02/22/201 1 10.3 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DW S

ANM 7 121002/01 3 PAG E 32/1 3

1 2 3 4 S € 7 9 1 0 

## n 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I S 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 5 2 5 2 7 2 6 2 S 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 3 5 3 C 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0
^ 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4 6 4 7 4 B 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 S 3 -PARTL^FNTO F •,:.vORTAT'O N Scott R
. Molli s FA A Offic e of

Regional Counse l 160 1 Lin dAve. , S W Rentoa , Washingto n 9805 7 TeJephone i 425/227-141 7 FacsimUe : 425/227-100 7 ' • 1



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

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D. C
I n th e Matte r

o f SKYWES T A.IRLINES > INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CPO9NM0OI2 DM S NO , FAA'2009-097 9 FAA Cas e No
. 2009NMO(50042 COMPLAINANT * S REBUTT/V L BRIE F

TO : JUDG E RICHAR D C
. GOODWI N INTRODUCTION
. Reapondciit' s brie f

ca n b e summarize da s follows : i t i s lon g o n complainin g about the evidencc

j bu t shor t o n substance
. Respondent seem s to ignore the statu s o f th e pleadings
. I

n Respondent' s Answer i t admitte dt o al l o f

th e factua l allegation s containe di

n th e Complain t

excep t paragraph s 13,14,andl6
. B y rule , thos e fact s ar c deeme destablishe dan dth e Complainan t n o longe r nee d produc e an

y evidenc e to demonstrate thos e fact
. See 1 4 CF.R
. § 13.209
. Reaponden l als o complain s abou t

the detail s o f

th e Complaint
. First , thi s i 3 Notic e pleading
. More importantly , i f Responden t

hadconcern s abou t

specjficiiy i

n th e Complaint , i t

coui dhav e filed aMotio n fo r more definite statemen t

Se e 1 4 CF.R
. § 13
. 218(0(3)
. Any suc h issu e i s waive da

t thi s stag e o f

th e proceedings
.

3>T»l?t5 i AlHUiiB S - 3009NM06O04 2 Pagf t 1 o f 1 2 acoT T s . MORRIS , IPA A ATTOHK K TEL : 425.227.1*17 ; FAX : 42 5
. :?'2 7 , 1Q0 702/22/201 1 10.3 8 Fft X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S <~i*, t ±o r^uxj . J.e : M t ANM 7 21003/01 3 PAG E 03/1 3

1 3 5 6 7 8 d 1 0 1 1 1 2

I S 1 6 1 7 I B 1 9 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5

a- ^ 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 33 1 34 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 S
A O •11 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 a 4 9 5 0 S I 5 2 S 3 1
. Th e FA A ha s eaaf v me t itabnrde n o f

proof
. ^ More troubling , th e Responden t claim s that

th e Inspector s statement s a t tbc s hearin g do no t link an y violatio n t o an

y specifi c aircraft
. Wha

t th e brie f conveniently igcorc s ar e th e Inspector s contemporaneou s note s retaine db y th e Inspectors , a s wel l a s thei r coritcmpovaoeoxi s in.'^pecio r statement s describin g wha t the y observed , andtheir

testimony
. Respondent

choose s to chen y pic k &ct s ftomth e transcrip t

instea do f addressin g th e testimony i n total
. Fo r example , Rjispondent ' s brie f focuse s o n th e note s Inspecto r Crai n mad e o n apiec e o f

scratc h pape r

whil e observin g th e de

icin g operation s an

dmake s th e followin g statement- . "The y d o no t document

th e aircraft' s location , th e tim e o f

th e observation , content

o f observe dradi o communication s betwee n flight cre w and groun dcrew , th e yveathe

r conditions , accumulatio n o f contaminant , absenc e o f

contaminant , whether tlii e aircraf t got asingl e o r

two-truc k operation , whic h de-ic e pa dwa s use dandn o indicatio n tha t

th e pilo t i n comman dfaile dto authorize dadeviatio n fromth e approve dprogram. " Respondent' s Brie f

a t 3 (emphasi s i n original)
. Thi s i s tb e ol dtric k o f focusin g o n asmall piec e o f tb c evidenc e an dignorin g all o f th e othe r evidenc e presente di n acase . .Th e situatio n that

Inspector s Crai n an dBlauer were i n a t th e tim e thos e note s were mad e i s bes t describe db y Inspecto r

Grai n a s follows ; Yo u hav e t o remember

that there' s fiv e aircraf

t bein g spraye da

t onc e andtha

t T mlookin g a t

tw o t o thre e a t

atime
. T o ga

t int o alot o f detail s o f notes , yo u woul dmis s what

yo u were observing
. S o thes e ar e - lik e 1 said , thes e ar e abbreviation s t o hel p m e late j dow n th e roa. dwhe n I ge t bac k i n th e ofGce t o understan dth e problean s tha t I saw . Al l o f th e reference s fromth e transcrip t that Responden t

use s are t o cross-examinatio n question s abou t

Inspecto r Grain' s note s (Exhibi t

C-4)
. Fuitber , Responden t convenientl y an d onl y refer s t o th e Inspector' s response s t o cross-examinatio n question s abou t th e question s Se e Scecio n A o f Complaimnt' s inttia

J brief
. Caou^VKMT' aRSBPTTA L BRIE ? - CP09NWOOI 2 Srynfd T AJRLINE S - 200$NM0£D04 2 pag e 2 o f

1 2 SCOT T R
. MOHHI B , FA A .J^TTOIINET TEL : 425.227,1*17 ; FAX : 42S
. ZS" ? -100 702/22/201 1 10:3 7 FA X 202433514 2 FA A * DM S

ANM 7 @|004/01 3 PAG E 04/1 3

1 2 3 4 € 7 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 « 2 7 3 & 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 a 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 specificall y tailore dabou t th e note s h e too k

whil e a t the airport
. Responden t

totall y ignore s th e existenc e o f

othe r testimon y o r

exhibits
. Fo r

example
. Responden t

ignore s th e statemen t

o f it s ow n employe * concernin g it s employee s no t followin g it s deicin g program. ^ Se e Exhibit s C- 3 andC-13
. Agen t Crai n an dAgent

Blauer di ddocument

th e locatio n where the y obsen/e dde-icin g operation s bein g performed
. Se e Exhibi t C- 2 an dC-10
. Whil e Agen t Crai n wa s bein g subjec t

t o cross-examinatio n h e doe s admi t that hi s note s take n whil e attemptin g t o observ e th e de-icin g operation s themselve s doe s no t contai n th e infonnatio n abou t pilo t communications
. BU

L Responden t

convenientl y ignore s Agent Grain' s earlie r

testimon y an dhi s inspector' s statemen t h e mad e upo n returnin g t o hi s offic e (o r shortl y thereafter) whil e tb e event s wer e fresh i n hi s mind. ^ For

exan^ple , i n hi s contemporaneou s lospector' s statement . Agen t Grain wrote : '^Inspector

Blaue r an dI wer e i n possessio n o f aband-hel dradi o monitorin g coramtmication s betwee n flight

crew s an dDI/A I groun dpersomiel
. O f tb e te n aircraf

t observe da

t Spo t 21 , n o communication s were eve r establishe dtha t

involve dgroun dor

flight crew s requestin g alternativ e method s o r

procedure s o f

DI/A I fluid^^Ucatio n that woul ddiffe

r fromthos e publishe di n SkyWest' s GDP M SOP-* ' Exhibi t C-2 , pag e 1 , 4t

h paragraph

- Thi s make s i t abundantl y clea

r tha t n o pilo t deviation s o f

th e programwer e used. ^

= Tr
. Ml39 , lines 14-21
. ' Rc,<tpoii.den

t also iljdno t addres s ho w seve n aircraf t ar c de-ice di n 9 minute s whe n i t onl y ha d4 truck s performi.n g deicin g operations , an

di t take s five minute

s a r aminimu mt o de-ic « eac h plane
. Se e Tr , a t 296 - 299
. * 5« e Tr
. a t 76-7 7 an dExhibi t C-2
. * Inapecto T Crain' s testimon

y o n this poin t wa,> i vD«quivocal: Q'
. Durin g you r ot^crvaticms , di

dyo u hea r an y flight cra w authorize ds deviatio n fromth e standar dprocedure

s l o b e followed? A: AbSQlatel

y ne t Ther e wer e none . ' Q
. Pi dyo u se e an y fli^ t cre w tnenibe r com e ou t o f tb e Btrcrat t aT) dspeu k t o th e deicin g crew? A
. No

Tr
. a t 5«.line s 11-18
. COHPLAIkWT' 6 RSTTTTA L BHIE P ' CP09t3MOD1 2 SKJTWW T AiWilj«S 5 - 2009NHOS004 2 pag e 3 o f

1 2 SCOT T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTDWE Y TEL : •435.227.141'7 j FAX : 42S.227.1DD 702/22/201 1 10:3 7 FA X 202493514 2 ^•^ i j.o/:iBii 1& : 4 4 425227100 7 FA A + DM S

ANM 7 12005/01 3 PAG E 85/1 3

1 2
K S 6 7 B 9 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 I S 1 9 3 0 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 S 2 S 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 J ^ 4 . 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 ^ 5 0 S I 5 2 5 3 Respondent , wit h emphasis , contend s tha i ther e wa s n o testimon y o r evidenc e presente d abou t tir e weathe r condition s tha t

day
. Tha t i s simpl y wrong . In Agen t Grain' s inspecto r statemen t h e states : "Fro m093 0 t o 113 0 local tim e an dweathe r consistin g o f

light rai n an d snow..., " Exhibi t

C-2 , paragrap h 2
. Bot

h JnspectQfs

S Crai n an dBlaue r

testifie d±a t

th e weathe r wa s conduciv e fo r

icing
. Tr
. a

t 20 , line s 1 0 - 2 0 an dTr
. a t 234 , line s 4-9
. Mor

e importantly , th e Respondent

i n it s Answer

admit s *'A

t tb e tim e o f

th e surveillance , th e weather condition s consiste do f

ligh t rain an dsnow " an d"Icin g condition s wer e forecaste dfor andpresen t

a t th e Sal t Lake Cit y Internationa

l Airport , Utah , an dth e siuroun dvicinity. " Answer t o Complaint

a t TI(8 ) an d (9)
. Onc e afac t

i s admitte di n th e Answer , ther e i s no requiremen t fo r th e CompJainan

t t o ihen tujT

i
aroun dandprov e th e ^ t

Even i n Respondeni' s Answer l o th e Complaint , i t

admit s that

SkyWes t
wa s performin g de-icin g operation s a t th e location s tha i Inspector' s Crai n an dBlauer stat e that they wer e pcrfomiin g aurveillance
. Answer to Complaint

a t 11(4)
. Th e Inspector s di ddocumen t A e tim e o f

tJiei r observations
. They di dno t doctiment

eac h activit y minut e b y minute a s i t

wa s occurring. * Agent

Crain' s statement

dearl y stale s that

h e wa s pcrfoimin g surveillanc e fromapT>roximatel y 093 0 t o 1130
. Th e company' s record s corroborate iha t th e aircraf t tha t h e observe ddurin g thi s timeframe were aircraf t tha t were , i n feet, de-ice ddurin g thi s tim e frame. Finally^ i f on e coropare s th e orde

r o f th e entrie s i n th e Inspector' s contemporaneou s notes , the y matc h th e tim e lin e fo r wie n th e aircraf

t were de-ice da s reflecte db y SlcyWest* s ow n dc-lcin g documents
. Compare Exhibit s 4 and6 with bot h page s o f Exhibi t 5
. In short , Responden t

seem s t o complai n becaus e th e Inspector s di dno t giv e aGP S 8-digi

t gri d

* Actuall y Inspecto r Crai n di ddocumwi t som e o f th e time s o f hi s ohservaiJon

s dow n t o th e minute
. An

dhi s tiire s are consisten t

wit h th e time s i

n SkyWest' s ow n de-icin g dciciiincots
. 5 M Exhibi t C- 4 th e figure ":31 " unde r th t circJo dnumbe r

4 nex t t o tai l numbe r

N500SW
. Coropar

e thi s rimat o Eyhibi t

C-5 , socor dcolum

n dontL The A U

CoMPlATKun' s KnTTTAL UVZ W ' CP09KM001 2 SKTWES T AIU:HS S - 200»HM06004 2 P4g e 4 o f

L 2 ac<3T * R
. h^oTKlt
. FA A AnoBne v TEL ; •425.221.0.41-7 ; FAX : -42 5
. 22 7 ,100* 702/22/201 1 10:3 7 FA X 202493514 2 U^/ie/2Bl l 1&:4 4 42S227100 7 FA A • ^ DM S ANH 7 (21006/01 3 PAG E 06/1 2

1 2 4 5 e 7 B 5 1 0 13 . 1 2 1 3 1- 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 » 1 ? 2 P 2 1 2 2 3J 3 4 2 5 a ^ 3 7 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 B 3 9 4 0 4 l 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 S 4f i 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 3 3 coordinate i n thei r

repor t o n apiec e o f

scratc h paper

whil e the y ar

c simultaneousl y observin g on goin g de-icin g operations
. Respotident

challenge s th e Inspector s becaus e they allegedl y di dno t detai l th e accumulatio n o r absenc e o f

contaminants
. Agai n Responden t overiook s th e evidenc e i n th e record
. Inspecto r Crai n testifie dbot

h t o th e seriou s o f

th e consequence s i f

contaminant s were presen t o n th e win g o f tli e aircraft , an dthat

mhi s observation s there wer e no contaminant s o n th e aircraf r whe n the y departed. ' Responden t

challenge s th e credibilit

y o f Inspecto r Grain becaus e o f

hi s statement

tha t ther e are violation s becaus e th e de-icin g starte do n th e rigjit wing
. Respondent' s Brie f a t 4
. Again , Responden t

misdirect s th e reader
. Respondent claitn s coniusio n o n how , i f one start s de-icin g o n th e right wing , on e woul dstar

t anti-icin g o

n th e lef t wing
. lt* s simple
. Th e deicin g wen t from right win g t o lef

t win g ao dwhil e th e vehicl e wa s stil l a t th e lef t win g i t bega n t o stra y anti-icin g fromth e locatio n wher e th e employe e finisheddeicin g - th e lef t wing
. Ftirther , Responden t seem s t o giv e grea t weig h t o an

y inabilit y t o recal l fects i n th e detai l i t desire s th e Inspecto r

t o have
. I f

ther e i s a concer n abou t th e Inspector' s recollection, ther e i s th e evidenc e o f their pas t recollectio n recorde d i n the n Inspecto r

Statements , Se ^ Exhibit s C-4 an dC-10
. Unfortunately fo

r Respondent , thes e Inspecto r statement s directl y contradic t h s assertion s s o Respondent' s solutio n i s t o simpl y not addres s the mi n it s brief

. In stmi , i f th e Complainan t

ha donly produce dth e Inspector' s scratc h pape r notes , i t migh t hav e an . aigumciit
. However , whe n on e look s a t th e Complainant' s cjchibits mconjunctio n wit h th e Inspector ' testimony , th e fact s are established
. wi D se e 156 0 wit h ade-icin g tim e of"] 1.29"
. I

n this C9se , th e dfflereuo c betwee n whe n th e Tuspecto r aai dtli e de

icin g occurre dan dwhe n S)cyV/c A sai di t occurre ddiffere db y 2 minutes
. Ce»*»tJ>r>».»T' S RWUTTA L BM W - CPQSNM001 2 SlWWRS T AlKLIHI S - 2O09NMO6O04 3 Pag a5 o f

1 3 SCOT * R
. Mouug , PA A ATTORNEl f TEt : 425-227,1-417 ; FAX : 425.327.100 702/22/20 U 10:3 7 FA X 202493514 2 W'^/ia/201 1 IS : 4 4 425227100 7 FA A * OM S

ANM ? 21007/01 3 PAG E 07/1 3

1 2 4 5 6 7 B 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 ? I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 :1 5 7 6 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 S 3 6 a ? 3 6 3 § 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 € 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 S I 5 3 5 3 II
. Th e violation s allege dwer e no t th * "spo t cleaning " responden t

no w claims
. For th e first time , Responden t

claim s tha

t an y deviatio n i n it s de-icin g procedure s wa s pcnnitcc dbecaus e wha

t th e inspector s observe dwa s "spo t cleaning"
. Respondent' s Brie f a t 6
. Thi s arguznen t i ameritless
. Bot

h inspector s testifie da

t th e hearin g th e sprayin g proces s bega n an dthe n proceeded , no t

ho w tb e sprayin g proces s concluded

- O n thi s poin t the y were unwavering. ' Again , Responden t

reference s testimon y o n cross-examinatio n fo r th e Inspecto r

a s i t relate dt o hi s notes . Wha t Responden t

faile dt o addres s i n it s quote dpassag e a t pag e 6 o f it s Brie f i s th e followin g testimon y immediatel y prio r to it s citation : Q : "D o yo

u fromloolan g a

t your not e whether

the y starte do n th e right instea do f th e left ? A : I do not . /

cco i ' t tel l tharjro mm

y iictes
. No." ' Further , Responden t

doesn' t addies s Inspecto i Blauer* s testimony immediatel y prio r t o thos e statements : Q : Yea
. Loo k

a t your not e again
. A : Uh-hu h Q : I t say s "Starte da

t win g root. " I s tha

t wha t i s says ? A ; Tha t i s correc t Q : Whic h wing ?

. . A ; l i doesn' t

reall y TnOter

. Roo t t o Ti p is

- regardles s o f

that , i t woul db e inappropriate
. •' " Both Inspector s observe dth e entir e de-icin g operation , no t

th e final cleanin g of

th e aiitraf t t o remov e remnant s of

aocumulatior

L Wha t Respondent

i s tiyinf i t o d o i s confus e th e reader abou t th e sequenc e o f

event s tJia

t i t i s require dt o follow , but

faile dto do go .

" ' Tr
. a t 33-35 » 53-54 , an

d61-62
. • Tr
. a t 55 , lines 3 - 14 ; Tr
. a

t 100 , IfaeslS

- )«;Tr
. a

t 101 , line s 3 - 12;Tr
. a

t )03 , lJnel9-Tr
. a

t 104 , line
. 5 ; T r S t 112
. lin e 2 1 - Tr
. « t 113 , lin e 3 ; an dTr
. 11222-225
. Tr
. a

t 53 , lines 1 1 - 13 ; Tr.«222-225 ; an dExhibit s C-4, C-5 , C-6

, Se e als o Exhibit

s C- 3 an dC-]0
. ' Tratl35,line21-1^.atl36,liiic2
. '°Tr
. a t 135 , lines 6-14
. CoMPiAiMWT' * REIWTJH;
. awE P - CP09NHOC)1 Z SrvHcs T AIU.X« ± - 20a9NM06004 2 Pag e « o f

1 2 sccT T R

- Mowae , FA A ATTORNE Y TEL : 435.227.1417 ; FAX : 425.227.100 702/22/201 1 10.3 7 FftX 202493514 2

uz/j.D/^oi i ib:4 4 425227100 7 FA A ^ OMS AHM 7 giooe/oi s PAG E eS/1 3

1 3 4 5 e 7 9 1 0 3. 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 5 3 0 3 1 2 2 2 3 Z 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 3 6 2 9 S O 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 S 3 € 3 7 3 9 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 3 5 3 0 L Th e propojie dsanctio n i s no t cumulativ e an ddoe s no t violatio n du e process.' ^ Complainan t

believe s tha t

it s initia l brie f

clearl y an dconcisel y explain s wh y th e sanctio n i s
no t cumulativ e s o i t

merel y ask s th e A U t o refe r t o i t fo r tha t portio n o f

Complainant* ? rchmtal
. Responden t

claim s tha t

th e Agenc y faile dt o nodf y i t o f violation s tha t

i t ^Va s committin g i n
z . timely feshion. Responden t trie s t o boot-str ^ acas e tha t ha s alread y bee n setde dwit h thi s cast . ^ ^ I t cite s US
. V

, Heffiier ^ 42 0 F.2 d80 9 (4 * Cir
. 1969 ) a s it s primar y authoiit y i n suppor t o f it s positio n tha t

th e Inspector s allege dfailur e t o follo w interna l guideline s i s ground s to r waive r o r mitigatio n o f

sanction.^ ^ Bu t

Heffhe r i s acrimina l cas e no t

acivi l case , an dth e issue s raise di n Hefne r concerne da n Agency* 3 procedure s publishe dt o implemen t th e protectio n o f

existin g rights, t o wi t th e Sixt h Amendmen t

right t o counse l o f

person s suspecte do f

ta x fraud. Thi s wa s i n par t a reflex decisio n t o th e the n recen t landmar k

cas e oiMirand av . Arizona , 38 4 U.S
. 43 6 (1966 ) a s th e lowe r court s WTestlc dwit h th e breatl i o f it s applications
. An dcourt s bega n t o immediatel y distanc e themselve s fromstrictl y applyin g Hefne r \^6c n th e procedure s di dno t exten dprotectio n o f

right t o

' ^ I n Respondent' s Brief

a t 2 , i t asscn s tha i the prior violation s histor

y wa s e n "especiall

y aggrtvating " factDr

. Complainan

t assume ; tha

t Respo&den

l i s placin g tbew words i

n quote s fo r ix aovt^ i purpose s becaus e 1ho3

c words ar c QO t i n the tTHDScrifr

t itsel f Ii is correct

tha t th e CoiDplainin

t di dconside r a x afacto r th ^ Respondeti

t ha dtwo prio r de'icfng vlpIatioD

S I n it s r&ecai i put . ' ^ I n ftigtoote 48 , Respotidfin

i addi fact s iw t i n th e record
. SpccificttH

y the onl y fict s i n ih

c record, coijcemln

g the earlie r vioUtioo ar

e t}i e vjolatioii f allege dan dth e i^ivj l penalt y amount. Sa

e Hcspondent' s Answe

r t o Reqticst fo r Admissio n !Nlo
. 4 i n Respondem^

f Respons e t

o Complainant' s laiiia

l Discover y Reque n locate di

n DM S Documen

t FAA-2009-0979-0005 (i)ag

e 6)
. ThCT t i s D O evidence i

n th e recor dcoDceniin

g th e amoun t i n tbe initia l Notice an d a s suc h dii s iafomiati( « shoul

db e stricke

n frorn Respondent' s brief

. " Rcspond«[o

t als o cite s Peopl e v . RJ
. Reynold i Tobaecc Co. , 12

4 ?.3 d40f t (Ca l 2005 ) a i authority
. N o weigh t shouldb e accorde dthi s us e fo

r tw o reasons . First, ther

e i s federa l preemptio

n of the fiel dof ai r coounercc . Se

e Ci: y o/Burbarikv
. LocJfheedAi r Termina l Inc. , 4 ] \U.S
. 624

^ 9 3 S.Ct
. 1854 (1973) , A/oro/a r v . 7>at7 S Worl d Airlines , Inc
. 50

4 U.S
. 374,11 2 S.Cl
. 203 1 (1992)
. NotwithsTftndin g thi s issue , the KJ
. Reynolds cas e involve dthe iPtqp^ona J dela y o f notifyin g aresponden

t fo r the purpos e o

f increasin g th e violation s I

n tha t case , the govcmTTieo

t agent s allowe

dtije sale o

f 108,15 5 packets o

f cigarene s t o 14.83 4 peopl

e a t si x differen t events bet^vee

n Februar y an dOctobe r 199 9 an dassesse di t a5 ] 4,826^0 0 fine

- t t refewncedWals

h v . Kirby , 52 9 P.2d3 3 (Cal
. 1974) wher e th e CalifomlaAlcoholic Bcveng e Contro l Departmen

t sough t t o impos e tb e maximu mpenall y ^eairiSt alicense e withou t arecor do f prio r violacior u b y accumubctin

g evidence inttntionall

v suc h tha i th e penalt y wgul db s increase

d thereb y avoiding : the graduario b o f penaltie s establishe

db y ibe lagislatuic : Id
. a

t 105
. Eve n i n the 71. / Hgynoid s case , the cour

t rttognizcd"tJi

e relevajice o

f goo dfait h t o the detenninaTio

awhetile r afin e o i pcna't y i s excessiv

e a t

OOTVlAimuiT' S HSBUTEW
. BRtC r " CP091IM001 2 SttHeO T AlRtlWEf

i - 2D09NMO<004 2 Pa^ e 7 o f

1 2 9C6T T R
. MORRIS , FA A ATTcmuc T TBI. ; 435.227.1417 ; fAX : 43S.227.100 ?02/22/201 1 10:3 7 FA X 202493514 2 tiii/ltf/^Bl l •lb:4 4 425227130 7 FA A + DM S ANM 7 [2]003/01 3 PAG E [^19/1 3

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Q 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1. 3 14 1 5 1 € 1 7 l a 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 3 & 3 7 2 8 2 d 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 3 S 3 € 3 7 3 8 11 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 6 4 9 S O 5 1 5 2 5 a individuals
. See , e.g. , U.S
. v . leaky , 43 4 F.2 d7,1 1 (l " Cir
. 1970)
. Here , ther e ar e ti o right s bestowe dupo n th e Responden t i n thi s Order
. Further , af l mentione di n Complainant' s Brief , th e Accard i doctrin e doc s no t exten dt o safet y relate dregulation s wher e n o right s ar e granted , i t mus t b e cinpihasi;io ddia t

thi s Orde r

i s no t aregulatio n bu t

aguide
. Responden t

want s t o dictat e t o th e Complainan i wha t i t mean s b y it s ter m**rcsponsibl e person. " Court s hav e lon g hel dtha t Agencie s ar e i n th e bes t positio n t o interpre t

thei r oxvn publications
. I n fact ^ Congres s goe s s o fa r i n som e situation s t o requir e Court s t o giv e deferenc e t o Agenc y intaptetatio n o f it s ow n polic y guidance
. See , e.g. , 4 9 U.S.C , 447Q9(d)
. Whe n th e Agenc y i s referrin g t o a"responsibl e person " i n Chapte r 2 o f FA A Orde r

2150.3B , i n thi s case , i t i s clearl y
no t referrin g t o someon e o n A e tarma c sittin g i n atruc k whos e statu s wa s unknow n t o th e Inspector s unti l afte r

thei r observations.^' * Th e bes t evidenc e o f

wh o & responsibl e perso n woul db e i s th e practic e o f

th e parties
. Here , upo n learnin g tha t ther e wer e violation s Inspecto r Crai n mad e a telephon e cal l t o Maggi e Aiken , th e Respondent' s Directo r o f Custome r

Servic e Training , afte r returnin g t o th e offic e an dconfirmin g tha i violation s ha doccurred
. Se e Tr
. a t 74 , line s 1 3 - 22 ; Tr
.
* i 151 , liii c 2 2 - Tr
. a t 152 , lin e 5 ; an dExhibi t C-9 , A s Inspecto r

Crai n stated : "Becaus e tha t responsibl e person , a s fa r a s ho w th e manual s ar e derived , h e [Mr
. Lewis ] i s no t note da s on e o f

th e peopl e wit h responsibilit y fo r tha i program , Magg i Aike n woul dhav e bee n on e o f them/ ' Tr
. a t 162,ljne38

- 12
. Further , boThlnspectoT S Crai n an dPeterso n explained , FA A Orde r 2150.3 B provide s amechanis mt o notify aperso n onc e apotcntia l violatio n i s discovered.^ ^ A s par t o f tb e proces s se t

foTth

_ alette r o f investigatio n i s sen t

t o notify aresponsibl e perso n o f potentia l

i s adenia l c f

du e process. " Id
. a

t 422 , reftmn g to/'a/t f

v , Aibryon , 58 4 P.2d i 1 2 C1978)
. T o sa y th e least..». / Rvynold ai s inapposit e t o th e frets before th e ALI
. " Th e leu n "rciponsibl e person " i s no t deflbe di n FA

A Orde r 215 0 JB
. ' ^ Tr
. a t 74 , line j 15-2 2 m dT r

a t 395 , lin e 1 1 - Tr
. a

t 395 , lin e ] 0
.
SICVWSr t A1IU.XUF: 3 - 20O9NMO60C4 2 F&g e fi o f

1 2 Scor r R
. HOI*T S , PA A ArtoRwc T TEL : 42S.22T.1417 ; FWt : 425.227.100 702/22/201 1 10:3 8 FA X 202493514 2 y;^ / lb / -^tJ l 1 16 : 4 4 425227100 7 FA A + DM S ANM 7 21010/01 3 PAG E 10/1 3

1 2 3 4 6 7 & & 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 l e 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 5 2 7 2 B 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 e 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 4 5 4 € 4 7 4 9 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 5 violations
. " A lette r

o f investigatio n (LOI ) serve s th e dua l ptapose s o f

notifyin g a

n apparent violato r tha t h e o r sh e i s under

investigatio n fo

r apossibl e v

i olatio n an dprovidin g a n opportunit y fo r th e apparen t

violato r t o tel l hi s o r

he r sid e o f th e stoiy." " FA A Order

2150.3B , Chapter

4 , para . 9.3
. Responden t

criticize s Inspecto r

Peterso n becaus e sh e di dno t expres s he

r concern s t o Mr
. LewisonPebruar y 10 , 2009

- However , Mr
. Lewi s di dno t ic U Inspecto r

Peterso n hi s jo b title

- wha t h e wa s doing ; what

hi s responsibilitie s wer

e that day ; that Inspecto r Peterso n ha

dnever me t hi m befor e or whethe r h e wa s amember

o f management

o r afront-line worker
. Tr
. a

t 379 , lin e 9

- Tr
. 3 80 , a t lin e 1
. What

Responden t

doe s no t addres s i s Inspecto r

Peterson' s testimon y tha

t sh e wa s no t sure i f aviolatio n ha doccurred
. No r doe s Respondent

infon n th e reade r

that i t wa s thi s generi c informatio n (sh e sa

w somethin g inconsistent

wit h he r understandin

E o f thei r program ) tlia

t she communicate dt o som e superviso r afte r she retumed.^ * Respondent take s issu e wit

h th e dela y betwee n her

observation s andher

learnin g tha

t her observation s were actual violation s seven day s later , lials o want s t o imput e th e knowledg e of wha t sh e actuall y saw t o her

super^nsors
. However , Inspecto r Peterso n mad e i t

ver y clea r i n her testimony tha

t sh e di dno t

communicate with he

r superviso r wha t sh e saw , sh e onl y communicate dtha t sh e ha daconcer

n abou t th e de-icin g operations
. Inspecto r

Peterso n di dno t

even write he r

inspector' s statement

unti l Februar

y 17.2009
. Tr
. a t 382 , lin e 2 0 - Tr
. a

t 383 , lin e 12
. an dTr
. a

t 398 , line s 4 - 7
. Wha

t sh e tol dhe r

superviso r

wa s
* T hadobserve dsom e procedure s I didn' t .recal l an dtha t I woial dloo k int o it. " Tr
. a

t 385 , line s 4 - 6andTr , a

t 38 6 line s 15

- 1.9
. It

wa s mor e o f

apassin g comment

t o them.' ^ I t

wa s no t unti l Februar y 17 * tha t sh e mad e th e determinatio n tha t violation s hadoccurred
. Tr
. a t 385 , line s 6-10
.

" T r a t 386, line s 15-19
. ^ ' 5e « generalfy , Tr

- t n 395 , line s 1-16
. COHPUXmHT' S Rflum L BXIB F' CP09HM001 2 SKTVCS T AIU.IUB S - 20D9iaMOe004 2 Pag e 9 o f

1 2 SCOT T R
. MDRSI* , PA A AiTORHi r TEL : 425.227.1417 : PAX : 425.227.100 702/22/201 1 10:3 8 FA X 202493514 2 o^/i.af^ai i lb : 4 4 425227139 7 FA A - > DM S ANM 7 aoii/01 3 PA6 E 11/1 3

1 2 3 4 5 g 7 e 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 I B 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 a s 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2
^ 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 i 3 4 4 * 5 4 « 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 S I 5 2 5 3 I t i s no t unti l Februar

y 17 * tha t sh e inform s he r

superviso r

o f wha t sh e observe s an dthe n document s i t

i n her Inspector' s statemen t

Tr
. a t 397 , lin e 9 - Tr
. a

t 398 , Un e 12
. S o ther e wa s n o wa y thai her supervisor' s coul dhav e even distribute dacase , becaus e tbc y di dno t even hav e a statemcir t fromth e inspecto r

about wha t sh e observe dunti l Februar y 17*
. I t i s astretch , a

t best , fo r Responden t

t o clai mtha t

he r superviso r

shoul dhav e acte dupo n thi s infbrraetio n tha i h e coul dno t
eve n possibl e possess . Next , Responden t

assert s some significanc e t o thi s seven da y time perio dbecaus e afte

r Responden t

wa s notifie do f

th e violatio n tb e thre e inspector s di dno t witnes s the deviation s again
. Wha t Responden t

doesn' t addres s i s whether

thes e Inspector s ha dth e opportunit y t o observ e de

icin g opcratioii s in
. tfie interi mperiod
. There i s n o evidenc e i n th e recordthat Responden t

even conducte dde-icin g operation s betwee n the Februar y 1 0 an d17 , 2009
. "No

r i s there an

y evidenc e that th e Inspector s went

t o Th e airpor t datin g thi s tim e perio dl o conduc t inspections
. I n £ict , Inspecto r Blauer testifie dtha

t " I hav e not

badth e opportunit

y to d o other

de-icin g observation s sinc e that time."' ^
. Inspecto r

Peterson-wa s ou t

o f th e offic e shortl y afte

r returnin g t o th e offic e o n Februar y 1 0 unti l Februai y 17 , 200 9 J ^ AndRespondent never aske di f Inspecto r Crai n had performe dde-icin g surveillanc e sinc e bi s observation s o n Febnaar y 17 , 2009
. There i s abi g differenc e betwee n th e Inspector s "never witnesse dthe deviation s again " a s state db y Respondent (Brie f a t 10 ) andth e Inspecto r

neve r finding furthe

r violation s when they di dno t hav e th e opportunit y t o observ e furthe

r dc-icjn g opexaiiohs
. I

t i s als o tota l speciilatio n tha t "non e o f th e seve n observe dde-^iation s woul dhav e occurred.' ' Th e mer e fac t thai FA A Inspector s di dno t

=^ ' Tr
. a t 252, line a13-1 5 " Tr.at39 4 line

s 1-12
. COHPl^lKMit'f

i RffcoTtA t

ftM^;^ - CP09VrM001 2 pag e I D o f

1 2 sco n R
. MOWIS , FTV h ATTOHNET

C TBL : 42S.337.1417 ; TMi : 425.227.100 702/22/201 1 10.3 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S AhW 7 (21012/01 3 PAG E 12/1 3

1 2 3 4 5 B 7 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 I S 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 S 2 6 2 7 S B 2 3 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 « 3 7 ^ 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4; : 4 3 4 4 i S 4 £ 4 7 A B 4 9 5 0 s : S 3 observ e de-icin g operation s durin g this tim e perio do r thereafte r doe s no t equate t o n o violation s occurring
. Conclusion
. Th e Respondent' s brie f

fail s t o addres s th e totalit

y o f th e evidence
. Th e FA A ha s demonstrate db y aclea

r preponderanc e o

f th e evidenc e tha

t th e violation s were committe dandha s set fortl i i n detai l th e factor s i t

considere di

n determinin g ili e sanction
. Havin g demonstrate dtha t th e Complainan t

followe dit s sanctio n guidance ^ deferenc e shotil db e give n t o th e amount sought
. Responden t

ha s th e burde n o f

establishin g it s defense , whic h i t ha s faile dto do
. Complainant ha s already considere dfliis issu e o f multiplicit

y an dth e action s o f

th e Inspector s i n thi s cas e were prope r andtimely
. Theargumcntthatthcreisadncprocessviolationi s wholl y withou t merit
. T o compare th e action s o f

thes e inspector s t o Th

e action s i n government

actor s th e case s cite db y Responden t

i s withou t

abase s i n fac t or law
. *'Tli c promulgation , preservation , an denforcement o f standard s o f

safet y i n th e ai r

are amon g th e mos t

critica l -function s entruste dt o any rcgulatoi y agency . Th e fieldo f aviatio n safet

y carrie s specia l responsibilitie s becaus e s o muc h i s a t stake. " In th e Matte r

o f Delawar e Skyways
. LLC , FAA Orde r

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

fromJudg e Kolko' s Orde r

Grantin g th e Motion fo

r Decision)
. Respondent

shoul db e hel dt o thi s standard
an dth e $84,00 0 propose di n thi s cas e provide s th e appropriate penalt y andwil l serv e a s a

n effective deterrent
. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D this ISt h da y o f Februar y 2011
.

^ Sco - tt R
. Morri s FA A Attorne y CGMRAIKMT ; ' s RCBUrzM
. BUR F- CP09HM001 2

. SlCXifxsT AlUINE S - 20O9HMO6D04 2 Pog e 1 1 o f

1 2 SCOT T R
. MoaaiS , FA A A.TrQ»jw. T T£t : 423.227.1417 ; TXX : a2S-227.100 702/22/201 1 10:3 8 FA X 202493514 2 02/18/201 1 16:4 4 425227100 7 FA A + DM S

ANM 7 0013/01 3 PAG E 13/1 3

1
' 2 3 4 5 « 7 e 9 1 0 l i 1 2 1 3 1 4 I S I S 1 7 1 6 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 5 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 6 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 € 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 S L 5 2 5 3 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E T hereb y certif

y that th e foregoin g Complainani' s Rebuttal Brief , ha s bee n serve dvi aFacsimil e an dCertifie dMai ] this date , t o th e foUo-wing :

Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwi n Offic e o f heariaigs , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jftrtey Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mE ) 2-32 0 Washington , D. C 2059 0 FAX : 202.366.753 6 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-4 3 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Av e S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Bldg
. - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 FAX : 202
. 493.514 2 Tod dC
. Emerso n SkyWes t Airline s 44 4 S
. Rive r

Roa d S t George , Uta

h 8479 0 FAX ; 435.634.350 5

Date dthi s 1 St

h da y o f Febiuary
. 2011
.

MOIFAI RCHI N Offic e o f Regional Counse l (ANM-7 ) Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAve
. S W Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425.227.216 0 FAX : 425.227.100 7

ConvLAimUT ' C Rs?UTTA L BblG F- C£>09HM001 2 SnrVES T AZiCLlHK

S - 2009NKOfi004 2 Pag e 1 2 o f

1 2 SCOT T R
. MOBRIS , FA A ATTOIWE Y TEt, : 425.237.1417 , PAV , 425.a27,i00 7