SERVE D JUN E 23 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASfflNGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE RO F AIRTRA N AIRWAYS , INC. , Respondent . DOCKE T NO . CP10SO000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 3 ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE' S INITIA L DECISIO N Th e issu e for

decisio n i n thi s civi l penalt y enforcemen t cas e i s th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y tha t

shoul db e assesse dagains t AirTra n Airways , Inc . (AirTra n o r

Respondent ) fo r

asingl e isolate dviolatio n o f aprovisio n o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR ) limitin g th e duty tim e o f afligh t attendant . Th e rule s pertainin g t o maximu mon-dut y time s o f fligh t attendant s ar e se t

fort h i n §121.46 7 o f

th e FAR . Amon g othe r

things , §121.46 7 prescribe s tha t

a n airlin e suc h a s th e Responden t "mus t reliev e eac h fligh t

attendan t fromal l furthe r

duty for a t leas t 2 4 hour s i n an y 7 consecutiv e calenda r

days. " Se e §121.467(b)(13) . I n it s complaint , file do n February 24 , 2010 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FA A o r Complainant ) faile dt o compl y wit h thi s requiremen t wit h respec t

t o aflight attendan t b y th e nam e o f

Christophe r

Marti n durin g th e 7-day perio d beginnin g o n Jul y 9 , 200 8 a t 8:0 0 p.m . an dendin g o n Jul y 16 , 200 8 at 10:5 3 p.m . Th e complain t

sough t t o asses s acivi l penalt y o f $15,00 0 agains t AirTran . AirTra n di dno t

den y th e clai mtha t

i t violate dth e regulation . I t did , however , objec t

t o th e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalt y sough t

b y th e FAA , contendin g tha t

a$15,00 0 assessmen t

wa s both "excessive " an d "unwarranted. " Durin g th e prehearin g phas e o f th e case , th e FA A filed a motio n for

summar y dispositio n or , i n th e alternative , for arulin g limitin g th e hearin g t o th e issu e o f quantum . After

reviewin g th e Respondent' soppositio n t o th e motion , I ruled , i n a n orde r issue dMay 19 , 2010 , tha t whil e AirTra n ha dth e right

t o ahearin g o n th e issu e o f th e appropriat e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalt y i t

mus t pay , th e FA A wa s entitle dt o favorabl e actio n o n it s motio n t o limi t

th e hearin g t o tha t

issue . Th e hearin g wa s hel dbefor e m e i n Orlando , Florid ao n Jun e 15 , 2010 . A t th e conclusio n o f

th e hearing , counse l fo r

both partie s wer e giv e th e opportunit y t o mak e closin g statement s i n lie u o f

brief s an dtoo k

advantag e o f

tha t opportunity . Hence , th e cas e i s no w rip e for

decision . A t th e hearing , bot h partie s recognize dtha t th e startin g poin t

for analysi s o f

th e prope r

sanctio n wa s th e FAA' s sanction s polic y statemen t embodie di n FA A Orde r

No . 2150.3B . Th e FA A presente dth e testimon y o f on e witness , Thoma s T . Frishe , aSafet y Inspecto r

assigne dt o th e Technica l Br£inc h o f th e agency' s Fligh t

Standard s Divisio n fo

r it s Souther n Region . Mr . Frish e wa s th e supervisory official wh o recommende dtha t a$15,00 0 civi l penalt y b e sough t

i n thi s case , arecommendatio n whic h wa s approve d b y th e FAA' s lega l staf

f Mr . Frish e said , in'substance , tha t hi s recommendatio n ha dit s start i n Appendi x B , Figur e B-1 1 o f Orde r 2150.3B . H e bega n with Figur e B-l-n , whic h provide s tha t for aviolatio n o f

flight an d dut y tim e limitation s wit h respec t t o aflight

dec k crew , acivi l penialt

y i n th e "moderate " rang e wa s appropriate . The n h e referre dt o paragrap h (1 ) o f Appendi x B , whic h group s carrier s int o severa l Groups , dependin g o n thei r annua l gros s operatin g revenu e an dth e siz e o f thei r fleets. AirTra n wa s deeme dt o fal l int o th e Grou p I , category , LC^ alarg e busines s concer n with annua l operatin g revenu e o f $10 0 millio n o r

more . Fo r

suc h acategory , say s Appendi x B , a"moderate " civi l penalt y i s i n th e rang e from$10,00 0 t o $ 18,749 . Chapte r

7 o f th e Orde r

prescribe s that , onc e th e rang e i s - determined , enforcemen t

persorme l shoul d"begi n with an amoun t i n th e middl e o f th e rang e an dincreas e tha t amoun t towar dth e highe r

eii do f th e rang e for aggravatin g factor s o r

decreas e tha t

amoun t towar dth e lowe r

en d o f th e rang e for

mitigatin g factors. " Se e paragraph 5b(3). ' Mr . Frish e testifie dtha t

h e coul dfindn o mitigatin g o r aggravatin g circumstance s t o hav e bee n presen t i n thi s case . Hence , h e determine dtha t

' Thi s advic e appear s to appl y onl y wit h respect to "Single , Fir$t-Tim

e Inadverten

t Violations " -

^ acategor y tha t bot h witnesse s agreedwas applicable i n thi s case .a

n appropriat e penalt y la

y i n th e middl e o f

th e $10,000- $ 18,74 9 range . After calculatin g tha t

figure ($14,374.50) , h e "rounde di t up " t o $15,000. ^ Mr . Frish e testifie dtha t

h e gav e n o weigh t

t o th e fac t

tha t th e Responden t

ha dahistor y free o f

violation s o f

th e FAR , sayin g tha t

unde r Orde r No . 2150.3B , aviolation-fre e histor y wa s deeme dt o b e th e nor man d wa s no t regarde da s amitigatin g factor . H e als o gav e n o weigh t t o th e carrier' s clai mtha t

i t ha dha dsevera l unprofitabl e years , sinc e revie w o f it s gros s revenue s durin g tha t perio dindicate di t

ha dth e abilit y t o absorb th e penalty h e ha drecommended . H e sai dthat , i n th e cas e o f alarg e respondent , suc h a s AirTran , th e FA A coul dno t allo w th e penaltie s for violation s o f

th e FA Rt o b e regarde da s simpl y acos t o f doin g business . Mr . Frish e als o concede dtha t h e coul dfindn o aggravatin g circumstance s i n connectio n wit h th e violatio n b y AirTran . Mr . Frish e wa s extensivel y cross-examine do n th e questio n o f wh y h e bega n hi s analysi s b y consultin g aprovisio n o f Appendi x B tha t

deal t with violation s o f

fiight an ddut y tim e rule s applicabl e t o flight dec k cre w members . H e testifie dtha t h e sa w n o rea l differenc e betwee n th e treatmen t o f violation s with regar dt o flight attendant s an dviolation s involvin g pilots , co-pilots , flight

engineers , etc . Both group s o f employee s hav e safet

y responsibilities , h e noted , s o ther e i s n o qualitativ e differenc e betwee n th e tw o type s o f

violations . Mr . Frish e als o testifie dtha t becaus e th e guidanc e i n Orde r No . 2150.3 B divide dcarrier s b y thei r gros s revenues , h e use donl y gross-revenue s figures a s th e measur e o f th e potential economi c impac t o f th e civi l penalty . A s o f

th e tim e h e ha dreviewe dth e file, sai dMr . Frishe , h e di dno t kno w whethe r

o r t o wha t exten t AirTra n ha dinstitute dcorrectiv e actio n t o ensur e tha t

thi s violatio n di dno t

recur . Hence , h e concede dtha t th e carrier' s correctiv e action , i f any , di dno t

pla y apar t

i n hi s recommendation . No r

di dh e know , at

th e tim e h e mad e hi s recommendation , whethe r Ai r Tran s ha dadmitte dtha t

th e violatio n ha d take n place . H e als o acknowledge dtha t th e violatio n i n questio n di dno t resul t from a"systemic " failure ; i n an y event , Mr . Frish e said , th e absence o f asystemi c failur e woul dno t b e considere damitigatin g factor . Mr . Frish e als o concede do n cross-examinatio n tha t h e wa s no t

awar e o f th e penalt y assesse di n other , similar cases , tha t

h e wa s no t

awar e o f ho w

^ Th e actua l midpoin t of th e rang e i s $14,374.50 . Since ther e i s n o magica l qualit y inheren t i n anumbe r tha t ca n b e evenl y divide db

y 5 , on e wonders wh

y the FA A persist s i

n "rounding " upwar

drathe r tha n downwar dor simpl y leaving th e calculate dmidpoin t alone .

### AirTra

n schedule dit s flight

attendant s fo

r wor k - except tha t h e wa s certai n th e us e o f computer s wa s involve d- an dtha t AirTra n ha s afavorabl e reputatio n among FA

A personne l assigne dt o monitor it s safet y performance . Durin g hi s redirec t examination , Mr . Frish e mad e itclearthat , i n formin g hi s $15,00 0 recommendation , h e ha dno t considere dan

y factors ^ which ha darisen afte

r th e investigatio n wa s concluded . The sol e witnes s fo

r AirTra n wa s Jeffre

y A . Miller , th e carrier' s Vic e Presiden t fo r Operation s andDirector

o f Gyrations . Mr . Miller

explaine d tha t th e reaso n wh

y th e violatio n occurre dwa s becaus e o f adefect in th e "Crew Trac " softwar

e tha t it ha dacquire dfromSabr

e Corporatio n andtha

t it , along wit

h anumbe r o f airlines , usedfo

r th e purpos e o f

scheiJoKn g th e wor k o f it s flight attendants. ^ Durin g th e seven-da y perio dtha

t th e FA A ha d studied , Mr . Mille

r said . Flight

Attendan t Marti n wa s schedule dt o spen d2 4 hour s i n astatu s denominate d"hom e reserve. " A flight

attendan t o n hom e reserv e wa s allowe dto remai n of f th e job , but

wa s require dt o b e Availabl e by telephon e i

n cas e hi s o

r her service s wer

e urgently needed . TTi

e FA A traditionally di dno t

regar daflight attendan t o n hom e reserv e a s of

f dut y and abl e t o get th e 24-hou

r respite tha

t th e regulation s require . AirTra n di dno t disagre e wit

h thi s view . However , onc e th e flight attendan t complete dhi s o

r her hom e reserv e assignmen

t andwa s returne dt o ful

l dut y status , th e Sabre

provide dsoftwar

e automatically erase dth e flight attendant' s hom

e reserv e statu s and , thus , di dno t

signa l managementtha

t th e hom e reserv e tim e shoul db e treate da s on-dut

y time . Hence , it

appeare dt o AirTran' s schedule r that , onc e Mr . Marti n hadbegun ane w on-dut y shift , h e ha

denjoj^e dth e 24

- hour s of f dut y tha t th e regulation s required . Onc e th e "glitch " in th e softwar e wa s discovered , Mr . Miller testified , he immediatel

y notifie dth e AirTra

n scheduler s andinstructe dthe mt o chec k flight attendants ' schedule s to avoi drepetitio n o f th e error . A bulleti n t o th e sam e effec t wa s issue dthroughout

th e airline . AirTra

n als o brou^ t

tiie matte r t o th e attentio n o f

Sabr e andaske di t

t o fix th e software , apit)ce8 s tha t wa s ongoin g a

t th e tim e th e hearin g wa s held . Thi s "fix " will ^ & f course , appl y t o al l o f th e airline s tha

t us e tiie Sabre-^produce

dschedulin g program .

' Unde r th e FAR , an airlin e suc h a s AirTra n ha s th e option , wit h th e consen t

o f th e FAA , t o treii t

hours-of

servic e for

flight attendant s i n th e sam e maime r a s i t scfaedulel t it e pilot s an dothe r

flight'decl^^^ia^omiel . AirTra n di dno t

tak e advantag e o f

thi s option . Hence , i t

scheifale dtb e wor

k o f it s fligjhtattedlttiitslj y usin g acompute r

progra mtha t

deal t onl y with them . 4(On e o f th e interestin g point s mad e i n Mr . Miller' s testimon y i s tha t ther e i s n o pencil-and-pape r back-u p syste mo f

record s concernin g th e schedule s o f

flight attendants ; i t

i s al l computerized . Hence , whe n th e FAA' s inspecto r

cam e t o examin e Ai r

Trans ' records , ther e wa s n o wa y h e o r sh e coul dtel l tha t

th e violatio n occurred . I n short , th e FAA' s prosecutio n o f thi s cas e ha dt o hav e originate dwith acomplaint. ) A s Mr . Mille r

testified , thi s violatio n appeare dt o b e asingl e isolate d incident . N o othe r

violation s o f

th e hours-of-servic e rule s hav e bee n reported . Mr . Miller' s direc t

testimon y als o addresse dth e financia l conditio n o f th e airline . H e testifie dtha t AirTran , thoug h amajo r airlin e employin g som e 2,00 0 flight

attendant s an d1,600 pilots , ha s no t bee n profitable . H e sponsore dExhibi t

R-3 , whic h show s tha t

th e carrie r

experience dane t

los s o f $266. 3 millio n o n revenue s o f $2. 6 billio n i n 2008 . I n 2009 , however , th e resul t wa s ne t incom e o f

$134. 7 millio n o n revenue s o f $2. 3 billion.' ^ I n Folsom' s Ai r

Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , th e Administrato r

rule dtha t

th e startin g poin t

fo r decision s o n th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y tha t

shoul db e assesse dmus t start wit h consideratio n o f

th e policie s se t

fort h i n FA A Orde r

No . 2150 . Se e also , America n Ai r

Network . Inc. . FA A Orde r No . 2006-5 , 200 6 FA A LEXI S 18 1 (2006) . Th e versio n o f

tha t orde r applicabl e t o thi s cas e i s Orde r No . 2150.3B . Bot h side s hav e pai dhomag e t o Orde r 2150.3B ; however , thei r argument s mak e i t

clear tha t applicatio n o f

th e Orde r

t o aparticula r

fac t situatio n i s no t

atas k t o b e take n lightly . T o begi n with . Orde r

2150. 3 doe s no t

provid e specifi c instruction s pertainin g t o th e violatio n with whic h w e ar e her e concerned . A s w e hav e seen , i t refer s t o aviolatio n o f

th e hour-of-duty limitation s wit h respec t t o flight-deck

personnel , no t

flight attendants . FA A witnes s Frish e testifie d that , i n hi s view , ther e shoul db e n o differenc e i n th e treatmen t o f th e tw o kind s o f violations . Thi s wa s th e case , h e said , becaus e bot h member s o f th e flight-deck

cre w an dflight

attendant s hav e safety-relate dduties . Tru e a s thi s ma y be , ther e i s aqualitativ e differenc e i n th e safet y aspect s o f

th e tw o kind s

* Th e relevanc e of

alo t of the financial dataintroducedby the partie s i s questionable . N o on e ha s suggestedtha

t AirTra n woul db e fmanciall

y unable to pa

y the penalt

y sough t b y th e FA A an dremai n a viable business . Nor

doe s Ai r Tran s contes t

the FAA' s clai

mtiiat i t i s aCategor

y I carrier .

### of

jobs , on e tha

t wouldcaus e arationa

l administrativ e agenc y t o treat th e us e o f apilo t or co-pilo t fo r exces s hour s a s amor

e seriou s offens e tha

n violatio n o f

th e maximum-hour s rule s fo r flight attendants . Thi s notio n gain s suppor

t fromth e realizatio n tha

t Orde r No . 2150.3 B call s for

us e o f certificat e revocatio n proceeding s in th e cas e o f apilo t wh o work s excessiv e hour s bu t doe s no t do s o i n th e cas e o f

aflight attendan t who commit s a simila r violation . Paragrap h 4 o f

Orde r No . 2150.3 B list s anumbe r o f factor s tha

t ma y b e considere dmitigatin g o

r aggravatin g circumstances . I t note s tha t "[v]iolation s tha

t involv e careles s or

reckles s conduc t

i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . §91.1 3 ma

y warrant mor e sever e sanctions. " Ther

e i s nO'clai mtha t th e violatio n committe dby th e Responden t i n thi s cas e ca

n b e deemedeithe

r careles s or reckles s i n nature . Similarly , th e guidanc e state s tha t adeliberate o r intentiona l violatio n ca

n b e dealt wit h mor e harshly tha

n on e tha t i s inadverten t o r no t deliberate . Her

e again , there i s n o basi s fo r con^derin g AirTran' s violatio n t

o hav e been committe dintentionally or deliberately , and , hence , no basi s fo

r increasin g th e penalt

y beyondth e middl e o f

th e rang e otherwis e authorize dby th e Order . The Orde r make s i t clear , however , tha

t AirTran' s goo dcomplianc e attitude andhistor y i s no t t o b e regarde da s amitigatin g circumstance . Paragrap h 4d(l ) states , "[a ] goo dcomplianc e attitude i s thf c nor mand doe s no t warrant areductio n i

n sanction. " I t

goe s on to sa

y tha t apoo r complianc e histor

y ma y b e ground s fo

r assessin g alarge

r penalty . Th e "degre e o f hazard " resultin g fromth e violatio n i s anothe r facto r mentione d i n Orde r No . 2150.3B . Here , again , th e guidanc e deal s wit h afacto r tha t ca n increas e th e penalt

y bu t th e absenc e o f

whicli canno t

serv e t o mitigat

e it . "Th e sanctio n ranges, " read s paragrap h 4e(2) , " reflec t th e degre e o f

dange r normally inherent

i n a n averag e violatio n o f

aregulation , without aggravatin g circumstances. " Paragrap h 4h(l ) reiterate s athem e sounde din a n earlie r sectio n o f th e Order : n o credit

i s t o b e given t o aviolatorinerel y becaus e th e entit

y ha s agoo drecord . " A violation-^fire e histor y i s th e expecte dnorm , no t

th e exceptio n and , therefore , i s no t amitigatin g factor . Sanction range s in th e tabl e generally represent th e norma l range * o f sanctio n fo r asingle , first-time, inadverten t violation. " Hence , i t

i s no t possibl e t o b e consisten t wit h th e term s o f

Orde r No . 2150.3 B an dgiv e grea t weii^h t t o th e carrier' s contentio n tha

t it shoul db e relieve do

f mos t o f th e penalt y becaus ethi s violatio n wa s asingle , one-tim e occurrenc e whic h happene dthroug h

inadvertenc e t o asound , safety-consciou s ai r carrier. ^ Despit e it s emphasi s o n aggravatin g factors , paragrap h 4 o f Orde r No . 2150.3 b doe s addres s thre e aspect s o f mitigation . Th e first

i s whethe r

th e violatio n wa s reporte dvoluntarily . Thi s facto r i s no t relevan t t o ou r cas e because , a s note dabove , i t i s likel y tha t

th e violation s cam e t o th e FAA' s attentio n a s th e resul t

o f acomplaint . Th e secon di s whethe r correctiv e actio n wa s take n b y th e putativ e violator . "Th e FA A consider s correctiv e actio n amitigatin g facto r i n determinin g sanctio n provide dth e correctiv e actio n exceed s th e minimu mregulator y o r statutor y requirements. " Id L at paragraph 4m . Th e thir di s th e directive , foun di n paragrap h 4i , t o pa y attentio n t o decision s o f

th e Administrato r

i n individua l civi l penalt y assessmen t

cases . A revie w o f

thos e case s indicate s tha t ove r th e years , th e Administrato r

ha s give n significan t

weigh t t o respondents ' effor

t t o tak e promp t step s t o assur e tha t

th e violatio n wil l no t

recur . Se e Toyot aMoto r Sales , FA A Orde r

No . 1994-28 , issue dSept . 30 , 199 4 a t 8 ; Interstat e Chemica l Co. . FA A Orde r No . 2002-29 , issue dDec . 6 , 2002 , at 18 ; TC I Corp. , FA A Orde r

No . 1992-7 7 at

21-22 . Man y o f

thes e case s involve dth e transportatio n o f

hazardou s materials , afieldi n whic h trainin g o f employee s ha s asomewha t

specia l significance . Nevertheless , the y indicat e tha t correctiv e actio n i s somethin g tha t shoul db e considere di n determinin g th e appropriat e assessment . Mr . Frish e testifie dtha t

h e di dno t

conside r thi s facto r

because , at

th e tim e th e file wa s forwarde dt o hi mfor review , th e conferenc e betwee n th e parties , schedule dafter

th e Respondent' s receip t o f th e Lette r

o f Investigation , ha dno t

take n place . I t

wa s a t tha t conferenc e tha t

th e Responden t

se t fort h th e remedia l step s i t

ha dtake n t o ensur e tha t

th e violatio n woul dno t

happe n again . Thi s recitatio n o f th e Complainant' s logistica l problem s ma y explai n wh y Mr . Frish e di dno t immediatel y circumscrib e hi s recommendatio n t o conside r whethe r AirTra n shoul db e give n credi t

for mitigatio n o f

th e violation . I t

doe s not , however , excus e th e failur e t o d o s o durin g th e proces s o f preparin g th e formal complaint . I n prio r case s construin g Orde r

No . 2150.3B , th e Administrato r specificall y

' Durin g th e hearing , counsel fo

r the carrie r was askedwha

t figure i t regarde da s asufficien

t assessment . Hi s answe r wa s $2,000 .

### directe dtha

t th e civi l penalt

y assesse dagains t

aviolato r o f th e FA Rshoul d b e modifiedto tak

e accoun t o f promp t correctiv e action . In thi s case , th e Responden

t di dal l tha t it coul dlogicall y b e expecte dt o d o t o mak e sur e tha t th e softwar

e defect tha t cause dFlight

Attendan t Marti n t o b e assigne dt o excessiv e hour s o f

wor k di dno t affec t an y othe r flight attendant i n it s employ. ^ If

, a t th e time h e reviewe dth e enforcemen t file, Mr . Frish e di dno t hav e th e requisite informatio n t o determin e whethe r AirTra n ha dtake n prompt correctiv e action , he shoul dhav e aske dth e fieldinvestigato r t o secur e tha t informatio n an

dpas s it alon g t o him . H

e shoul dno t

have , simpl

y ignoredthi s elemen

t of th e case . I disagre e wit

h Mr . Frishe' s view o f

th e prope r methodolog y fo

r assessin g th e civi l penalt

y agains t AirTra n in thre e respects . First , ther e i s th e applicatio n to th e carrie r o f th e civi l penalt

y range s calle dfo

r b y Orde r No . 2150.3 B in case s wher e amembe

r o f th e flight deck cre w i s use di

n violatio n o f

th e maximu

mflight anddut y time rules . Thi s cas e involve s a flight attendant , no t

amembe r o f th e fli^t deck crew . There i s adifferenc e in th e gravit

y o f th e violatio n whe

n i t affects onl

y aflight attendjaj t I t i s true , a s Mr . Frish e testified , tha t flight attendant s hav e safety-relate ddutie s jus t a s do member s o f

th e flight deck crew . Bu t ther e i s als o n o questio n tha

t a n inattentive , overworke dpilo t o r co-pilo t pose s amuch graver

hazar dtha n a n inattentive , overworke dflight attendant . I n as^ssin g acivi l penalties , thi s differenc e i

n th e gravit

y o f th e tw o type s o f

violation s mus t

b e take n int o account . Thi s i s th e clea

r mandat e o f 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(e)(l) , whic h require s th e FA

A to conside

r th e "nature , circumstance s andgravit y o f th e violation " whe

n it fasten s liabilit

y fo r acivi l penalty . M y seconddisagreemen

t wit h Mr . Frish e relate s t o th e proces s o f "roundin g up " apenalt

y calculate din accorctence wit h Orde r No . 21S0.3 B t o the next large r amoun t tha t i s divisibl e b y five. I n thi s case , Orde r No . 2150.3 B calle dfo

r th e perso n calculatin g th e penalt y t o begi n wit

h an amoun t tha t wa s i n th e middl e o f

th e rang e o f

"Moderate " sanction s applicabl e to aGrou

p I larg e busines s concern . ^ Th e rang e se t fort h i n th e * On e canno t faul t AirTra n fo r Sabre' s dela

y i n putting apermanen

t "fix " int o effect, sinc e ibf

i softwar e i s proprietar y t o Sabre , not

An

- Tran . No on e question s the fac

t tha t AirTra n was , by an

y measure , alarg e busines s concern . AiiTra n di d suggest tha t i t was unfai r to measur e it s size b y looking onl

y to it s gros s revenues , rathe r tha n it s ne t income . But

th e us e o f gros s revenues , rathe

r tha n n ^ incom

e was adecision well within th e Administrator' s discretion and , hence , i s unreviewable .Orde r

i s $10,000-to- $ 18,749 . Th e middl e o f tha t rang e calculate s t o $14,374.50 . Bu t

Mr . Frish e an dth e FA A di dno t start wit h tha t figure, a s th e Orde r required . Instead , the y assume dtha t th e middl e o f

th e rang e wa s $15,000 , an dtha t

i s th e figure tha t

emerge dfromthei r

cogitations . Ther e wa s n o rationa l basi s for

tha t assumption . Whil e i t

ma y b e argue dtha t

th e differenc e betwee n th e tw o amounts , $625.50 , wa s d e minimi s i n th e eye s o f thi s regulator y agency , w e mus t als o remembe r

tha t i t represent s revenu e for whic h som e perso n o r

person s worke dvery har dand/o r for whic h capita l wa s place dat

risk . I disapprov e o f

th e FAA' s practic e o f

"roundin g up " calculate dpenaltie s t o achiev e th e resul t it s minion s desire . Finally , I disagre e wit h Mr . Frishe' s failure t o giv e AirTra n an y credi t fo r promp t remedia l action . A s w e hav e seen , man y o f th e case s tha t

dea l with remedia l actio n a s amitigatin g facto r involve dhazardou s material s transportation ; i n suc h cases , additiona l trainin g fo r employee s i s devoutl y t o b e desired . Nevertheless , th e principl e i s th e sam e i n thi s case : trainin g employee s t o recogniz e an dcorrec t "glitches " i n acompute r progra mtha t woul dotherwis e requir e flight attendant s t o work

excessiv e hour s i s praiseworth y an dought

t o b e take n int o accoun t

i n assessin g acivi l penalty . AirTran' s effort s t o pu t

pai dt o th e violatio n tha t occurre dher e - aone-tim e unintentiona l inadverten t occurrenc e - shoul dserv e t o reduc e th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y tha t

i t mus t absorb . Fo r thes e reasons , I conclud e tha t AirTra n shoul dincu r

acivi l penalt y a t th e lowe r

en do f th e rang e o f

moderat e penaltie s applicabl e t o Grou p I carrier s unde r

FA A Orde r

No . 2150.3B . Subjec t

t o revie w b y th e Administrator , th e penalt y assesse dagains t Ai r Tra n i n thi s cas e wil l b e reduce dfi-om$15,00 0 t o $10,000 . I n consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , an dsubjec t t o revie w b y th e Administrato r

o n appea l o r

o n th e Administrator' s ow n motion , I T I S ORDERE D that

1 . Th e Respondent , AirTra n Airways , Inc . i s liabl e t o th e Unite dState s o f Americ aa s represente db y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n for acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t ofte n thousan ddollar s ($10,000.00) ; an d

### 2 . The Responden t shall pa y th e amoun

t fo r which it ha s been hel dliabl e herei n t o th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n forthwith .

Isaac D . Benkin Administrativ e La

w Judg e [Note : Thi s decisio n ma

y b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r o f ifii e FAA . Th e Notic e o

f Appea l mus t

b e file dno t

late r tha n 1 0 day s aftei * sek*vic e of thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f tlii s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(a) , 13.211(e) . Th e appea l mus t b e perfecte d wit h awritte n brie f

o r memorandu mno t

late r tha n 5 0 day s afte r

servic e o f thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , if thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(c) , 13.211(e) . TheNoticeo f Appea l An

dbrie f o r memorandu mmus t

b e eithe r (a ) maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , o r (b ) delivere dpersonall y o r vi aexpedite d courie r servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(a) , 13.210(a)(2) , (1) . A cop y of th e Notic e o

f Appea l an d brie f o r memorandu mshoul dals o b e sen t t o counse l fo r

th e FAA i n thi s proceeding . 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233(a). l

10FA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 2 (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^3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Stephe n J . Kolski , Executiv e Vic e Presiden t Operation s & Corporate Affair s AirTra n Airways , Inc. , Responden t 995 5 AirTra n Blv d Orlando , FL 3282 7 TEL : 407-318-510 8 FAX : 407-318-590 1 Rashav mRic h George , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Southern Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

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

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

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

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