04/01/201 1 09;3 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S ElOOI/OI I

:: l r.\-\\.v'lsj'

j il./ t T . , r r ^. , 7 . ' W^cMcx k i ^ E C1 1 y P ^' ^ Tutl dC . nnicrson , rt817 5 - • * * » *'V » £» . f y ^ j^,_ , 44 4 Soulli Rive

r Roii d.„ , , j-.^ , ^

_^^I M St . Gcoryc , Utah . 8479 0 -- ' - ' - ^' ^ '' ^ '^A

R2 D 2a n IclcphoMC : (435)634-353 0 HEARIN G DOCKP ^ Kacsiinilc : (435)634-350 5 •^»ti

_•• • ALlornc y IbrSkyWcs i Airlines , Inc . LiMTE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FI'R^VNSFORTATIO N OFRC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n ih e Matte r

of: MOTIO N FO RRELIE FT O FIL E ! RESPONDENT' S REBUTTAI . I N SUPPOR T O FIT S AFFIRMATIV E

DEFENSE S Sk y Wes t Airlines , Inc . FA A DOrK hT CP009NM0()1 2 DM S No . FAA-2()()9-097 9 FA A Cas e No . 2()09NM060()4 2 Judge ; Richar dC . Goodwi n Responden t

SkyWcs i Airlines , Inc . respectfull y move s thi s cour t l o gran t [hi s Motio nfo

r Relicft o Fil e Respondent' s Rebutta l F n Suppor t o f It s Affinnaliv e Delcnses , whic hi s submitte d heruwiih ,04/01/201 1 09;3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @1002/01 1



### I nit s brielln y order , th e court provide dfo

r th e Complaijuinl l o lil e a nopenin g :iii

d rebutta l bricl" , whil e respondent

SkyWcs t wa s limite dt

o arepl y briefonly . However , a. ^ ihc ? government

twic e admits , SkyWes t

ha< ; th e burde no f

proo f fo r it s afllrmaliv c defense , Sf f Complainant s Brief

pag e 12 , lin e 8 ; Coniplainam' s Rebutt:i l Brie f pay e 11 , line ! 7 . A s such , SkyWes i request s relie f

to Ill e arebuttal brie f

i n respons e l o the I'AA' s argument s i noppositio n 1 0 SkyWest' s al'llmiativ e defen.ses .

L U 

### DATC D thi s > ^ day o t

March . 2011 .

.^.: ^



### ToddC . Emerso n Attorney/o r

SkylVcst Airline s04/01/201 1 09;3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @1003/01 1

CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E Th e undersignei l hereb y cerlific s tha t o n thi s 2J^da y o l March , 20 ! 1 , aLrn e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g MOTIO N FO RRELIE FT O FIL ERESPONDENT' S RFB D TTA l I N SUPPOR T O FIT S AFFIRMATIV EDEFENSE S wa s seize da s follows : Th e Honorabl e Richar dC Goodwi n Sco n R . Morri s OfHc e o f Hearings , M-2 0 federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Northwes t Mmuitai n Region , ANM- 7 Cas t Buildin g Groun dFloor . R mEl2-32 0 160 1 Lin dAvenu e ,S.VV , Wa.shingion , D.C . 2059 0 Rcnton , Washingto n 9805 7

j f'iicsimil e an dFedera l Kxprcss ) )'Facsiniil(. ' an dFedera l Esprcs.s ^ Federa l Aviuiio n Administratio n AUn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbm - Wrigh t

liuildin g Suit e 2W|(W 0 SO O Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , f) C 2059 1

/Federa l Exprcxs /04/01/201 1 09:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 12004/01 1

Mnt i 'i«s o •foddC . Emerson . ,7817 5 44 4 Sout hRive r

Roa d St , George , Utaii , 1S479

0 1 elcphoiie : (435 ) 634-353 0 Facsimile : (435 ) 6:U-350 5 Attorne y fo

r SkyWes t

Airlines . Inc . •r-a , ** ^ a*-< , 

### MA R 

### 2 5 20t 1 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T

UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTR.\NSPORT.\TIO N OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHIN GION , D.C . In th e Matte r

of : SkyWes t .Airlines , Inc . RESPONDE N I' S REBUTTA LIN SUPPOR T O FIT S AFFIRMATIV E

DEFENSE S FA A DOCKE T CPO(39NMO0l 2 DM S No . FAA-2009-097 9 FA A Cas e No . 2009NM()r,004 2 -fudge : Richar dC , Goodwi n

INTRODUCTIO N Th e FA A attempt s t o avoi dti\e Accard i Doctrin e b y creatin g distinction s tha t d o no t exis t an dminimizin g th e impor t o f Orde r 2150.3B . I

t claim s tha t

Inspector s Crai n an dBlaue r di dno t reall y kno w ihe y wer e witnessin g potentia l violations , despit e th e (ac t tha t the y tol dTylo r

Lewi s tlic y ha dsee n potentia l violation s befor e the y drov e bac k l o th e CM C o n Februar y 17 . Mos t shockingly , th e FA A relic s o n Joa n Peterson' s testimon y that sh e falsifie dhe r

in.spccto r statemen t l o prov e th e CM O di dno t hav e notic e o f

th e Februar y 1 0 violation s unli l Februar y I 7 . .Al l o f thes e argument s fail , fo r th e reason s se t

fort hbelow .04/01/201 1 09:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 121005/01 1

REBUTTA LARGUME N I Ther e ar e do/en s o f

case s Ihai appl y th e Accard i doctrine , onl y on e o f whic hbein g U.S . V . Hfjiicr , 42 0 F.2 d,S()9 (4" ' Cir . 1969 ) whic hSkyWes t cite din it s Repl y iirief . Th e FA A attempt s to distinguis hfh'fne r b y claimin g i t

wa s acrimina l cas e an dth e right s announce dwei e merel y a n outgrowt ho f

th e recentl y enunciate dMirand awarning . F t als o claime dU.S . v . Leahy . afirs t Circui t cas e decide din 1970 , someho w limite dth e Suprem e Courl' s .Accardi tloelrin e b y requirin g individua l right s t o b e a t stake . Finally , th e FA A argue s that it s Orde r

i s no t reall y a n Orde r - bu t i s nothin g mor e tha n a"guide/ ' Thes e distinction s ar e unpersuas i ve . A s t o Hefner , th e Cour t spcei/ieall y decline dl o appl y th e Mirand adoctrin e {fd . al 810 ) an dbase dit s rulin g solel y o n Accardi , whic hi t discusse d at length . A s l o th e Firs t

Circuit' s Leah y opinion , fou r year s late r

th e Suprem e Cour t

agai n cite d Accard i an dfoun dtha t

eve n nonbindin g guidanc e manuals , eve n in acivi l case , com e unde r it s pm-view . Th e questio n vvhie haros e in Morio n v

. Ruiz , 41 5 U.S . 19 9 (1974 ) wa s whethe r th e Burea u o f

India n Affair s mus t

mak e genera l assistanc e benefit s availabl e l o Indian s wh o liv e "near' " bu t

no t "on " areservation . Th e statut e wa s silen t o n thi s matter , a s wer e th e Bureau' s regulations . Bu t

th e Cour t

pointe dt o aprovisio n o f th e Burea u o f

Indian Affair s Manua l whic h sai dthat directive s tha t

relat e t o th e public , includin g Indians , ar e t o b e publishe din th e Cod e o f Federa l Rogulalions . Th e Cour t hel dthat

unde r thi s provi.sion , th e Burea u wa s require dl o publis hit s eligibilit y standard s i n th e CF Ri f

i t wante dt o restric t

genera l assistanc e benefit s to Indian s no t

livin g o n reservations . I da t 234 . Morto n i s notabl e beciiu.s e th e instructio n in th e Manua l t o publis hcertai n rule s i n th e CF Rua s apurel y inferna l procedura l instruction . Th e IBurca u o f Indian Ai'fair s Manual , whic h(h e Cour t hel dcreate dabindin g dut y o n th e agency .04/01/201 1 09:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S glOOB/01 1

wa s no t a legis];iiiv crLde , bu i merel ya nonbindin g guidanc e dociunenl . Id . a t 235 . Memos , circulars , guidebooks , pres s releases , inicrprclaiiv crides , polic ysratemenls , an d legislativ e rule s hav e al l bee n mechanism s b ywhic h a n agenc yannounce s limit s o n it s ow n discretion . ' ih e FA Ane.\ l argue s \\\ cAccanl l doctrin e onl ywork s t o vindicat e individua l rights . Again , th e FA Amake s a distinctio n wher e th e Suprem e Cour t ha s not . Indeed , th e Cour t dit i th e opposit e i n th e mos t tiimou s cas e i n th e . tccard i lineage . I n Unire d State s v . Nixon , 41 N U.S . 6S 3 (1974 ) Ih e Cour t force d Presiden t Ni.xo n t o tiui i ove rhi s secre t tap e recording s t o th e Watergat e specia l prosecutor . I t wa s a disput e betwee n th e President , wh o claime d fli c(ape s wer e privileged , an d ih e specia l proseculoi" , wh o ha d issue d a subpoen a fo rth e lapes . Ni.xon' s lawyer s argue d tha t suc h a n iiiira-branc h disput e w.i s no t th e kin d o f cas e o rcontrovers ytha t coul d b e resolve d b yih e courts . Th e Suprem e Cour t rcjccle d th e President' s challeng e t o thcjusticiabilii y o f th e disput e o n ih cauthorit yo f Accardi . Id . a t 696 . Th e onl yindividua l whos e right wa s uniquel yaffecte d b yth e proceedin g wa s th e Presiden t ~ an d th e Accard i principl e wa s invoke d l o defea t th e clai m o f privilege , no t validat e it . Eve n a s al l o f th e FAA' s attempt s t o narro wan d distinguis h Accard i wither , th e fac t remain s tha t Orde r2150.3 B doe s creat e individua l rights an d canno t b e dismisse d a s a mer e "guide. " l i i s a n Orde rfro m th e FA AAdministrato rtha t comprehensivel yset s fort h ho wih c Agenc yvvil l exercis e it s di.scretio n i n givin g notice , enforccmen l an d sanctionin g o f violations . Specifically , th e Orde rtell s certificat e holder s tha t it s inspector s w'il l no t wai t t o notif yo f potentia l viohuious , as such , i t create s a notic e right tha t ccrtitlcal e holder s ma yrel yon . I iere , a SkyWes i deicin g manage rinteracte d wit h FA Ainspector s wh o observe d potentia l violation s o n

t"<>i a tk-s(.ripiMi n o f ih e wid e vaiici yotriK-clianism s b y"lilc h .i n ;ii;i;iic yca n iinniHiiK\ ' it. s poljc v jiklgiiiciKs . SI.-C.V/

. h\u:\b':\ h \lii'iU\ . .-li^ciu v('/joir cII I Fo/ieyiiui/,iiii ^ l-nrm . 7 1 t/.(.hi . L . Rev . I^S? . l.lN.i'-l-lO' ; (2004) ,04/01/201 1 09:3 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DMS gj007/01 1

Februar y1 0 an d 1 7 bu t di d nothin g t o pu t hi m o n notic e a s require d b y2150.3 U chapte r2- 2 .sectio n 3(ci ) wbicl i state s "i n an ysituatio n wher e 1-AAenforccmen l personne l identif ya txitentia l violation , the ytake appropriat e step s immediatel yt o notif ya responsibl e perso n wh o ca n tak e appropriat e actio n ( o preven t it. " (Emphasi s added. ) Th e FA Apasse d On ihre e obviou s opportunitie s l o notif ySkyWes t o f th e potentia l violation s s o iha t continuin g violation s coul d b e slopped . Thi s happene d (i ) o n Februar y1 0 whe n Tylo rLewi s introduce d himsel f t o Joa n Peterso n an d aske d he rfo rcontac t infonnalio n (afte rsh e hat l alread ynote d potentia l violaiions)" , (2 ) th e week-lon g perio d betweei i Februar y1 0 an d 1 7 whe n th e CM O ha d evidenc e o f potentia l violaiions , an d (3 ) durin g th e hour-lon g brea k betwee n deicin g operation s o n Februar y17 . Fo rni l he raitempi s l o clai m ignoranc e o n Februar y10 , Inspecto rPeterson' s wriiic n statemen t clearl ysays :

O n th e mornini J o f Februar y10 , 2009 , In.specio rPeterso n spen t severa l hour s conductin g Elemen t Performanc e Inspectio n (EPI ) .3.1. 7 siii-vclllanc e a t th e Sal t Lak e Cit yhiternationa l Aii-port , Sal t Lak e City , Uta h (SLC) . I observe d discrepancie s o n si xo f th e te n aircraf t bein g deice/anti-icc d b ySkyWes i Airiines , Inc . personnel . Prio rt o th e observation s o f th e aircraf t bein g DI/A I a whil e va n wii h SkyWes t Airline s marking s wa s parke d nex t t o m yvehicl e an d wa s operate d b ya SkyWes t Airlines , Inc . supei-viso r Mr . Taylo rLewis . Th e superviso rcam e ove rt o m yvehicl e prio r t o th e observation s o f th e aircraf t bein g deiced/anti-ice d an d aske d fo rm ynam e an d phon e numbe rwhic h I gav e t o him . I di d no t hav e th e opportunit yt o dkscus s th e findings o f m yobservation. s wit h ih e superviso ra

s h e wa s alway s o n th e radi o durin g thi s time . I informe d lli e Principa l Operation s Inspecto rth e DI/A I crew s wer e no t followin g proccdure s outline d i n thei rmanua l rct^ardim ^ spra yr)attei-n s an d techniques . Respondent' s Exhibi t I , emphasi s added . Thi s documen t wa s signe d b yMs . Peterso n an d date d Februar y10 . E\e n thoug h th e documen t slate s tha t sh e infonne d ih cPO I tha t SkyWes t wa s no t

Tr , L\cJ7S , Lin e 14-2 104/01/201 1 09:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 1009/01 1

followin g ii s deicin g procedure s o n Februar y 10'' \th e FA A argue s thai th e wriile n statemcn l iloe s no t reall y mea n wha t

i s clearl y vvriilen o n it s face . Frankly , Inspecto r Pelersoji' o testimon y wa s shocking . Peter.so n leslifie dthat sh e backdated ' he r

Inspector\ s Statemen t

aful l week' , thu s th e notic e t o he r

supervisor s wa s no t

give n unli l l-'c

b 17 . I t i s min dboggling , afte r

thi s admission , tha t

th e FA.A. relie s o n an y othe r i>ar i o f he r testimon y a s credibl e - i.e. , iha l sh e di d no i kno w whethe r

fylo r Lewi s "wa s amembe r

o f managemen t

o r afrontlin e worker " whe n sh e spok e withhim . >SVL * Complainant' s Rebutta l Brie f at pag e 9 , lin e 17 . T o th e contrary , Mr . Lewi s lestitle dtha i h e approache dhe r vehicl e an dle t

he r kno w h e wii s ih e Manage r o f Deicin g Operations"' ' an dhi s credibilit y ha s no t bee n shattere db y th e backdatin g o f an y o f hi s record s in thi s case . Finally , eve n i f

sh e wrot e th e statemen t o n th e 17'' \ther e i s n o indicatio n i n th e documen t itsel f tha t sh e waite dunti l th e 17^' ' t o giv e th e PO I notice . Al l action s in thi s siaiemen t ar c couche do n th e I()" \Sh e als o testifie dtha t sh e cam e int o th e offic e betwee n ih e 10'' ' an dth e I 7'' ' an dworke daful

l day'' , s o ther e wa s anothe r misse dopportunit y to notif y th e PO I and/o r SkyWes t o f he r findings. He r

credibilit y i s suc hahas hthat w e ma y neve r

kno w wha t

sh e did , bu t th e documen t

create dmos t

closel y in tim e l o th e inciden t clearl y stale s tha t

sh e pu t SkyWest\ s CM O o n notic e o f he r observation s o n Februar y 10 .

1 leave n liel p aiiicchani c o r airma n wh o backdiilc s arccorJ , .Suol i falsificatio n i.s ^louiul s (o r cmer|4ent;y rov()(,aiio n ofih c iiidi\itJuj l s coiTil'uratc (Se e t-'A A v . Fciiil/i-nir , Cas e N'n , 2U10.\'.^[OrtO().n ) hotiiu.s c the y LU\ - n o lonyei - qiuliiic dt o Iwk i ili c ocriincue , Mo w Petersoa' s cieilihilir y survive s i 5 no t i;,\pluinei l b y tli e TAA , ev^ aa; , i i relic s o n lior

coniradictoi y icsiimon y r o t:l;nn i aha dn o notic e oflli c Fo b 1 0 ob.servatiun s unti l Fe b 17 , • • I r . L U 382 . r.in c 20.22 , fr . , u .^S3 . Lin e 1-1 2 • ^ Tr , Lii2.~S . ( in e 2-4 . "tr . a l 402 , Lin e 2- 704/01/201 1 09:3 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ DMS 2)009/01 1



### Th e thir dopportunity t

o notif y aros e whil e Crainan

dBLuic r conducte dsurveillance . T o hi s credit , Inspecto r

Blauer frankl y :idmittc dtha

t notic e shoul dhav e bee ngive ni nth e hour-lon g brea k belAvcc n deicin g operation s o

n Februnr y 1 7th ^ whichwoul dhav e sloppe dth e continuin g allege dviolation s tha

t occurre da

n hour later andrepresent

^48,00 0 o f

the propose dpenalty . Th e FAA' s argtmiciU , tha

t Blauer an dCrainwere no t

sur e i f the y were witnessin g apotentia l violation , i s simpl y ludicrous . The y bot hha dacop y o f

the deicin g programontheir lap s which include dth e specifi c segmen t tha t addresse dihe "rip t

o root " spra

y pattern. ^ I

nfact . Inspecto r Crai n wa s th e conten t

exper t an dth e "point

o f contact " fo

r SkyWest' s deicin g programa t th e CMO . H

e obviousl y kne w h

e wa s witnessin g apoteniial violatio nandattempte dt o document it , however

haphazardly , i

n hi s notes . Indeed , Mr . Crai ntol dTylo r Lewi s he ha

dwitnesse da poteniial violatio n a

t th e endo f

hi s obsci"vation' " s o clearl y additional researc hwa s no t neede di n orde r t o mak e th e require dnotification . Finally , the FA

A complain s i

nfootnot e 1 1 i nComplainant' s Rebuttal Brie f tha t SkyWes t ha s place d"especiall y aggravating " i nquotatio nmark s but

Ih c vvord s ar e not i nthe transcript . Thi s i s false . Th e word s "especiall y aggravating " appea r o npag e 94 , lino 1 0 o f

ihe transcrip t

a s Mr . Morri s question s Mr . Crain about the Feb . 1 0 violation . I

nresponse , Mr . Crai ntestifie dtha t the Februar

y 1 0 violalio n wa s a

n aggravatin g factor

i nthe penalty calculatio nfo r th e Februar

y I 7 incident s becaus e SkyWes t no w ha daprior violalio nhistory . Thus , th e FA A i s compoiuidin g apenall y onthe 17'' ' base don aprio r violatio nonthe 1 yf\fo r

whic hth e FA A admit s i

t i^av e Skyl^cs i n o notice . Especiall y aggravating , indeed .

Ic . a t 247 . I.in e 10-2 1 \r . a t 19 , I.iiic - 17-I.S. ' Ir . J i |4fi , r.n) c 14-I V ^ \v . a l 19 , I.iiic - 17-I.S . Tr . a t 2 J 9 , lin e 19-22 . Tr . a t 220 . l.in c 1- 3

' " I'r . nt hT< . I in c 2-1 804/01/201 1 09:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S ElOIO/O n

CONCLUSIO N i i i s no l controversial , o r eve n debatable , that

agencie s nms l follo w ihei r ow n orders , regulation s an d.statedpolicy . Here , th e FA.A faile dto follo w il s Orde r t o provid e certificat e holder s withimmediat e notic e o f apotentia l violation , an db y s o doing , allowe dapenalt y to coiUiiui e an dcompound . Thi s resulte din a n inordinatel y larg e fine to r an allege dviolatio n th e FA A freel y admit s i s atechnicalit y that neve r impacte dsafety.' ' Whethe r unde r Accun/i , o r basi c notion s ofdu e process , i t i s centra l t o th e rul e o f

la w tha i official s b e boun dt o clea r rules , know n in adv.-jncc . Th e FA A ask s yo u t o ignor e it s publishe dOrde r a s a n irrelevan t

"guide " in orde r l o jiisiif y il s multipliciou s penalties . ! hi s canno t stan dan dSkyWes t

respectfull y request s that thi s actio n b e dismisse dwii hprejudice . DA1>: D Ihi s 2>t l da y o f March , 2011 .

Tod dC . Emerso n

Attorne y fo r

SkylVes t Airline s

Compkinianl'. s SanciJiMi Hr:cl:i i p . 10 , lin e 6-14 .04/01/201 1 09:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S gjOII/OI I

CERIIFICAT EO FSERV K K Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t o n ihisJJ^da y o f

March , 2011 . atru e an dcorrec t cop y o f Ihe foiegoin g RESPONDE N I S REBUTTA LI N SUPPOR l O FIT S AFFIRM AriV EDEFENSE S wa s serve da s follows : Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 1 20 0 Ne w .lerse y Avenue , S.E . Fas t Buildin g Groun dFloor . R mE l 2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0

[Facsiiniti ' an dFedera l F.xprcs.s ] Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Attn ; Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 SO O Independenc e Avenu e S W WashingTon , D C 2059 1 Scol l R . Morri s Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 16{» 1 Lin d.Avenu e S.W . Rcnton . W A 9S05 7

I Facsimil e an dFedera l Express }

(Federa l Express / " ^