### SERVE D MA Y 20 , 201 1 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . ^^hlMENTO F ;.^-i OPtRAlAjN S

' . ' : \ f O " ^

A 

### c 3

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . GOJE T AIRLINES , LL C

Respondent .

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . GOJE T AIRLINES , LL C

Respondent . F A A DOCKE T No . CP10CE000 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action )

DM S No . FAA-2010-002 5

FA A DOCKE T No . CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action )

DM S No . FAA-2010-019 0

INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : I ) I n Docke t

No . CP10CE0003 : a ) Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . §§43.13(c) , 91.13(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2 ) a s charged ; an d b ) Responden t

i s assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $18,000 , 2 ) I n Docke t

No . CP10CE0004 : Th e Complain t

i s dismissed .L Settin g Complainan t

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r "agency" ) brough t

charge s agains t

GoJe t Airlines , LL C ("Respondent " o r GoJet") , aPart 12 1 ai r carrie r o f Bridgeton , MO , i n th e above-captione dmatters . Th e case s ar e separate . The y involv e differen t circumstances . Fo r

administrativ e an djudicia l convenience , the y wer e consolidate dan dhear don e afte r th e other . Th e hearing s v^er

e hel do n Augus t

25 , 201 0 i n St . Louis , MO . Th e partie s file dbrief s an dth e case s ar e eac h read y for

decision . The y wil l b e decide dseriatim. ' Fo r th e agenc y t o prevail , i t

mus t establis h proo f

o f th e violation s allege db y a preponderanc e o f

th e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e (1 4 C.F.R . §§13.22 3 an d13.224 ; Toyot aMoto r Sales , FA A Orde r

No . 94-28 , pp . 6-7,199 4 FA A Lexi s 275 , p . 1 0 (Septembe r

30,1994)) . Complainan t als o bear s th e burde n o f

provin g th e appropriatenes s o f

th e civi l penalty i t

suggests . Phillip s Buildin g Supply , FA A Orde r No . 2000-2 0 (Augus t

11 , 2000) , p . 8 . Th e burde n shift s t o Responden t t o prov e an y affirmativ e defense s i t

may assert . Continenta l Airlines , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 98- 6 (Marc h 10 , 1998) , 199 8 W L 231441 , p . 8 . II . Docke t

CP10CE000 3 A . Backgroun d Th e inciden t

leadin g t o th e Complain t bega n o n Novembe r

26 , 2007 , whe n GoJe t contrac t maintenanc e worker s remove dan dreplace dth e numbe r tw o brak e assembl y o n a Canadai r CRJ-700 aircraf

t i n th e carrier' s fleet . A s par t o f th e process , maintenanc e personne l ha dinstalle dthre e landin g gear pins , als o know n a s lockpins , int o th e aircraft' s lef t mai n landin g gear . Bu t

th e mandate dlogboo k

entry was not

made , th e Complain t asserts . Late r

i n th e procedure , th e lockpin s wer e t o b e removed . Bu t th e mechanics , th e Complain t

continues , faile dt o remov e on e o f them . The y als o di dnot

mak e th e require d logboo k entry recordin g removal . Th e aircraf

t was returne dt o servic e i n tha t condition . GoJe t

was force dt o abort

a subsequen t

operatio n becaus e o f

awarnin g messag e durin g th e proces s o f gear retraction , th e Complain t

state s - adirec t

resul t o f th e mechanics ' failur e t o remov e th e on e landin g gea r pin . Evidenc e adduce dat

th e hearing showe dtha t

late r tha t sam e da y GoJe t

informe d th e FA A o f

thes e events unde r

th e agency' s Voluntar y Disclosur e Reportin g Progra m ("VDRP " o r

"Program" ) (Tr . 114 ; Exh . A-5) : Th e VDR P i s aprogra mdesigne dt o encourag e regulate dentitie s t o volimtaril y repor t apparen t violation s o f

FA A regulations . It als o i s se t

u p t o preven t

areoccurrenc e o f

th e problem s thu s brough t t o it s attention .

' I n eac h case , Complainant' s Post-Hearin g Brief will b e referredto i

n the tex t a s "Compl . Br." ; Respondent' s Post-Hearing Brie f as "Resp . Br." ; an

dComplainant' s Rebutta

l Brief a s "Compl . Rebut 'A s codifie di n th e then-curren t Advisor y Circula r

("AC" ) 00-58A , th e FA A agree s t o foreg o enforcemen t

actio n for

"covere dinstance s o f

noncompliance. " I f

th e agenc y accept s th e regulate dparty' s applicatio n for inclusio n i n th e Program , th e entit y wil l receiv e alette r

o f correctio n instea d(Exh . A-10 , p . 2 ; Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar dV . Moshea , 57 0 F.3 d349 , 35 0 (D.C . Cir . 2009)) . GoJe t too k th e firs t ste p i n th e VDR P proces s b y submittin g a n "initia l notification. " Th e FA A require s tha t an initia l notificatio n generall y b e submitte dwithi n 2 4 hour s o f

th e discover y o f

th e apparen t

violation . Th e notificatio n i s permitte dt o b e a s brie f a s ashort

statemen t

o f th e salien t

fact s o f th e misste p whic h ar e know n at th e time . Th e Progra mcontemplate s tha t additional tim e ofte n i s neede dt o full y fles h out th e circumstance s o f

th e apparen t

violatio n a s wel l a s t o fulfil l othe r VDR P requirements . Amon g thos e additiona l requirement s i s th e carrier' s obligatio n t o propos e an d implement

a"comprehensiv e fix" i n cooperatio n wit h th e FAA . Th e VDR P make s clear tha t th e FA A mus t

b e satisfie dwith th e schem e an dimplementatio n o f th e fix for

th e carrie r t o remai n i n th e Progra man dretai n immunit y fro menforcemen t action . T o tha t end , th e agenc y reserve s th e righ t t o rescin dit s acceptanc e o f an initia l notificatio n (Exh . A-10) . I n thi s matte r

th e agenc y conditionall y accepte dGoJet' s initia l notificatio n (Exh . A-10 ; Tr . 88) . However , th e FA A ultimatel y determine dtha t i t wa s not satisfie dwit h GoJet' s subsequen t

correctiv e action . I t

rescinde dit s tentativ e approval . Thi s enforcemen t

actio n followe d(Tr . 50-51) . Th e agenc y charge s Responden t wit h violatin g th e followin g thre e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") : 1 ) Sectio n 43.13(a) , whic h require s tha t maintenanc e b e performe dusin g th e method s an dpractice s prescribe di n operativ e maintenanc e manuals ; 2 ) Sectio n 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s an y perso n fromoperatin g an aircraf t i n acareles s o r reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another ; an d3 ) Sectio n 121.153(a)(2) , whic h obligate s certificat e holder s t o operat e aircraf t i n an airworth y conditio n an dmee t

al l applicabl e airworthines s requirements . Pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301 , th e FA A seek s amaximu mcivi l penalt y o f $11,00 0 pe r

count , o r atota l assessmen t

o f $33,000 . Responden t

denie s th e charges . I t

als o assert s a s an affirmativ e defens e tha t if , arguendo , th e charge s ar e proven , th e matte r nonetheles s i s subjec t

t o th e VDRP . A s such , an enforcemen t

actio n ma y not

proceed . Th e agency' s actio n i n rescindin g it s acceptanc e o f GoJet' s initia l notification . Responden t

charges , violate dth e agency' s ow n publishe dguideline s for th e Program . A s such . Responden t

argues , th e agency' s actio n wa s arbitrary an dcapricious . I t wa s therefor e imlawfu l an dma y no t stand . Failin g t o informth e carrie r o f th e option s availabl e t o i t

followin g th e FAA' s withdrawa l o f acceptanc e als o violate dth e agency' s guidelines . Responden t

alleges , an dsimilarl y constitute dreversibl e arbitrary an d capriciou s conduct . I n thes e circumstances , GoJe t conclude s tha t

th e enforcemen t

actio n mus t b e dismisse d(Resp . Br. , pp . 6 , 11-14 ; Tr . 14-15) .B . Discussio n 1 . Th e Merit s Th e FA A prove dth e fact s underlyin g th e charges . It showe dtha t

1 ) G o Jet

employe dmaintenanc e personnel , i n th e proces s o f replacin g th e numbe r

tw o brak e assembly , faile dt o mak e alogboo k entry require dwhe n installin g lockpins ; 2 ) Responden t

improperl y accomplishe dth e maintenanc e b y failin g t o remov e alockpi n befor e completion ; an d3 ) th e carrie r di dno t mak e th e necessary logboo k entr y recordin g remova l o f

th e landin g gear

pins . Th e testimon y an dsupportin g document s o f GoJet' s principa l maintenanc e inspecto r ("PMI") , Gar

y Cooper , establishe dComplainant' s proo f I findtha t

PM I Coope r wa s acredibl e witness . Hi s testimon y showe dtha t o n Novembe r

26,2007 , maintenanc e personne l employe db y GoJe t rranove dan dreplace dawor n numbe r tw o brak e assembl y o n th e subjec t aircraft . Par t

o f th e proces s necessitate dth e installatio n o f thre e landin g gea

r pins . Th e installatio n i s suppose dt o b e temporary . Th e lockpin s mus t b e remove dprio r

t o completio n o f

th e task . \\^e n th e initia l flight followin g th e maintenanc e generate dacockpi t warnin g messag e upo n gear retraction , th e brak e assembl y wa s inspecte dan dfoun dt o hav e on e gear pi n stil l installed . Th e pi n shoul d hav e bee n take n out . I t

coul dhav e remained , however , ha dan appropriat e Minimu m Equipmen t

Lis t ("MEL" ) entry bee n made . Bu t th e carrie r

ha dno t use da n MEL . A s such , th e repai r

ha dbee n accomplishe dimproperl y (Exhs . A-1 , A-2 , an dA-3 ; Tr . 28-30 , 90-91,94,122) . GoJe t als o admitte dcertai n fact s underlyin g th e charges . Th e carrier' s chie f inspector , Jeffrey Craig , testifie dtha t th e errin g mechani c ha dacknowledge dt o hi mtha t h e ha dmistakenl y faile dt o pul l on e o f th e landin g gear

pin s (Tr . 117-18) . Responden t itsel f admitte da s wel l tha t

i t ha dimproperl y faile dt o remov e alockpin . I n it s "initia l notification, " i t

state dthat , followin g rq)lacemen t o f th e numbe r

tw o brak e assembly , i t ha dflown th e aircraf

t whil e th e lef

t mai n landin g gear

pi n mistakenl y remaine di n th e lef t mai n landin g gear

(Exh . A-5 ; Tr . 38) . Anothe r admissio n involve dafailur e t o mak e a logboo k entry a s required . Respondent' s Genera l Maintenanc e Manua l ("GMM" ) specifie s tha t

wheneve r

landin g gear

pin s ar e installed , an entry mus t b e mad e i n a maintenanc e logboo k

statin g "Landin g gea r

pi n installed , remov e befor e flight." Bu t n o suc h entry was mad e (Exhs . A- 3 an dA-4 , Par t 12.2 ; Tr . 33-35,77) . Th e responsibl e mechani c acknowledge dt o PM I Coope r tha t h e kne w tha t

h e was suppose dt o mak e a logboo k entr y notin g tha t

th e lockpin s ha dbee n installed , bu t ha dforgotte n t o d o s o (Tr . 69-71 , 73 ; Exh . A-5 , p . 5) . Finally , Complainan t

provedtha t

th e require dlogboo k

entry notin g th e remova l o f al l th e landin g gear

pin s ha dno t

bee n made. ^

^ Exh . A-4 ; Tr . 35 . Th e mechanic , o f course , ha dno t

remove don e o f

th e lockpins . I t

i s unclear

whethe r h e tol dinspecto r

Coope r tha t th e caus e o f

hi s failur e t o remov e i t

wa s becaus e h e ha dforgotten , bu t th e circumstance s s o indicated . Tr . 73 , 74 .Thes e fact s mak e ou t th e violation s alleged . I findan dconclud e tha t th e evidenc e prove dtha t

Responden t

violate dFA R§§43.13(c) , 91.13(a) , an d121.153(a)(2 ) a s charged . Testimon y an ddocumentar y evidenc e showe dtha t GoJet , i n performin g th e brak e assembl y replacement , faile dt o follo w th e procedure s outline di n it s GMM . A s such , th e agenc y prove daviolatio n o f §43.13(c)(5e e Tr . 76) . Th e agenc y als o prove dtha t GoJe t violate d§121.1 5 3 (a)(2 ) - operatin g a n aircraf t i n an unairworth y conditio n - becaus e an aircraf t wit h alockpi n installe di n erro r i s not i n aconditio n for

saf e operation . T o b e airworthy , i t

ha s lon g bee n held , an aircraf t mus t 1 ) confor mt o atyp e desig n approve d unde r atyp e certificat e o r

supplementa l typ e certificat e an dt o applicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d2 ) b e i n aconditio n for saf e operation . See , e.g. , America n Ai r Network , Inc. , FA A Orde r

No . 2008-1 0 (Octobe r

7 , 2008) , p . 2 5 n . 35 ; se e als o Tr . 30 . Testimon y showe dtha t

th e aircraf

t riske dreturnin g from flight with agreate r

amoun t o f ftiel tha n normal . Landin g overweigh t lead s t o a n imreasonabl e ris k o f acciden t (Tr . 29) . A n aircraf t operatin g i n thes e circumstance s i s not i n aconditio n for

saf e operatio n and , b y definition , canno t

b e considere dairworthy . Finally , aviolatio n o f §91.13(a ) was show n becaus e th e aircraf

t operatio n followin g th e fault y repai r constitute da"careles s operation. " A finding o f

careles s o r

reckles s operatio n o f

an aircraf t amountin g t o a violatio n o f

§ 91.1 3 (a ) follow s a s aresidua l violatio n onc e th e fac t o f an unairworth y operatio n ha s bee n established. '

2 . Respondent' s Affirmativ e Defens e a . Backgroun d W e no w conside r

Respondent' s affirmativ e defense . Th e enforcemen t actio n mus t b e dismisse do n accoun t o f th e carrier' s disclosur e unde r th e VDRP , i t

contends {se e I.D. , p . 3) . A s w e hav e seen . Responden t submitte datimel y "initia l notification " settin g ou t th e fact s makin g out

th e FA Rviolations . PM I Coope r accepte di t

(Exh . A-5 , pp . 1-2 ; Tr . 38 ; I.D. , p . 3) . Bu t

inspecto r Coope r v^dthdre w th e agency' s approva l o f GoJet' s self

disclosur e i n ligh t

o f GoJet' s eventua l refiisal t o mak e certai n change s Coope r though t necessary . Unde r

VDR P procedures , th e agenc y the n ha dclearanc e t o institut e a n enforcemen t

actio n an ddi ds o (I.D. , p . 3) . Understandin g th e contex t an dth e implicatio n o f

th e parties ' disagreemen t require s afiiller

expositio n o f

FA A Orde r

8900. 1 (Exh . A-10) . Orde r 8900. 1 i s ase t

o f guideline s th e agenc y create dfor it s inspectors t o follo w i n carryin g out th e VDR P (Tr .

' Ac e Pilo t Training , FA

A Orde r No . 2005-1 2 (August

17 , 2005) , p . 9 ; USAir

, Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 1992

- 7 0 (Decembe

r 21 , 1992) , p . 6 . 1 reject

Respondent' s assertio n tha t Complainan

t failedt o prov e th e violation s becaus e testimon y establishe dtha

t the aircraf t couldhave bee

n flow n safely , an

di n fac t ha s operated , wit

h agea r pi n i n place . Resp . Br. , pps . 8-10 . Th e argumen t i s irrelevan

t t o th e charges . Th

e relevan t an dprobativ e evidenc e establishedthe violations .43) . It

track s th e term s o f

th e agency' s A C 00-58A , which , a s noted , contain s th e tex t o f th e VDR P (Tr . 53-54 ; Exh . A-11 ; I.D. , p . 3) . Orde r 8900. 1 generall y require s tha t th e regulate dentity' s initia l notificatio n - whic h may b e oral , written , o r elecfroni c ~ b e followe dwithi n te n day s b y a"writte n report. " Th e writte n repor t mus t includ e a"detaile ddescription " o f step s th e entit y ha s mad e o r plan s t o mak e i n orde r

t o preclud e recurrenc e o f th e violation(s ) implicate di n it s initia l disclosure . Thi s portio n o f th e repor t

i s calle dth e "comprehensiv e fix." Orde r 8900. 1 assure s that

th e investigatin g inspecto r wil l clos e ou t

th e matte r

wit h alette r

o f correctio n "followin g satisfactory developmen t o f acomprehensiv e fix an dschedul e o f implementatio n agree dupo n b y th e FA A an dth e entity " (Exh . A-10 , p . 4 (^f l 1- 7 o f Orde r 8900.1)) . Orde r

8900. 1 als o unequivocall y state s tha t th e comprehensiv e fix an d implementatio n schedul e mus t b e "satisfactory t o th e FAA. " (Exh . A-10 , p . 2 (|11- 7 o f Orde r 8900.1) ; Tr . 47-48) . Inspecto r Coope r se t ou t anumbe r o f action s for

GoJe t t o undertak e b y adat e certai n a s par t

o f th e comprehensiv e fix h e outline dfor th e carrier . Th e partie s discusse d th e term s i n anumbe r

o f conversations . The y eventuall y agree dt o disagree . Th e carrie r refuse dt o implemen t

eac h o f inspecto r Cooper' s instructions.' * Coope r conclude dtha t

th e comprehensiv e fix ha dno t bee n implemented . H e withdre w th e agency' s approva l o f th e carrier' s self-disclosure . Thi s actio n followe d(Tr . 51,115) .

b . Standar d o f Revie w I findtha t th e agency' s ultimat e decisio n t o rejec t GoJet' s self-disclosur e an dt o initiat e thi s enforcemen t

actio n mus t

b e uphel dunles s i t

i s foun dt o b e arbitrary , capricious , o r

otherwis e unlawful . D & FAfons o Realty Trus t v . Garvey , 21 6 F.3 d1191 , 1196-97(D.C . Cir . 2000) . Th e discretio n o f

a n administrativ e agenc y i n decidin g whethe r t o initiat e a n enforcemen t

actio n generall y i s very broad . I t i s not absolute , however . Whe n th e FAA , a s here , ha s invite dentitie s subjec t t o it s jurisdictio n t o "confess " wrongdoin g i n retur n fo r th e agreemen t

t o forg o enforcemen t

action , consideration s o f fairnes s an dhones t dealin g sugges t

tha t th e agenc y shoul db e hel dt o it s en do f th e bargain . Thi s ide ai n fac t finds expressio n i n th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t ("APA") . Th e AP A prohibit s federal agencie s suc h a s th e FA A fromactin g i n amanne r tha t i s arbitrary an d capricious. ' Furthe r

support for reviewin g th e agency' s actio n unde r th e "arbitrar y an d capricious " standar di s foxm di n case s i n whic h FA A decision s wer e overturne da s arbitrary an dcapriciou s becaus e th e agency' s challenge ddeterminatio n ha dignore d procedure s an dguideline s se t ou t i n it s ow n handbooks . D & FAfons o Realty Trus t v . Garve y 21 6 F.3 d1191,1196-9 7 (D.C . Cir . 2000) ; BF I Wast e System s o f

Nort h Americ a * Exh . A-5 , p . 5 ; Exh . A-10 ; Tr . 39,43-46 . Inspecto r Coope r ha dproposedtha

t GoJe t amen dits maintenanc e manua

l respecting brake-assembl

y maintenanc e b

y addin g procedure s fo

r removin g the lockpin s afte

r changing th e brake . Thi s the carrie r refuse dt o do . Tr . 46 . ' 5 U.S.C . §706(2XA) . See discussion pe r administrativ e la

w judg e Isaa

c D . Benki n in Boston-Main

e Airway s Corporation , Orde r Granting i n Par t an dDenyingi n Par

t Complainant' s Motion fo

r Simimai y Judgment, 220 8 W

L 3485802 (August

8 , 2008) , pp . 2-4 .V

. FAA , 29 3 F.3 d527 , 53 3 (D.C . Cir . 2002) . Decision s o f th e FAA' s siste r

agency , th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board , als o hav e bee n reviewe dunde r thi s standar di n similar circumstances . Se e Copse y v . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board , 99 3 F.2 d 73 6 (10' " Cir . 1993) . Agains t thi s background , I findtha t th e agency' s decisio n t o rejec t GoJet' s self

disclosur e an dt o procee dwit h enforcemen t actio n wil l b e overturne donl y i f i t i s determine dt o b e arbitrary an dcapricious .

c . Decisio n I conclud e tha t

th e FAA' s decisio n t o ultimatel y rejec t GoJet' s VDR P submissio n an dt o institut e enforcemen t actio n was lawful . I t

wil l b e upheld . I t

wa s no t arbifrar y an d capriciou s i n thi s cas e for th e FA A t o tak e suc h actions . Th e agency' s decisio n t o rejec t Respondent' s self-disclosur e becaus e i t conclude d tha t Responden t

faile dt o implemen t

al l o f th e step s i t

se t ou t for a n appropriat e "comprehensiv e fix" conform s t o th e procedure s o f it s handbook . Th e inspecto r i n charg e o f workin g wit h th e carrie r describe dt o GoJe t

th e step s t o follow . Th e partie s discusse dth e matter . GoJe t decline dt o implement

all th e steps . Th e VDR P make s plai n tha t th e agenc y mus t

b e satisfie dwit h th e fix, an dma y rescin dit s acceptanc e i f i t i s not - an dma y tak e suc h actio n eve n after i t ha s issue dalette r

o f correctio n an dthereb y presumabl y foreclose denforcemen t actio n (Exh . A-10 , p . 7 , ^11-10) . I t wa s proper , then , for th e FA A t o pul l it s initia l acceptanc e o f GoJet' s self-disclosure . Th e agenc y canno t b e sai dt o hav e faile dt o follo w it s ow n procedures. * No r wa s i t arbitrary an dcapriciou s for th e FA A t o fai l t o specificall y inform GoJe t o f th e VDRP' s procedure s for contestin g an advers e decision . Th e VDR P doe s no t obligat e th e agenc y t o d o so . Moreover , th e responsibilit y fall s o n GoJet , havin g invoke d th e VDRP , t o b e awar e o f th e Program' s provisions . Th e carrie r ma y not justl y conten d tha t th e agenc y was obligate dt o infor mi t o f acertai n VDR P provisio n whe n circumstance s showe dtha t i t wel l kne w others . I t

woul db e manifestl y unfai r an d unreasonabl e t o plac e suc h aburde n o n th e agency . Indeed , aFAA-regulate dai r carrie r suc h a s GoJe t

shoul db e responsibl e for awarenes s o f

th e conten t

o f al l agency-generate d document s whic h ma y affec t it. ^

* Responden

t intimate s tha

t the VDR P require s th

e agenc y an dthe regulate dentit

y to fashio n a"mutually agreeable comprehensiv e fix." Resp . Br. , p . 12 . Thi s i s incorrect . Whil e th e Progra mencourage s the partie s to wor

k together , th

e VDR P expressl y permit s th e FA

A to unilaterally impos e asolution . Th e agency ma y withdra w it s acceptanc e o

f th e self-disclosur

e if

— i n it s sole opinio

n ~ the fix i

t askedfo r was no t properl y o r completel y implemented . Tha

t i s wha t happenedhere . See discussion i n I.D. , p . 3 , an

di n the text above . I was not aske dto , an

dd o not , revie

w th e specific step s the FA

A decidedwas necessar

y fo r a comprehensive fix. Th

e agency i s give

n substantia

l deferenc e i

n suc h matter s in vie

w of it s particula

r expertise . See , e.g. . Village o f Bensenville v. FAA

, "iie F.3 d1114 , 112

2 (D.C . Cir . 2004) . ^ Cf . Ac e Pilo t Training , FA

A Orde r No . 2005-1 2 (Augus t

17 , 2005) , pp . 7- 8 (rejecting clai mtha t i t would be a n unfai r burde n t o plac e adut

y o n a n owne r o r operato r to revie w all airworthines s directive s ("ADs" ) an dto "bea r primar y responsibility " fo

r A D compliance) .

### Fo r th e reason s statedabove , I find an dconclud e tha t Responden

t ha s failedto prove it s affirmative defense . I als o den y Respondent' s motion t

o strik e {se e Tr . 104-05 , 107 ) an dit s motion i

n suppor t o f it s Motion fo

r Decision {se

e Tr . 108-09) . All othe

r outstanding motion s no t

specificall y referencedar

e denied . C . Penalt y 

### Complainan

t ha s suggestedtha

t a n assessmen

t of $33,000 i s warrantedb y th e fact s an dcircumstance s of

thi s case . I will asses s atota l civi l penalt

y of $18,000 . Complainan

t i s obligatedt

o conside r th e followin

g factors whe

n determinin g th e civi l penalt

y amount : (1 ) th e natur

e andcircumstance s o f

th e violation ; (2 ) th e exten

t an d gravit y of th e violation ; (3 ) the respond^it' s degre e of culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s histor y of prior violations , i f

any ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit y to pa y th e civi l penalty ; (6 ) the effec t on th e entity' s abilit

y to sta y in business ; an

d(7 ) othe r matter s a s justic e ma

y require . See , e.g. , Folsom' s Air Service , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe

r 6 , 2008) , p . 11 . Th

e determinatio n weigh s whethe r th e violatio n wa s inadverten t o r deliberate , th e privat

e o r publi c characte

r o f th e violaticMi

, an dth e attitude o f

th e violator . Th e agency als o consider s the respondent' s size , particularly in determining th e offender' s abilit

y to absor b th e sanction . A

n appropriat

e civi l penalt

y mus t reflect th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s surrounding th e violations . Easter n Ai r Center , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008- 3 (Januar

y 28 , 2008) . Finally , th e civi l penalt y shouldprovide sufficien

t incentiv e to dete

r th e responden

t an dsimilarly-situate dentitie s fromfiiture violations . Folsom' s Air

Service , Inc. , Id , p . 20 . Respondent' s failur

e t o remov e aloclqji

n produce da

n unairworth

y aircraft . I

t createda n unwarrante dan

dsubstantia

l ris k of dange r to th e flight

an dit s crew an

d passengers . Additionally , GoJet' s failur e on tw o occasion s to mak

e arequire dlo g entr

y underminedth e recordkeeping syste mtha t i s th e linchpin of

FA A oversigh

t an d enforcement . Complet

e an daccurat e recordkeeping i s essentia

l fo r th e FA A t o fixlfill it s mandat e of assurin g tha

t operator s compl

y wit h safet y standards . Se

e Watt s Agricultural

_ Aviation , Inc. , d/b/

aGrower s Ai

r Service , FA

A Orde r No . 91- 8 (April 11,1991) . Suc h transgression s merit

significan t penalties . On th e othe

r hand , I find tha

t ther e i s n o reaso n in thi s cas e to asses s aseparat e civi l penalt

y fo r th e violatio n of

FA R§91.13(a) . A s th e Administrato r ha s stated , thi s charg e follow s strictly a s aresidua l violatio n onc e Complainan t ha s establishe doperatio n o f a n unairworth

y aircraf t unles s "extraordinar

y circumstances " ar

e present . Ace Pilo t Training , FA

A Orde r No . 2005-1 2 (Augus t

17,2005) , p . 9 , quotin g USAir , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 1992-7 0 (Decembe

r 21,1992) , p . 6 . Th

e recor din thi s cas e doe s no t

sho w an y extraordmar

y circumstance s justifyin g afindin g tha t GoJe t independentl

y violate d §91.1 3 (a) . A s such , I decline to asses s acivi l penalt y fo r thi s violation . Further , I find n o justificatio n in th e recor dfo r Complainant' s ple afo

r a maximu mcivi l penalt

y o f $11,000 fo

r each o f th e tw o remaining violations . Complainan

t asserte dtha

t maintenanc e complianc e i s a"systemi c problem " a t GoJe t (Tr .95-96) , bu t i t furnishe dn o evidenc e backin g u p th e claim . I t faile dt o sho w tha t impositio n o f

th e maximu mlev y i s warranted. I n weighin g th e fact s an dcircumstances , I findan dconclud e tha t acivi l penalt y assessmen t

o f $18,000 , o r

$9,00 0 pe r

independen t

violatio n found , i s appropriate . I t i s commensurat e wit h th e natur e an dexten t o f th e violations . Th e assessment , I find, wil l promot e adherenc e t o th e FAR s an dac t a s a n appropriat e deterren t t o Responden t

an d similarly-situate dentities . It suitabl y account s for

th e totalit y o f

th e circumstance s o f

thi s case . Al l othe r

argument s raise db y eithe r part y d o not

warran t discussion . The y hav e bee n considere dan dar e rejecte da s withou t merit . GoJe t Airlines , LL C i s hereb y assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $18,00 0 for

violation s o f FA R§§43.13(c) , 91.13(a) , an d121.153(a)(2 ) a s charge di n th e Complaint. * 

### III . Docke t

CP10CE000 4 A . Backgroun d I n thi s matter . Complainan t charge s tha t

GoJe t operate dan aircraf

t i n an unairworth y conditio n followin g improperl y deferre dmaintenance . Th e agenc y claim s tha t GoJe t responde dincorrectl y after adiscrepanc y develope dfor th e pilot' s lef

t sid e windo w hea t

system . Th e carrie r

subsequentl y operate dafter deferring , pe r

it s Minimu m Equipmen t

List , th e pilot' s lef

t windshiel danti-ic e confroller . Th e deferra l di dnot addres s th e discrepancy , th e Complain t states . Thu s i t

wa s improper . Respondent' s action s le dt o charge s o f

five FA Rviolations . Th e Complain t

contends tha t

a ) th e deferra l was accomplishe dconfrar y t o th e aircraft' s operation s specification s ("o p specs") ; b ) th e flight was conducte dwhe n th e aircraf t was not i n an airworth y condition ; an dc ) operatin g i n an unairworth y conditio n constitute dacareles s act . Th e five violation s GoJe t i s charge dwit h are : 1 ) sectio n 91.213(a)(3)(ii) , whic h prohibit s takeof f wit h inoperativ e insttument s o r equipmen t unles s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t requirement s ar e met ; 2 ) sectio n 119.5(1) , proscribin g operation s i n violatio n o f GoJet' s o p specs ; 3 ) sectio n 121.605 , barrin g an y perso n from

' Thi s decision ma

y b e appealedto the Administrato r of the FAA . Th

e notic e of appea l must confor mto section s 13.210 , 13.211(e) an d13.23 3 of

th e Rule s of Practice , whic

h requir e tha t anotic e o f appea l 1 ) b e file dnot late r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l fiv e day s if mailed) fromthe servic e dat e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfectedwit

h awritte n brief o r memorandu

mnot late r tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five , i f mailed) fromth e servic e dat e of thi s decision . Th

e notic e of appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mmus t eithe r b e a) mailedto th e Federa

l Aviation Administration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , o

r b ) delivered personall y o r vi aexpeditedcourie

r servic e to the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Atta : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 . A cop

y o f the notic e of

appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mals o must

b e sen t to agency counsel . Servic e upo

n the presiding judg e i s optional .1 0

releasin g a

n airplan e unles s i t

i s airworthy ; 4 ) sectio n 121.153(a)(2) , prohibitin g a certificat e holde r

fro moperatin g a

n unairworth y aircraft ; an d5 ) sectio n 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f

an aircraf t i n acareles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another . Th e agenc y ask s for acivi l penalty unde r

4 9 U.S.C . §4630 1 o f $50,000 . Responden t

denie dth e charges . Additionally , i t assert s a s a n affirmativ e defens e tha t if , arguendo , th e charge s ar e proven , GoJe t nonetheles s i s immun e fromenforcemen t actio n becaus e th e matte r i s subjec t t o th e agency' s Aviatio n Safet y Actio n Progra m ("ASAP") . ASA P i s th e pilots ' counterpart t o th e VDR P {se

e I.D. , pp . 2-3) . h i bringin g a n enforcemen t

action , th e carrie r

asserts , th e agenc y faile dt o follo w it s ow n guidelines . Th e guideline s obligate dth e FA A i n thi s situatio n t o foreg o enforcemen t action . Th e agenc y als o gathere dinformatio n b y imprope r means , GoJe t

argues . Responden t conclude s tha t

thes e action s compe l dismissa l o f th e Complain t

(Tr . 131-32 ; Resp . Br. , p . 7) . B . Discussio n

1 . Th e Merit s Th e circumstance s leadin g t o thi s actio n unfolde ddurin g aGoJe t flight fromSt . Loui s t o Denve r

o n May 31,2008 . Th e pilot , operatin g aCanadai r CRJ-700 regiona l jet , receive da

n intermitten t

messag e statin g " L windo w hea t caution. " Th e messag e signifie dthat , at

leas t par t o f th e time , th e lef

t sid e windo w hea t

syste mwas not

operatin g properly . Th e pilo t

calle di t i n t o maintenanc e official s a s adiscrepanc y (Exhs . A-21 , A

22 ; Tr . 140-43 , 147-48 , 188,224-25) . Th e lef t windo w i s apane l t o th e pilot' s left , approximatel y of f th e pilot' s lef

t shoulder . Th e lef

t borde r o f th e windo w i s at

th e 9 o'cloc k

positio n (Exh . A-22 , p . 3 , notatio n "A; " Tr . 144) . Th e lef t windo w i s differen t

fromth e lef

t windshield . Th e lef

t windshiel di s apane l t o th e immediat e righ t o f th e lef t windo w an dmor e directl y mfront o f th e pilot ; th e righ t

borde r o f th e lef t windshiel di s a t

th e 1 2 o'cloc k

positio n (Exh . A

22 , p . 4 , notatio n "A; " Tr . 143-46) . A correctiv e actio n for th e lef t windo w an da correctiv e actio n for

th e lef t vdndshiel dar e not

relate d(Tr . 156) . Maintenanc e mechanic s i n Denve r unde r contrac t t o GoJet , pursuan t

t o th e instruction s o f

th e carrier' s maintenanc e controller , Erni e Spencer , deferre dth e discrepanc y i n accordanc e wit h th e carrier' s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t ("MEL" ) 30-41

- 0 1 (Exh . A-21 ; Tr . 141,225,228) . GoJe t i s authorize dt o us e MEL s b y it s o p spec s (Tr . 171) . ME L 30-41-0 1 i s applicabl e bot h t o th e windo w an dth e windshiel danti-ic e controllers . Ther e ar e four ofthes e i n total . Th e ME L term s allow s on e ofth e fou r t o b e inoperativ e s o lon g a s th e "[pjilot' s (Left) sid e windo w heatin g i s operative. " (Exh . A-23 ; Tr . 147) . Thi s directiv e means , a s Respondent' s PM I Coope r testified , tha t

GoJe t wa s not permitte dt o defer

th e lef t windo w heat

system. ' Maintenanc e personne l issue di n term s a 'Tr . 148 , 151 , 189 . Ther

e i s agoodreason fo

r this . Withou

t heat , fo g couldfor mon th e window . Fo g woul dunacceptabl

y inhibit , if

not altogethe r prevent , the pilot' s visio n ou t the window . Tr . 151 .1 1

deferral for

th e lef t windshiel danti-ic e controller , but th e effec t was t o defe r

maintenanc e o n th e lef t windo w hea t

system . Thi s action , I find, was imprope r (Exh . A-24 ; Tr . 148 , 197) . Th e deferra l release dth e CRJ-700 for servic e (Tr . 151 ; Exh . A-2i) . Late r tha t sam e da y th e aircraf

t operate dfromDenve r

t o Gran dRapids , MI . Th e pilo t o n thi s flight als o receive dan intermitten t cautio n messag e warnin g tha t th e lef t sid e windo w heat syste mwas no t

workin g properl y (Exh . A-24 ; Exh . R-2 ; Tr . 149-50 , 153 , 190) . Thi s tim e maintenanc e personne l performe dan "Op s check " o n th e lef t sid e windo w anti-ic e controller . I t

checke dout

(Exh . A-24 , correctiv e actio n 1 ; Tr . 150,230) . GoJe t als o performe dan Op s chec k

o n th e lef t windshiel danti-ic e confroller . Tha t checke dou t

a s well , an dtha t

actio n cleare dth e ME L (Exh . A-24 , correctiv e actio n 2 ; Tr . 152 , 197 , 230) . Th e nex t day , Jun e 1 , 2008 , GoJe t maintenanc e personne l correcte dth e actua l discrepanc y b y exchangin g th e lef t windo w overhea dsenso r with th e spar e senso r

(Exhs . A-2 4 an dR-2 ; Tr . 198-99) . A s inspecto r

Coope r concisel y summe di t

up , GoJe t

"improperl y deferre dth e pilot' s windshiel danti-ic e confroller (ME L ite m30-41-01).. . althoug h th e discrepanc y note di n th e logboo k

( L Windo w Hea t

Caution ) wa s for

th e pilot' s (left ) sid e windo w heat . Th e pilot' s lef

t sid e windo w hea t

i s not deferrabl e accordin g t o GoJet' s MEL. " (Exh . R-2 ) (italic s added) . O n thi s evidenc e th e agenc y provedeac h ofth e violation s alleged . FA R §91.213(a)(3)(ii ) prohibit s takeof f wit h inoperativ e instrument s o r equipmen t

unles s ME L requirement s ar e met . Takin g of f v^t h an inoperativ e lef

t windo w heatin g syste m violate dth e regulation.'* ^ Th e carrie r als o violate d§119.5(1) , whic h proscribe s operation s i n violatio n o f

a n aircraft' s o p specs . Sinc e i t i s GoJet' s o p spec s whic h authoriz e ME L use , a n imprope r

deferra l violate s th e o p spec s (Tr . 171) . FA Rsectio n 121.60 5 bar s an y perso n fromreleasin g a

n airplan e unles s i t

i s airworthy . Th e releas e ofth e CRJ-700 with adiscrepanc y i n th e lef

t windo w heatin g syste mrendere dth e aircraf t unairworthy . Th e discrepanc y faile dt o mee t eithe r ofth e tw o prerequisite s for airworthiness : th e aircraf t faile dt o conformt o it s typ e design , an di t wa s no t i n aconditio n for

saf e operation . Se e Horizo n Ai r

Industries , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 95-1 1 (May 10 , 1995) , p . 1 2 n . 33 . I n an y even t a n aircraf

t wit h an unresolve dmechanica l discrepanc y canno t b e considere d airworthy . Genera l Aviation , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 98-1 8 (Octobe r

9,1998) , pp . 12-13 . A s PM I Coope r

testified , "It' s not

airworth y i f

i t doesn' t work. " (Tr . 151) . Operatin g a n unairworth y aircraf

t als o constitute s aFA Rviolatio n (§121.153(a)(2)) . Finally , Complainan t

showe dtha t

Responden t

violate dFA R§91.13(a) . Tha t sectio n prohibit s operatio n o f

a n aircraf t i n acareles s o r

reckles s maime r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another . B y improperl y deferrin g adiscrepanc y involvin g th e heatin g syste m i n th e lef t window , GoJe t

create da n unacceptabl e hazar dt o cre w an dpassenge r safet y b y

' " Responden

t argue s tha t Complainan

t faile dto establis h thi s violation becaus e the intermitten t natur e of the onboar dmessag e mean

t tha t th e equipmen

t was not inoperable . See , e.g. , Resp . Br. , p . 8 . Thi s contention i s rejected . A componen t whic h function s intermittentl

y i s inherentl

y unreliable . A

n unreliable componen t tha t i s require dto b e operable constitute s adiscrepancy . Tr . 148 ; accord . Genera l Aviation , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 98-1 8 (Octobe

r 9,1998) , pp . 12-1 3 (fue

l gaug e tha

t workedintermittentl

y was unreliable , therefor

e a n unairworth

y aircraft) .1 2

extendin g th e risk

tha t th e pilo t woul db e unabl e t o properl y se e ou t th e lef t window . A violatio n o f

§91.13(a ) follows , moreover , a s aresidua l violatio n onc e th e fac t o f an unairworth y operatio n ha s bee n established . Ac e Pilo t Training , FA A Orde r

No . 2005-1 2 (Augus t 17 , 2005) , supr ap . 5 n . 3 . 2 . Respondent' s Affirmativ e Defens e a . Backgroun d Th e Aviatio n Safet

y Actio n Progra m("ASAP" ) i s th e agenc y progra munde r whic h GoJe t

claim s immunizatio n fromenforconen t action . ASA P i s th e pilot' s counterpart

t o th e VDRP . A n unidentifie dGoJe t pilo t submitte dth e ASA P report . GoJet' s ASA P progra mi s codifie di n aMemorandu mo f Understandin g ("MOU" ) betwee n th e FAA , th e pilots ' union , an dth e carrier. " Th e MO U establishe s an Even t Revie w Committe e ("ERC") . Th e ER C consist s o f thre e individuals , wh o ar e representative s ofth e signatories . It s functio n i s t o revie w an danalyz e report s submitte d b y pilot s unde r

th e progra mwith avie w t o identifyin g safet y concern s an dproposin g solution s (Court

Exh . 1 , p . 6 , ^9) . Th e MO U als o allow s th e FA A t o conduc t an "independen t

investigation " o f

"a n even t disclose di n areport. " (Exh . A-25) . Bu t i t caution s tha t

an ASA P report

may no t b e use d"a s evidenc e fo r

an y pmpose " i n a n FA A enforcemen t

action.' ^ Th e MO U als o reference s th e VDRP . I t state s tha t

violation s disclose dthroug h a n ASA P ma y b e handle dimder th e VDRP , s o lon g a s GoJe t "voluntaril y report s th e possibl e noncomplianc e t o th e FA A an dtha t th e othe r elements o f

tha t polic y ar e met. " (Court Exh . 1 , p . 4,1|4a ; se e als o Exh . A-26 , IJ D (FA A Orde r

8900.1) ; Tr . 169) . PM I Coope r

first learne dtha t

GoJe t ha dapparentl y incorrectl y deferre da discrepanc y at

ameetin g ofth e ER C o n Jun e 12,200 8 (Tr . 180-81 ; Exh . R-2) . Mr . Coope r wa s not on e ofth e thre e ER C members . H e wa s invite dt o th e meetin g becaus e a maintenanc e issu e was involved . Coope r signe daconfidentiality agreemen t pledgin g not t o disclos e an y informatio n learne dat tha t meetin g excep t

i n conjunctio n wit h th e ASA P (Tr . 154,176-81 ; Exh . R-1) . H e testifie dtha t afte r thi s meetin g h e immediatel y starte d an independen t

investigatio n base do n what h e ha dlearne dther e (Tr . 157-58,179-81 , 212) . Th e investigatio n le dt o thi s actio n (Tr . 213) .

b . Decisio n I findan dconclud e tha t

Responden t

ha s carrie dit s burde n o f

proo f i n it s affirmativ e defense . I wil l therefor e dismis s th e Complaint .

" Cour t Exh . 1 ; Tr . 157-58 , 173-74 ; Exh . A-25 . Th e MOU' s ful

l titl e i s "Aviation Safet

y Action Progra

m (ASAP ) fo r Pilots. " Cour

t Exh . 1 . Ther

e no w i s amaint^ianc e ASAP , but i t di dnot exis t a t th e tim e ofth e incident . Tr . 205 . ' ^ Exh . A-25 , IJh

. Exception s to thi s ba

n ar e mad e fo r action s involving crimina

l activity , drugs , an

daction s appearing to involv e "a

n intentiona

l disregar dfo r safety.^ ' The FA

A agreedtha

t none ofth e exception s wer e applicable here . Tr . 174-75 ; se e Cour t Exh . 1 , p . 41f4 .1 3 Th e evidenc e showe dtha t th e agency , throug h PM I Cooper , obtaine dth e informatio n leadin g t o thi s actio n at th e ER C meeting . Enforcemen t resulte ddirectl y fro mCooper' s followu p investigation . Pursuin g informatio n h e ha dacquire dat th e meetin g violate dMr . Cooper' s writte n agreemen t t o kee p i n confidenc e anythin g h e foun dou t ther e excep t

i n connectio n wit h th e ASAP . Th e agenc y als o violate dit s guidelines . Th e MOU , codifyin g GoJet' s ASAP , specificall y warrant s tha t

n o informatio n containe di n a n ASA P report

may b e use di n a

n enforcemen t

actio n (Court

Exh . 1) . Th e Progra mconstitute s apromis e b y th e FA A t o refrai n fromenforcemen t actio n i f th e regulate dentit y confesse s mistakes . I t i s an incentiv e t o suc h entitie s t o acknowledg e misstep s withou t fea r o f punishment . Th e ultimat e aim , o f

course , i s t o identif

y an dcorrec t

problem s thereb y disclose dt o maintai n an dimprov e th e safet

y o f flight. Th e signator y i n thi s matter , GoJe t (throug h it s pilot) , kep t it s en dofth e bargain . I t submitte da n ASA P repor t whic h was accepted. Th e agency , however , di dnot hono r it s end . A s such , i t

operate dcounte r

t o it s ow n guidelines . B y engagin g i n th e conduc t describe dabove , th e agenc y operate di n an arbitrary an dcapriciou s manner . Thes e circumstance s requir e tha t th e Complain t

b e dismissed . Se e I.D . §II.B.2.b. , pp . 6-7 . Th e FAA' s inspecto r

Coope r nonetheles s assure dtha t

h e use dnothin g i n th e ASA P repor t

i n hi s investigatio n (Tr . 166) . Bu t th e litera l truth o f

thi s statement , assumin g it s veracity , i s besid e th e point . What i s german e i s tha t

th e informatio n containe di n th e repor t

alerte dth e inspecto r

t o th e possibilit y o f

FA Rviolation s an dthei r likel y nature . Th e repor t

wa s th e see do f

Cooper' s subsequen t

inquiry - an investigatio n whic h le ddirectl y t o thi s action . Tha t i s th e nu b ofth e agency' s violativ e behavior . T o endors e Complainant' s argument , o n th e othe r hand , woul db e t o permi t informatio n disclose dthroug h th e ASA P t o b e use di n an enforcemen t actio n - nullifyin g th e MOU' s expres s guarantee . Th e agenc y als o protest s tha t th e MO U specificall y allow s i t t o conduc t

an "independen t

investigation " o f

an y even t

disclose di n an ASA P report . PM I Cooper' s action s wer e onl y that , i t

assert s (Compl . Rebut. , pp . 3-4) . Thi s argumen t i s tru e a s fa

r a s i t goes . Bu t

th e provisio n carmo t

mea n tha t

th e agenc y i s thereb y permitte dt o effectivel y bypas s th e assurance s ASA P give s regulate dentities . An dtha t i s it s result . I caimo t conclud e tha t

th e ASA P promis e coul dlawfull y b e draine do f al l meaning . Th e agenc y may not tak e awa y wit h th e on e han dwha t i t ha s give n wit h th e other . Mr . Coope r

als o testifie dtha t

h e bega n th e enforcemen t actio n becaus e h e believe dtha t

GoJet' s maintenanc e confrolle r kne w abou t

th e discrepanc y o n th e da y o f th e inciden t

but faile dt o defer

i t withi n 2 4 hour s (Tr . 158,169) . FA A polic y unde r th e VDRP , a s ha s bee n seen , require s tha t th e regulate dentit y submi t an initia l notificatio n "ordinaril y withi n 2 4 hour s ofth e discover y ofth e apparen t violation " {see I.D. , p . 3) . Bu t Complainant' s evidenc e fel l short o f proo f Whil e Coope r

testifie dtha t

h e "sfrongl y felt " tha t GoJet' s maintenanc e confroller , Spencer , ha dbee n awar e ofth e tru e natur e o f•,>i:'^fl[^--,-'.i;j^^;Wrtj6tJ^:i i 1 4 

### th e proble m(Tr . 158 , 183 , 186-87 ; Exh . R-2) , h e couldarticulat e no basi s fo

r hi s feeling . Tha t i s not proo f Moreover , to ope

n a n investigatio n unde

r the VDR P guideline s based o n information disclosedi

n a n ASA P report , it mus t b e reiterated , directly confradicts th e MOU' s guarantee tha

t suc h information wouldno t

b e usedi n enforcement . Th

e dispositio n of

thi s cas e require s circlin g back to th e initia

l finding - tha

t th e agency' s failur e t o kee p it s promis e of

confidentialit

y constitute darbifrar

y an dcapriciou s behavio

r requiring dismissa

l ofth e Complaint . All othe r arguments have bee

n considere dan

dar e dismisse dwithout

discussio n a s withou t merit . Fo r th e reason s statedabove , th e Complain t i n Docke t CP10CE000

4 i s hereby dismissed. "

icnar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachment s - Servic e Lis t

" Al l othe r motion s outstanding ar

e dismissed . Thi s decisio n ma y b e appealedto the Administrato r ofth e FAA . Th e notic e o f appea l mus t confor mt o section s 13.210,13.211(e ) an d13.23 3 ofth e Rule s o

f Practice , whic

h requir e tha t anotic e o f appea l 1 ) b e filed not

late r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five day s i f mailed ) fi-omthe servic e dat

e of thi s decision , an

d2 ) b e p^ecte dwit

h awritte n brief o r memorandu

m no t late r tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five, if mailed) ^n i th e servic e dat e of thi s decision . Th

e notic e o f appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mmust eithe r b e a) mailedt o the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , o

r b ) deliveredpersonall

y o r vi ^ expeditedcourie

r servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC'430 . A cop

y ofth e notic e .o

f appea l an dbrief o r memorandu

mals o must

be sen t t o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo

n th e presiding judg e i s optional .FA A Docke t Nos . CP10CE000 3 & CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Mr . Richar dA . Leac h GoJe t Airlines , LLC , Responden t 1149 5 Navai dRoad , Suit e 30 3 St . Louis , M O 6304 4 Davi dJ . A . Haye s III , Respondent' s Counse l Vice-Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l Tran s State s Holdings , Inc . 1149 5 Navai dRoa d Bridgeton , M O 6304 4 TEL : 314-222-431 6 FAX : 314-222-431 1 Davi dB . Kessler , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Centra l Region , ACE- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Buildin g rO l Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 3 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attomey-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t

' Service wa s by U.S . Mail . For servic e i n person o

r b y expedite dcourier , us e the.following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S . W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .