardo f

care, " See , e.g. , Folsom's , supra . p . 16

. Thi s degre e of

care devolve s fromth e carriers ' responsibility t o assure , t o th e maximu m exten t possible , th e safet

y an dwell-bein g o f

it s passengers , crew , an dother s involve di n transportatio n b y air

. Th e Administrato r ha s mad e i t

clea r tha t "[c]ertifica,t

e holder s with a greate r leve l o f experienc e may b e hel dto ahighe r standard." "

^ ^ 4 9 U.S.C

. §44709(d)(3 ) require s th e Boar dl o giv e deferenc e t o th e Administrator' s writte n Agenc y policy , absen t afmdin g tha t

it i s azbitr^ry , capricious , or othenvis e no t

accordin g t o law

. ' ^ "[TJher c i s preceden t

indicatin g that

unles s ther e are factor s justifyin g th e reductio n of a n odjerwis e reasonabl e civi l penalty

. Complainant' s us e o f th e sanctio n guidanc e t o determin e th e appropriat e civi l penalty shoul dno t b e disturbed. " 7H th e Mtmer o f Blu e Ridg e Airlires , FA A Orde r NO

. 99-15 , 199 9 W

L 127983 2 (Dec

. 22 , 1999 ) citin g 7>an s Worl dAirlines , Int. , FAA Orde r No

. 98- ] I , al2 1 (.Tun

e 16 , 1988)

. AccordFA A v . Do n Bes-iett e Aviation , 200 6 W L 1624325 , a t

5 , 7 (iaitia ] decisio n o f

Judg e Goodwin) , ^ * "Whe n sanctio n j s ao issue , th e la w judg e I s expecte dl o giv e areasone dexplanatio n o f th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penal ^ selected , wljedie

r o r no t th e penalt

y i s reduced

. The Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t require s articulatio n o f th e law judge' s sanctio n decision."/ n theMarte r o f ToyotaMoto r

Satex , /nc.TA A Orde r

No

. 94-24 , 199 4 W

L 8996 6 (Sep t

30 , ]994)(ciiin g l o 5 U.S.C

. §557(c)) , " FAA Order

2150.3B , chap

. 4 , para , 4(c)(1 ) fp

. 7-5 1
COKFIAIKANT' S SAHCTIO WSME P- C f

D9NM001 2 3icfHKj T AIRLINE S - 2009MMOfi004 2 Pag e 7 o f

1 7 SCOT T ft. MORRIS , FA A ATToiwEr TEi : 425.227,1417 ; ffAJC: 425.227.100 7

BtHB H02/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202433514 2 FA A + DM S

^ , * r j^\j f ^tmt X X CJ^rX X AHM 7 121009/01 8 PAG E 09/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. 0 .1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 li S 1 7 I B I B 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 S 2 € 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 ? 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 Anothe r

consideratio n i n determinin g th e penalty amoun t i s Respondent' s size

. Th e Agency' s polic y i s to plac e arelativel y equivalen t deterren t effect o n eac h air

carrier

. A s such , "fwjbe n th e violato r

i s alarg e company rathe r tha n asmal l company, " th e Administrato r ha s said , "th e penalty ma

y nee dt o b e correspondingl y larger t o ajchiev e th e %aiQ?

. deterren t efifecl, " Toyot aMoto r

Bales , USA

, Inc. , FA A Order

No

. 94-2 8 (Septembe r

30 , 1994) , p . 11

. Her

e th e violato r i s "th e world' s larges t

independently-owne dregional airline , providin g servic e througjiout Nort h America.""' ^ A s a

n ai r carrier whos e annua

l operatin g revenue s are i n exces s o f $10 0 millio n
an dwh o employ s more than 1,50 0 cmployecs,^^ SkyWes t

i s categorize dunder

th e Administrator' s sanctio n guidanc e a s aGroup I air carrier."'^ A s alarg e carrie r b y any measure , SkyWes t mus t b e subjec t t o afiu e with adeterren t

factor appropriate t o it s size

. Th e penalty shoiJ drepresen t somethin g greate r

i n effect tha n simpl y acos t

o f doin g business

. SkyWes t ha s alread y acknowledge dtha t

i t ha s th e financial ability t o pay th e propose dcivi l penaJty.^ ^ S o ther e i s ii o issu e abou t

th e abilit y t o absor b th e sanction.-' * Th e Administrato r

als o require s consideratio n o f th e company' s prio r

violatio n history

. A s h e ha s tim e an dagai n opine dtha t th e absenc e o f

aviolatio n histor

y i s no t ground s for mitigation.' ' Se e Toyot

aMoto r Sales , FAA Orde

r No

. 94-2 8 (Sep t

30 , 1994)

. On th e othe r

hand ,
aprio r violatio n i s considere damatte r i n aggravation , especiall y i f i t involve s simila

r violations ,

^ ° SkyWes t

Airline s Fac t

shee t a t httD;//ww\».»ikvwe5t.coni/niedia/glcvWest-Airiine?tFact-Shcict.ph p (retrieve dJun e 9,2010)

. Se e als o Tt

. a

t 85 , lin e 1 3 - Tr

. a t

86 , lin e 1 , an dRespondent's answer t o Complainant' s Initial Discovery Reques t t o Reques t

fo r Admission s 1 - 3 loaau dtn DM S Documen t FAA-20O9-0979-00O 5 (pag e 6)

. "^ ^ Se e Aosvvers t o Reques t fo r Admission s 1 and2 in Respondent' s Respons e t o Complainant' s Initia l Discover^ ' Request

. Accordin g t o ScyWcst' s ow n stateoicntaon it s publi c website , i t employee s 8,80 2 fiall-iime employee s operate s 29 4 aircraft , an dhada n operatin g revenu e o f

S604. dmillio n in th e quarte r endin g Decembe r

31 , 200 9 alone

. Se e y\vw.skvwest.cQ m(retrieve dJun e 9,2010)

. " FA A Orde r

2 J50.3B , app . B , para , 3(c)(1 ) [p

. B-3] , *' ' Se e Answe r

t o Reques t

for Adtnissio m3 i n Respondent' s Respons e t o Complainant' s Initial Discovery .Re<5UC3 t locate din DM S Documen t FAA-2009-0979-000 5 (pag e 6)

. " Tti s i s on e o f

Administrator' s sanctio n criteria

. Se e f a29 , supra ,

CDKE'IAItUOn' S SAVCilO M BKIE f - ' C{>OSI^001 2 SnrUss T PLtK.iitz s - 20O9NM0eOO4 2 P«j e 9 o f

1 7 SCOT T R , MOWlfi, FA A ATTORUE Y
TEL : 425.227.1417 / PAX : 425.227,100 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202483514 2 HI/26/201 1 09:1 1 425227108 7 FA A + DM S AhlM 7 glOIO/01 8 PAG E 10/1 8

1 2 3 4 S e 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I S 1 3 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 3 6 2 7 2 9 2 9 3 D 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3l S 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 a
S O 5 1 5 2 5 3 an d"can justif

y imposin g asanctio n a

t th e highe r

en do f th e normal rang e o r

asanctio n beyon d th e norma l range.'''^ ° I n thi s case , SkyWes t ha s aprio r

violatio n history , Specifically , i t ha s receive dOrder s Assessin g Civi l Penaltie s o n tw o occasion s i n th e tw o year s immediatel y precedin g thi s violatio n involvin g imprope r de-icin g operation s - - on e occurrin g jus t awee k prio r t o th e event s tha t

ar e th e subjec t

o f thi s Complaint.'* ^ Thi s cas e involve s SkyWes t dispatchin g or

otherwis e releasin g seve n o f it s aircraf t whe n th e weathe r

condition s warrante di t

to properl y us e it s approve ddeice/anti-ic e program. . SkyWesi t faile dt o properl y compl y with it s approve ddcice/anti-ic e progra man di t thereafter ha. d thes e seve n aircraf

t depar t th e Sal t Lake City , Uta

h airpor t withou t bein g properl y deiced

. For sanctio n purposes , th e Administrato r believe s that

SkyWes t committe dfourtee n separate violations : seve n fo

r th e violatin g it s OpSpec s fo r it s failure t o compl y wit h it s approve ddeicin g procedure s an dseve n for

actuall y aJJowJjn

g th e aircraf

t t o depart an doperat e followin g th e imprope r applicatio n o f

th e deicin g fluid. Th e Administrato r ha s establishe dth e followin g sanctio n range s for

Grou p I carrier s wh o commi t violations.* ^ Maximu m$18,750-$25,00 0 Moderat e $10,000-$18,74 9 Minimu m$2,000-59,99 9 Th e Administrato r

ha s further

identifie dwha t

woul db e an appropriat e sanctio n fo r each

. typ e o f violation

. Fo r

aviolatio n o f

th e SkyWest' s approve ddeicin g programth e Administrato r guidanc e indicate s amoderat e t o maximu mcivi l penalt y for eac h violation.'* ^ Therefore th e

" " A violaiion-fre e histoi y i s th e expecte dnomv net di e exceptio n and , therefore , i s no t amitigatin g factor. " FA

A Onler2]50.3B , chap

. 7 , para . 7-4h(l ) (p

. 7-7 ] * " Id

. * * Se e Respondent' s Answe r t o Reques t

for Admissio n 4 in Respondent' s Respons e t o Complainant' s Initial Discovery Reques t

locate di n DM S Documen t FAA-2009-0979-000 5 (pag e 6)

. " FA A Orde r

21S0.3B , app . B , para . 3(cXl ) [p

- B-3]

. Exhibi t 1 2 (FA A Order

2150.3B , ipp

. B , Fig

. B-l-i<(l ) [p

. B-I4])

. cei><iPi,».rKw»T'

s SANCTIO

U BRIS ? - CP09iJMOOi

2 SKYWESt AlKLIVS S - 20e9NH06O04 2 Pag e 9 o f

1 7 SCOT T R, MOWli

e , FAA AtTOWIB y
TEL : 425.227,1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202493514 2 aifjibrZiJl l B9:l l 425227180 7 FA A + DM S ANM 7 [gion/01 8 PAG E ii/i s

1 2 3 4 5 € 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 « 1 7 l e 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 S 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 6 3 7 3 a 3 S 4 0 • t l 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 e 4 7 4 a 5 0 S l 5 2 5 3 sanctio n rang e for

thes e seve n violation s i s S 10,00 0 - $25,00 0 for eac h o f thos e violations

. Beginnin g a t

th e mid-range , prio r

t o any fiaUie

r evaluation , th e initial sanctio n woul db e $17,50 0 pe r violation

. Next , ther e wa s th e actvia l operatio n of

th e aircraf

L Th e Agenc y concede s that th e safet y ris k give n th e weather

o n tha t da v wa s lo w andn o real safet y issu e existed

. Therefore , for purpose s of

sanction , th e Agenc y believe s tha t thi s violatio n constitute s technical non complianc e o f

SkyWest' s operation s specifications

. Th e Administrator' s guidanc e indicate s a .minimu mcivi l penalt

y for thes e operatio n specificatio n violations

. Th e sanctio n rang e fo r thes e
seve n violation s i s $2,00 0 - $9,99 9 for each violation.* ^ Agai n beginnin g a t th e mid-rang e prio r t o any adjustmen t

fo r th e factor s th e Administirator indicate s tha t

on e shoul dconside r

result s i n a $6,00 0 pe r

violatio n sanction.'* ^ Therefore , followin g arou t mathematical formulation , th e sanctio n rang e woul dbegi n at $164,50 0 [(I X $17,500 ) + ( 7 x $6,000)]

. Th e sanctio n requeste d i n thip cas e i s $84,00 0 whic h demonstrate s a t th e outse t

tha t th e Agenc y di dnot

follo w astric t mathennatica

l formul al o determin e th e propose dpenalty* ^ hu t did , i n fact , conside r

th e totality of th e circumstances

. Th e Agenc y di dconside r that th e safet y risk at th e tim e o f

thes e deicin g operation s was low.* ' Th e Agenc y als o di dconside r th e fac t tha t SkyWes t wa s assesse da $20,00 0 penalty for

violation s that

occurre dawee k

prio r where th e company wa s no t notifie do f thos e violati'on s unti l afte

r th e incident s that

are th e subjec t

o f thi s Amende dComplaint. ' However , th e Agenc y als o balance dthi s agains t SkyWest' s obligatio n t o monito r i s ow n . 4 S

* • Se e als o Tr

. a t

8 6 - 8 8 " I d t t Th e Administrato r

frowns o n astric t

formul aapproach

. Se c Intersiai e Chemica l Company , Inc. , FAA Order 2002-2 9 (Dec

. 6,2002) , p . 15

. Complainan t als o r«cogni2e s tha

t littl e weight

shoul db e give n t o merel y addressin g th e maxtcnumpotentia l penalt y possible ; $450,000

. See FA A v, Tran s State s Airlines , FA ADocke t No , CP08CEO0O3,2009\V L I04I8B 5 (Apri l 16,3009)(Initia ] Decisio n o f A U Goodwin) , atf e 6

. Thi s figur e i s provide da s illustrativ e evidenc e tha t th e Agenc y exercise dic

s bes t judgmen t i n determinin g where ih e sanctio n shoul db e withi n th e rang e provide db y th e Administrator , *" " Tr.at92,line s 3-11

.
COWlftiwuft' S SHWCIIC N SHB F- CP09NMd01 2 SXTWBS T AlRUMB S - 2009NW06004 2 Pag e l o o f

1 7 SCOT T R, MORRI S , FA A ATrosNc r
TEL' , 425.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:0 8 FA X 202493514 2 oi/zb/zol l a9;l l 425227180 7 FA A * DM S ANM 7 21012/01 8 PAG E 12/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 C 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 $ 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 £ 3 7 3 B 3 9 4 0 4 1 .4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 C 4 7 4 6 4 9 5 0 53 , 5 2 3 3 Operations ; th e fac t

tha t thi s same conduc t

wa s observe dawee k

prior ; tha t

SkyWes t canno t us e th e FA A a s it s quality control ; tha t adifferent

safet y resul t coul dhav e occurre di f

th e weather
was different ; an dSkyWest' s violatio n histoiy

. Th e Agenc y als o considere dtha t thes e wer e Part 12 1 operation s carryin g passengers . I t shoul db e note dtha t

tiie civi l penalty cas e concernin g th e February 10,200 9 violation s was adownwar ddepartur e fromth e Administrator' s sanctio n guidanc e thu s demonstratin g th e Agenc y considere dall o f thes e sam e factor s i n th e earlie t case.^^ Th e sanctio n requeste dher e essentiall y become s $12,00 0 fo r eac h o f th e seve n aircraf

t reference di n th e Amende dComplaint

. Eve n i f th e AL J was t o conside r

th e thre e regulatio n violation s a s al l bein g multipliciou s fo r sanctio n purposes , th e $12,00 0 pe r aircraft/flight

i s at th e lowe r en do f th e sanctio n guidanc e an dther e i s n o evidenc e that warrant s adownwar ddeviatio n fromth e Administrator' s sanctio n guidance

. I t i s th e Agency' s positio n is , that any amoun t

lowe r tha n th e proposed , woul dnot provid e sufficient

deterren t t o thes e type s o f

violations

. Th e Agenc y i s i n th e bes t

positio n t o determin e what sanctio n shotil db e impose dfo r agive n violatio n
an dabsen t

afmdin g tha

t th e Administrato r

i s actin g arbitrar

y o r capricious , th e ALJ shoul dgiv e deferenc e t o th e sanctio n proposed , especiall y whe n th e sanctio n propose di s a t th e lower en do f th e sanctio n guidance

.

* * Se e It

. at

93 , lin e 1 9 - Tr

. a t

94 , Hre 20

. * ' SkyWes t

wa s assesse da$20,00 0 C P fo r identical regulator

y violation s involvin g si x aircraf t i n flie cas e involvin g Inspecto r Peterso n observation s o n February 10 , 2009

. Se e Respondent's Answe r t o Reques t

for Admissio n No

. 4 in Respondeoi' s Respons e t o Compiainant' s Initial Discovery Reques t heate di n DM S Docnmen i FAA-2009-0979

- 000 5 (pag e 6)

. Inspecto r

Peterso n eJcperieocedasignificant famil y tragedy tha

t distracte dhe r

fromfocusin g o

n he r FA A dutie s fromFebruary 1 0 throu^tb c res t o f th e month

. Se e Tr

. a

t 39 3 - 394

. I t

I s undispute dtha t

th e FA A di d no t notif y SkyWts i o f

th e Februar

y 10,200 9 violation s unti l afte r th e Februar

y 17 , 200 9 violations

. However , i t i s reasonabl e t o assum e tha t th e Agency' s Orde r

pertainin g t o th e Februar

y 10 , 200 9 violation s considere dthi s fector fo r soc h adoiwiwarddeviatio n o f fte Adixunistrator' s aanctJo n guidance

. COWUUHMTr' S SAMCTIO M BRIBJ ' - CP09HMQ01 2 SEVMSS T AlRLIMe a- 200*J»MOGOD4 2 Pag a1 1 o C 1 7 Scox r R

. MoRHis

, FA A ATTORNE

Y TEL : 425,227.1417

. FAX : 425.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FA X 202493514 2 ox/^o/^oi i Kiy:i l 425227100 7 FA A • > DM S ANM 7 1013/01 8 PAG E 13/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 f B 9 1 0 l l 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 l a 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 E 2 7 z e 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 $ 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 B 4 S 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 C

. Respondent s defense s d o no t warrant areductio n i n sanction

. Th e Responden t

raise da s adefetise , bu t

presente dn o evidenc e t o support , tha t th e propose d penalty violate s FA A policy , i s excessiv e an da n abus e o f

discretion

. Thi s assertio n lack s merit

. I n th e main , th e Responden t ha s th e burde n o f

proo f for an y affirmativ e defense

. Th e Administrato r

i s ultimatel y responsibl e fo r regulatin g safet

y i n ai r commerce . Clongres s gav e th e Administrato r th e power

t o prescrib e regulations.^' ^ I n fiarthcranc c of tlii s obligatio n t o th e public , th e Administrato r ha s th e authority t

o impos e sanction s fo

r violatin g Agenc y Regulations.^ ' Th e Administrato r ha s mad e availabl e t o th e publi c ho w sanction s wil l b e determine dan dwha

t factor s i t wil l consider

. However , a s t o th e weigh t associate dwith eac h facto r "th e Complainan t

maintain s relativ e prosecutoria l discretio n i n determining.th e case' s final aggregat e weigh t

i n proposin g th e leve l o f

civi l penalty. " I n th e Matte r o f Willia mA

. Luker

. Jr. , FA A Docke t

No , CP09SW0008 , 201 0 ^ T 198943 0 (Ma y 13 , 2010 ) (Order

o f Chie f Judg e Yoder Grantin g Complainant' s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment) It i s likewis e anticipate dtha t Responden t

wil l argti e that

th e sanctio n impose dshoul db e reduce do r eliminate dbecaus e of

th e allege d"doctrin e o f

waiver , acquiescenc e andunclean hands. ' Thi s i s essentiall y aquasi-eatoppc l clai magains t agovernmental entit

y a s t o th e sanction

.

= ' 4 9 U.S.C

. §40113

. ^ ' 4 9 U.S.C

. ^301

. Se e als o 1 4 C.F.R

. §13.1 6
" A t th e hearin g itself

, Respondent* * counse l raise dth e Accard i Doctrin e defense

. Se e Accard i v . Shauncssey , 34 7 U.S

. 260 (1954)

. However , thi s wa s no t raise da s adefens e in th e pleading s an dtherefore thi s defens e shoul db e considere dwaived

. Assumin g arguend o dia t

thi s defens e i s no t

waived , thi s defens e 1

5 no t apphcabl e i

n thi s cas e becaus e ther e i s n o statutor

y o r regulatory right

at issue

. Purfber

. th e Accard i Doctrin e doe s no t appl y t o her e becaus e FA A Orde r 2150-3 B provide s n o procedura ] protection s or substantiv e rights t o th e Respondent

. Th e Orde r i s aguid e t o inspectors

. Se e Barri e v

, FAA

. 1 6 Fed

. Appx

. 930

. 200 1 WL9on4 7 (C.A

. 10 * Cir-(N,M.))

. A t best , th e Accardi Doctrin * mi^ t

appl y if Agenc y personne l di dno t follo w a n Agenc y reguktio n iha

t bestowe dasubstantiv e right

. Fo r escaraple , 1 4 C.F.R

. 13.1 6 provide s Responden t th e righ t t o hav e a n opportunity t o hol dan iafonna l conference

. Ther e i s n o regulatory issu e involve dhere

. Responden t seem s t o clai mtha

t th e Inspector' s di dno t

foUo w FAA
COMPiAaaUT' t

BAMCTIO H SUtc r

- CP09NM001 2 SKTWSS T AIULIN M - 20 0 9M106004 X Pag « 1 2 o f

1 7 seot T R - MORRI S , FA A ATTOWJEI T
TEL : 425.337.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FA X 202483514 2 OL , ,40 / zoi i ay t 1 1 425227100 7 FA A + DM S

ANM 7 21014/01 8 PAG E 14/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S $ 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 £ 1 7 1 8 1 3 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 e 2 > 9 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 a 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 € 4 7 4 6 4 9 5 0 B l 5 2 5 3 Th e policie s th e FA A are charge dwith upholdin g an dadvancin g —chiefl y th e maintenanc e of

safet y an dsecurity i n af

r transportatio n mak e asuccessfu l estoppe l clai magains t i t especiall y difficul t

"Th e promulgation , preservation , an denforcemen t o f standard s o f

safet y in th e ai r are amon g th e mos t

critica l fiinctions entruste dt o any regulatory agency , Tl: e fieldo f aviatio n safet

y carrie s special responsibilitie s becaus e s o muc h i s a t stake, " I n (he Matte r

o f Delawar e Skyways , LLC

. FAA Orde r 2005-5 , 199 5 WL 91605 1 (Marc h 10 , 2006) , a t 6 (statemen t

fromJudg e Kolko' s (Drde r Grantin g th e Motio n fo

r Decision) , The NTSB , i n fac t ha s hel dunequivocall y tha t

estoppe l wil l neve r

li e wher e th e publi c interes t i n flight safet y i s impUcate dFA

A v . Ronal dO

. Fisher , EA-2986 , 6 NTS B 1292,129 4 (1989) , t^dsu b mm . Fishe r v . D

. O

. T. , 91 1 F.2 d2 7 (9 * Cir , 1990)

. Whil e th e AU , o r th e Administrato r

for tha t matter , i s no t

boun db y NTS B cas e law , h e ma y follo w i t

i f i t i s persuasive

. Folsom's , supra , a t 4 ; In th e Matte r

ofWestAi r

Commute

r Airlines , Inc. , FA A Order No

. 1993-1 8 (Jun e 10 , 1993) ,
a t 6 ; 7 n th e Matte r

o f Richardso n & Shimp , FAA Order No

. 1992-4 9 a t

9 n . 1 3 (Jul y 22 , 1992)

. T o prevai l agains t

th e Governmen t

unde r thi s quasi-estoppe l claim , th e Responden t woul dhav e t o sho w "affirmativ e misconduct " b y governmental officials

. Delawar e Skyways , supra , a t 3

. Se e als o FA

A v . Sun Ques t

Executiv e Air

Charter , LLC , 201 0 W

L 31S48 0 (Januar

y 26 , 2010 ) (Initial Decisio n o f Judg e Goodwin) , at

fii 7 , Ther e i s not

aslire do f

evidenc e i n thi s
cas e tha t Responden t

coul dremotel y mee t

thi s burden

. Further , i n Hecfde r v . Communit

y Health Service s o f

Crawfor dCounty , 46 7 U.S

. 5 1 (1954) , th e Suprem e Cour t explaine dth e element s o f estoppe l a s follows ;

Orde r 2150.3 B guidanc e becaus e they di dno t notif y * e Responden i o f

potentia l violation s .within th e timefrani e tha t itftH^ffh t tha t it shpul db e notified

. I n thi s case . Responden t wa s notifie do f

it s violation s withi n amatte r o f hours

. T o claimdia t

thi s wa s no t

timel y i s aspeciou s argument
. COMSUklKJOlT' s SMICIIO H BMC r - CP09HM001 2 StcyWEST AtRiim a- 2009IIM06004 2 Pag e 1 3 o f

1 7 SCOT T R

. Mourns , FA RATTOSKE V
TEL : *25.227,1417 ; PAX s 435,227.100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FAX 202493514 2

oA/^o'zui i kjy:! ! 425227100 7 FA A • » DM S ANM 7 31015/01 8 PAG E 15/1 a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l e 1 7 I S 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 S S 2f i 2 7 2 a 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3f i 3 7 3 e 3 & 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 £ 4 7 4 5 4 » S O 5 1 5 2 5 3 [T]h o part

y claimin g th e estoppe l mus t hav e relie do n it s adversary' s conduc t "i n suc h amanne r

a s t o chang e hi s positio n fo r tli e worse, " an dthat

relianc e mus t hav e bee n reasonabl e mthat th e part y claimin g th e estoppe l di dno t kno w no r shoul di t hav e know n tha

t it s adversary' s conduc t

wa s misleading

. SkyWes t fail s o n both of

thes e counts
. SkyWes t

canno t rely upo n an

y allege d misrepresentatio n by Inspecto r Peterso n a s abasi s fo

r it s purporte ddefens e becaus e sh e never mad e arepresentatio n that cause dthe mt o chang e it s positio n for tiie worse . I n th e ligh t

mos t favorabl e t o SkyWest , haspcctor Peterson' s failure t o ac t

becaus e o f

he r uncertainty abou t wheflie r o r no t a n actua l violatio n ma

y hav e catise dSkyWes t

t o merel y continu e t o operat e i n violatio n o f

it s deicin g program . That i s afa r cr y fro mactuall y causin g aviolatio n t o occur . Th e inactio n b y Inspecto r

Peterson , becaus e o f

he r uncertainty , caimo t

b e impute da s arepresentatio n t o SkyWes t

tha t ther e wa s n o violation

. T o hol da s such , woul db e t o imput e that FA A Inspector s are all-kno'wn g abou t ever y aspec t of ever y ai r carrier s operation s - an untenabl e position

. Mor e importantly , SkyWes t ha dever y reaso n an dopportunity t o observ e th e conduc t

o f it s ow n employee s i n th e conduc t o f it s operations

. Th e action s o f

it s employee s were literall y in apubli c ope n area , o n th e ramp a t alarg e publi c airport

. I t

woul db e more than astretc h for SkyWes t t o clai mtha i th e action s o f Inspecto r Peterso n wer e willfu l misconduct

. A t best , i t woul dhav e bee n abette r

praictic e fo

r her t o hav e notifie dSkyWes t

o f th e potential violation s sh e observe do n th e Februar y 10* , bu t

give n th e significant famil y traged y sh e learne dof , immediatel y afte

r thes e observations , on e ca n tmderstan dan dappreciat e th e re-orderin g o f he r priorities.^ '

" Finally , eve n assumin g arguendo. , SlQ'West coul dsomeho w convinc e tha t AI J tha t Inspecto r Peterson' s actions , o r any otfie r F.A A employee' s acdons , ros e t o th e leve l o f neglec t that stil l doe s no t

reac h th e burde n o f

willftj j conduc t tha t mus t b e me t fo r a n estoppe l argunientt o prevail , SeeSime n v . Caltfano , 59 3 F,2 d121 , 12 3 (9 * Cir

. 1979)

. COKPliMwujirr' S BMICTJO H 3B.JE F- CP09NM001 2 SKifWse T AIRLINE S - 2O09NM06OO4 2 {•ag e 1 4 o f

1 7 ScOt T R

. T>10KBI6 , FA A AlTORNE

V
TEL : 425.227.1417 : FAX

- 425.237.100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S ANM 7 glOIG/01 8 PAG E 16/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 £ 2 7 2 6 ,2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 S 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 S 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 ? 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 CONCLUSIO N

Responden t

ha s already concede dtha t i t ha s th e financial ability to pay th e propose dcivi l penalty

. Th e Complainan t ha s provide da

n explanatio n a s t o ho w i t arrive da t th e propose d penalty consisten t

wit h th e Administrator' s sanctio n guidance

. Give n Respondent' s prio r violatio n history , th e numbe r o f aircraf t involved , th e siz e o f

th e company , an dth e rang e i n whic h th e possibl e sanctio n shoul dfall withi n th e Adminislrator' s guidance , th e S84,0D 0 propose di s emincnti y reasonable

. Wha t Responden t

wishe s t o d o i s clai mthat th e Agenc y fiadle dt o notif y i t tha t j t wa s i n non-compliance , essentiall y shiftin g it s quality contro l responsibilitie s fromitsel f t o th e Complaint ; th e Admiiusfrator canno t allo w this

. A s th e ultimat e guardian s o f air transportatio n safety , th e Complainan t mus t ensure that

a n ai r oairier perfor mit s dutie s with th e highes t degre e o f care , an di t

canno t absolv e itsel f

o f thi s dut y b y assumin g that

an Inspector , wh o happen s t o b e i n th e are acatche s adeficienc y i n it s program . What

happene dher e doe s no t

warran t any fiirihe t

mitigatio n othe r

tha n already considere db y th e Agenc y i n it s analysis

. T o allo w Responden t asecon dbit e at

th e sanctio n whe n thes e factor s hav e alread y been considere dwoul deliminat e th e nee dfor th e Agenc y t o do a totality o f th e circumstanc e analysi s an dallo w i t t o merel y rel y upo n tli e rou t mathematical formulatio n th e Administrato r seek s t o avoid

. Havin g demonstrate dalogicalrational e fo r th e

In fact , eve n i f

Inspecto r Peterso n hadmad e a n atfirmatlv e statemen t approvin g th e deicin g operations , tha t woul dno t b e aba r t o a n actio n i n thi s case . Th e Ninth Circui t ha s mad e th e foDowjng observation : [T]h e Suprem e Court , i n 5<J'm'tfrte r V

. Hansen , 450 US

. 78 5 (1981) , acas e involvin g eligibility fo r social securit

y benefits , hel dthat

th e sutranen t

by a n adminjstraiiv e oBlcial on aceitai n matter doe s no t esto p th e administrativ e agenc y fromlate r assertin g apositio n contrary t o thi t statement
. Th e Schweiks r

Court note dthat

i f tb. e administrativ e ofRccr' s statemen t wa s hel dt o esto p th e governmen t

fromassertin g adifferen

t position , then th e government i s pu t at ris k that evei- y erro r b y agovemtnoTt

agent wil l depriv e th e govemmeB t o f th e benefit s o f

it s mor e thoroug h admlnistraiiv e procedures

. Fttlierv

. V.r5.5,

. 91 7 F.2

d17,199 0 W

L 16100 5 (9* * CiT

- 1990)(unpublishe

dopiftioB) , a

t 2 , CoKFWaWiNT' S SRHCTIQ H BME P - CP09NK1001 2 SJWWesT AlRfclNE

C - 20OgNMOSOO4 2 Pag e 1 6 o f

1 7 SCOT T R

. Motmtfl , FA A ATTOBSE Y
TEL : 425.227.141 7 J FAX : «25.327,100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FA X 202493514 2

H.iO.^.ii'ioa c FA A + DM S

ANM 7 @1017/01 8 PAG E 17/1 8

1 3 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 S 2 7 2 a 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 B 3 9 <; o 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 a 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 requeste dsanction , th e AL J shoul dgiv e deferenc e t o that sanctio n an daffirme dth e Complainant' s reques t

for th e impositio n fo

r a n $84,00 0 penalty , RESPECTFULL Y SUBMrTTED ihi s 26 * da y o f Januar y 2011

.

Sot t R-Morri s FAA Attorne y

COMMJLr>w«T ' s SANCTIO WBJIIS P - CP09NMOO1 2 SJffWtfl T ASM.IU3 S - 2009HM06D04 2 Paj e l « o f

1 7 SCOT T R

. MOJW:^S , PA A ArreuwEi f TEI, : 425,227,1417 ; FAX ; 425.227.100 702/07/201 1 14:1 0 FA X 202483514 2 01/26/20 H 09:1 1 425227100 7 FA A * DM S ANM 7 21018/01 8 PAG E 18/1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l e 1 7 I S 1 9 2 D 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 a 2 9 3 D 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 6 4 9 5 0 5 1 S 3 5 3 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E
I hereb y certif

y that th e foregoin g Complainant' s Brief , ha s bee n serve dvi aFacsimil e an d Certifie dMai l thi s date , t o th e following :

Th e Honorabl e RichardC

. Goodwi n Offic e of hearings , M-2 0 1200 Ne w Jerse)-

- Avenue , S.E , Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mE12-32 0 Washington

. D.C

. 2059 0 FAX : 202.366-753 6 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Av e S W Wilbur Wrigh t Bldg

. - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C , 2059 1 FAX ; 202

. 493.514 2 Tod dC

. Emerso n SkyWes t Airline s 444 S

. Rive r

Roa d S t George , Utah 8479 0 FAX : 435.634.350 5

Date dthi s 26 * da

y o f January , 2011

. 

# ^uU l ^CSM>

.

>AN A STEPHENSO N Offic e o f Regional Counse l (ANM-7 ) Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAve , S W Renton , WA 9805 7 TEL : 425.227.216 4 FAX : 425.227.100 7

COM?fc*iMANT

' s SjvpcTia

M BRIE F^ CP 0 9NM001 2 SrtVzS T AIRLINE S - 2009MM06004 2 Pag a1 7 o f

1 7 SoDT t R

. HORRIfi , FA

A ATTORNE

Y
TSl : 425.227.1417 ; PAX : 42S.227.100 7