RECEI\/ED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAN 2 6 2017 

In the Matter of: 

FELTS FIELD AVIATION 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. HEARING DOCI<ET 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No: F AA-2015-3307 

Case No: 2015WP910090 

_________________________ ) Judge J.E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S CALCULATION OF THE PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

Complainant, by and through counsel, provides the following calculation of the proposed 

civil penalty pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order on December 15,2016. 

During the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) investigation of Case No. 

2015WP910090, the FAA discovered that Felts Field Aviation (Felts Field) failed to comply 

with the requirements of 14 C.P.R. Part 120 and 49 C.P.R. Part 40 for its drug and alcohol testing 

program. Specifically, Felts Field hired Richard Webber-a pilot- in 2008, but failed to add 

Mr. Webber to its random drug and alcohol testing pool until April 6, 2015. Mr. Webber was not 

included in the random selection pool during selections made in July 2013, October 2013, 

January 2014, April2014, July 2014, October 2014, and January 2015. Prior to adding Richard 

Webber to its random drug and alcohol testing pool, Felts Field allowed Mr. Webber to perform 

over 60 part 135 flights. 

According to FAA Order 2150.38, Appendix B, fig. B-5-b(l), a moderate to maximum 

civil penalty is recommended for failing to include a safety-sensitive employee in FAA 

mandated drug and alcohol testing programs. A pilot is a safety-sensitive employee. Under the 

FAA's classifications of operators, Felts Field is considered a Group IV operator; and the 

sanction range for a moderate civil penalty is $2,200 to $4,399 and a maximum civil penalty is 

$4,400 to $11,000. FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, p. B-3- B-4. In this case, Felts Field 
failed to include Richard Webber in its drug and alcohol program for years and allowed Mr. 

Webber to operate over 60 part 135 flights on its behalf. Failing to subject a flight crew member 

to random drug and alcohol testing for years could lead to the performance of safety-sensitive 

work in an impaired state. Felts Field's failure to include Richard Webber in its random drug 

and alcohol testing program for such au extended period of time and allowing Mr. Webber to 

operate part 13 5 flights on its behalf were careless acts that posed a substantial threat to air 

safety. As a result, such acts are considered aggravating factors. See Id. at Ch. 7, para. 4. 

Consequently, the FAA assessed a maximum civil penalty of $11,000 for this case. Under the 

facts and circumstances of this case, a maximum civil penalty is consistent with the FAA's 

guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Naomi Tsuda 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

Fatimah 

~~ Stokley 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Email: fatimah.stokley@faa.gov 

Telephone: (310) 725-7112 

Facsimile: (31 0) 725-6816 

2 
Docket No. F AA-2015-3307 

Case No. 2015WP91 0090 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by U.S. First Class Mail and facsimile, the 

COMPLAINANT'S CALCULATION OF THE PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY, addressed as 

follows: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. 

East Bldg., Room E11-310 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2WIOOO 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: 202-267-1293 

Mark J. Conlin 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 911 

Spokane, WA 99201 

Fax: 509-623-1650 

101!}~ Debbie Reed 

Management Program Analyst 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Lawndale, California 

Dated: January 17,2017 

3