02/22/2011 10.36 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DWS 

ANM7 

121002/013 

PAGE 32/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

€ 

7 

9 

10 

n 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

35 

25 

27 

26 

2S 

30 

31 

32 

31 

34 

35 

3C 

37 

36 

39 

40 

^1 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

4B 

49 

50 

51 

52 

S3 

-PARTL^FNTOF 

•,:.vORTAT'ON 

Scott R. Mollis 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Rentoa, Washington 98057 

TeJephonei 425/227-1417 

FacsimUe: 425/227-1007 

' • 1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

In the Matter of 

SKYWEST A.IRLINES> INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPO9NM0OI2 

DMS NO, FAA'2009-0979 

FAA Case No. 2009NMO(50042 

COMPLAINANT* S REBUTT/VL BRIEF 

TO: JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

INTRODUCTION. 

Reapondciit's brief can be summarized as follows: it is long on complaining about the evidenccj 

but short on substance. Respondent seems to ignore the status of the pleadings. In Respondent's 

Answer it admitted to all of the factual allegations contained in the Complaint except paragraphs 

13,14,andl6. By rule, those facts arc deemed established and the Complainant no longer need 

produce any evidence to demonstrate those fact. See 14 CF.R. § 13.209. Reapondenl also 

complains about the details of the Complaint. First, this i3 Notice pleading. More importantly, if 

Respondent had concerns about specjficiiy in the Complaint, it couid have filed a Motion for more 

definite statement See 14 CF.R. § 13. 218(0(3). Any such issue is waived at this stage of the 

proceedings. 

3>T»l?t5i AlHUiiBS - 3009NM06O042 

Pagft 1 of 12 

acoTT s . MORRIS, IPAA ATTOHKK 

TEL: 425.227.1*17 ; FAX: 42 5 . :?'27 , 1Q07 
02/22/2011 10.38 FftX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 

<~i*,t ±or ^uxj. J.e: Mt 

ANM7 

21003/013 

PAGE 03/13 

1 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

d 

10 

11 

12 

IS 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

30 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

a-^ 

39 

30 

31 

32 

331 

34 

35 

3 6 

37 

3S 

AO 

•11 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4a 

49 

50 

SI 

52 

S3 

1. The FAA has eaafv met ita bnrden of proof. ^ 

More troubling, the Respondent claims that the Inspectors statements at tbcs hearing do not 

link any violation to any specific aircraft. What the brief conveniently igcorcs are the Inspectors 

contemporaneous notes retained by the Inspectors, as well as their coritcmpovaoeoxis in.'^pecior 

statements describing what they observed, and their testimony. Respondent chooses to cheny pick 

&cts ftom the transcript instead of addressing the testimony in total. For example, Rjispondent' s 

brief focuses on the notes Inspector Crain made on a piece of scratch paper while observing the deicing operations and makes the following statement-. "They do not document the aircraft's location, 

the time of the observation, content of observed radio communications between flight crew and 

ground crew, the yveather conditions, accumulation of contaminant, absence of contaminant, 

whether tliie aircraft got a single or two-truck operation, which de-ice pad was used and no 

indication that the pilot in command failed to authorized a deviation from the approved program." 

Respondent's Brief at 3 (emphasis in original). This is tbe old trick of focusing on a small piece of 

tbc evidence and ignoring all of the other evidence presented in a case. 

.The situation that Inspectors Crain and Blauer were in at the time those notes were made 

is best described by Inspector Grain as follows; 

You have to remember that there's five aircraft being sprayed at once and that 

Tm looking at two to three at a time. To gat into a lot of details of notes, you 

would miss what you were observing. So these are - like 1 said, these are 

abbreviations to help me latej down the roa.d when I get back in the ofGce to 

understand the probleans that I saw. 

All of the references from the transcript that Respondent uses are to cross-examination 

questions about Inspector Grain's notes (Exhibit C-4). Fuitber, Respondent conveniently and 

only refers to the Inspector's responses to cross-examination questions about the questions 

See Scecion A of Complaimnt's inttiaJ brief. 

Caou^VKMT'a RSBPTTAL BRIE? - CP09NWOOI2 

SrynfdT AJRLINES - 200$NM0£D04 2 

pag e 2 of 12 

SCOTT R . MOHHIB , FAA .J^TTOIINET 

TEL: 425.227,1*17 ; FAX: 42S . ZS"? -100 7 
02/22/2011 10:37 FAX 2024335142 FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

@|004/013 

PAGE 04/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

€ 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

11 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

32 

23 

24 

25 

2« 

27 

3& 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4a 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

specifically tailored about the notes he took while at the airport. Respondent totally ignores the 

existence of other testimony or exhibits. For example. Respondent ignores the statement of its 

own employe* concerning its employees not following its deicing program.^ See Exhibits C-3 

andC-13. 

Agent Crain and Agent Blauer did document the location where they obsen/ed de-icing 

operations being performed. See Exhibit C-2 and C-10. While Agent Crain was being subject to 

cross-examination he does admit that his notes taken while attempting to observe the de-icing 

operations themselves does not contain the infonnation about pilot communications. BUL 

Respondent conveniently ignores Agent Grain's earlier testimony and his inspector's statement 

he made upon returning to his office (or shortly thereafter) while tbe events were fresh in his 

mind.^ For exan^ple, in his contemporaneous lospector's statement. Agent Grain wrote: 

'^Inspector Blauer and I were in possession of a band-held radio monitoring coramtmications 

between flight crews and DI/AI ground persomiel. Of tbe ten aircraft observed at Spot 21, no 

communications were ever established that involved ground or flight crews requesting alternative 

methods or procedures of DI/AI fluid ^^Ucation that would differ from those published in 

SkyWest's GDPM SOP-*' Exhibit C-2, page 1, 4th paragraph- This makes it abundantly clear 

that no pilot deviations of the program were used.^ 

= Tr. Ml39, lines 14-21. 

' Rc,<tpoii.dent also iljd not address how seven aircraft arc de-iced in 9 minutes when it only had 4 trucks performi.ng 

deicing operations, and it takes five minutes ar a minimum to de-ic« each plane. See Tr, at 296 - 299. 

* 5«e Tr. at 76-77 and Exhibit C-2. 

* InapectoT Crain's testimony on this point wa,>i vD«quivocal: 

Q'. During your ot^crvaticms, did you hear any flight craw authorized s deviation from the 

standard procedures lo be followed? 

A: AbSQlately net There were none. 

' Q. Pid you see any fli^t crew tneniber come out of tbe Btrcratt aT)d speuk to the deicing crew? 

A. NoTr. at 5«.lines 11-18. 

COHPLAIkWT'6 RSTTTTAL BHIEP ' CP09t3MOD12 

SKJTWWT AiWilj«S5 - 2009NHOS0042 

pag e 3 o f 1 2 

SCOTT R. MORRIS, FA A ATTDWEY 

TEL: •435.227.141'7j FAX: 42S.227.1DD7 
02/22/2011 10:37 FAX 2024935142 

^•^i j.o/:iBii 1&: 44 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

12005/013 

PAGE 85/13 

1 

2 

K 

S 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

13 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

30 

21 

32 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 

2S 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

4J 

^ 4 . 

45 

46 

47 

48 

4^ 

50 

SI 

52 

53 

Respondent, with emphasis, contends thai there was no testimony or evidence presented 

about tire weather conditions that day. That is simply wrong. In Agent Grain's inspector 

statement he states: "From 0930 to 1130 local time and weather consisting of light rain and 

snow...," Exhibit C-2, paragraph 2. Both JnspectQfsS Crain and Blauer testified ±at the weather 

was conducive for icing. Tr. at 20, lines 10 - 20 and Tr. at 234, lines 4-9. More importantly, 

the Respondent in its Answer admits *'At tbe time of the surveillance, the weather conditions 

consisted of light rain and snow" and "Icing conditions were forecasted for and present at the Salt 

Lake City International Airport, Utah, and the siuround vicinity." Answer to Complaint at TI(8) and 

(9). Once a fact is admitted in the Answer, there is no requirement for the CompJainant to ihen tujTi 

around and prove the ^ t Even in Respondeni's Answer lo the Complaint, it admits that SkyWest 

was performing de-icing operations at the locations thai Inspector's Crain and Blauer state that they 

were pcrfomiing aurveillance. Answer to Complaint at 11(4). 

The Inspectors did document Ae time of tJieir observations. They did not doctiment each 

activity minute by minute as it was occurring.* Agent Crain's statement dearly stales that he was 

pcrfoiming surveillance from apT>roximately 0930 to 1130. The company's records corroborate ihat 

the aircraft that he observed during this timeframe were aircraft that were, in feet, de-iced during 

this time frame. Finally^ if one coropares the order of the entries in the Inspector's 

contemporaneous notes, they match the time line for wien the aircraft were de-iced as reflected by 

SlcyWest*s own dc-lcing documents. Compare Exhibits 4 and 6 with both pages of Exhibit 5. In 

short, Respondent seems to complain because the Inspectors did not give a GPS 8-digit grid 

* Actually Inspector Crain did documwit some of the times of his ohservaiJons down to the minute. And his tiires 

are consistent with the times in SkyWest's own de-icing dciciiincots. 5 M Exhibit C-4 the figure ":31" under tht 

circJod number 4 next to tail number N500SW. Coropare this rima to Eyhibit C-5, socord column dontL The AU 

CoMPlATKun's KnTTTAL UVZW ' CP09KM0012 

SKTWEST AIU:HS S - 200»HM06004 2 

P4g e 4 o f L2 

ac<3T* R . h^oTKlt. FAA AnoBnev 

TEL; •425.221.0.41-7; FAX: -425 . 227 ,100*7 
02/22/2011 10:37 FAX 2024935142 

U^/ie/2Bll 1&:44 42S2271007 

FAA •^ DMS 

ANH7 

(21006/013 

PAGE 06/12 

1 

2 

4 

5 

e 

7 

B 

5 

10 

13. 

12 

13 

1-4 

15 

16 

17 

1» 

1? 

2P 

21 

22 

3J 

34 

25 

a^ 

37 

20 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3B 

39 

40 

4l 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

4fi 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

33 

coordinate in their report on a piece of scratch paper while they arc simultaneously observing ongoing de-icing operations. 

Respotident challenges the Inspectors because they allegedly did not detail the accumulation 

or absence of contaminants. Again Respondent overiooks the evidence in the record. Inspector 

Crain testified both to the serious of the consequences if contaminants were present on the wing of 

tlie aircraft, and that m his observations there were no contaminants on the aircrafr when they 

departed.' 

Respondent challenges the credibility of Inspector Grain because of his statement that there 

are violations because the de-icing started on the rigjit wing. Respondent's Brief at 4. Again, 

Respondent misdirects the reader. Respondent claitns coniusion on how, if one starts de-icing on 

the right wing, one would start anti-icing on the left wing. lt*s simple. The deicing went from right 

wing to left wing aod while the vehicle was still at the left wing it began to stray anti-icing from the 

location where the employee finished deicing - the left wing. Ftirther, Respondent seems to give 

great weigh to any inability to recall fects in the detail it desires the Inspector to have. If there is a 

concern about the Inspector's recollection, there is the evidence of their past recollection recorded 

in then Inspector Statements, Se^ Exhibits C-4 and C-10. Unfortunately for Respondent, these 

Inspector statements directly contradict hs assertions so Respondent's solution is to simply not 

address them in its brief. 

In stmi, if the Complainant had only produced the Inspector's scratch paper notes, it might 

have an. aigumciit. However, when one looks at the Complainant's cjchibits m conjunction with the 

Inspector' testimony, the facts are established. 

wiD see 1560 with a de-icing time of"] 1.29". In this C9se, the dfflereuoc between when the Tuspector aaid tlie deicing occurred and when S)cyV/cA said it occurred differed by 2 minutes. 

Ce»*»tJ>r>».»T'S RWUTTAL BMW - CPQSNM0012 

SlWWRST AlKLIHIS - 2O09NMO6O043 

Pag a 5 o f 1 3 

SCOT* R . Mouug, PAA ATTORNElf 

TEt : 425-227,1-417 ; FAX: 425.327.100 7 
02/22/20U 10:37 FAX 2024935142 

W'^/ia/2011 IS: 44 4252271007 

FAA * OMS 

ANM? 

21007/013 

PAGE 07/13 

1 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

1? 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

:15 

76 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

36 

a? 

36 

3§ 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4€ 

47 

48 

49 

50 

SI 

53 

53 

II. The violations alleged were not th* "spot cleaning" respondent now claims. 

For the first time, Respondent claims that any deviation in its de-icing procedures was 

pcnnitccd because what the inspectors observed was "spot cleaning". Respondent's Brief at 6. This 

arguznent ia meritless. Both inspectors testified at the hearing the spraying process began and then 

proceeded, not how tbe spraying process concluded- On this point they were unwavering.' Again, 

Respondent references testimony on cross-examination for the Inspector as it related to his notes. 

What Respondent failed to address in its quoted passage at page 6 of its Brief is the following 

testimony immediately prior to its citation: Q: "Do you from loolang at your note whether they 

started on the right instead of the left? A: I do not. / ccoi 't tell tharjrom my iictes. No."' Further, 

Respondent doesn't addiess Inspectoi Blauer*s testimony immediately prior to those statements: 

Q: Yea. Look at your note again. 

A: Uh-huh 

Q: It says "Started at wing root." Is that what is says? 

A; That is correct 

Q: Which wing? 

.. A; li doesn't really TnOter. Root to Tip is- regardless of that, it would be 

inappropriate. •'" 

Both Inspectors observed the entire de-icing operation, not the final cleaning of the aiitraft to 

remove remnants of aocumulatiorL What Respondent is tiyinfi to do is confuse the reader about the 

sequence of events tJiat it is required to follow, but failed to do go. 

"' Tr. at 33-35» 53-54, and 61-62. 

• Tr. at 55, lines 3 - 14; Tr. at 100, IfaeslS- )«;Tr. at 101, lines 3 - 12;Tr. at )03, lJnel9-Tr. at 104, line. 5; 

Tr St 112. line 21 - Tr. «t 113, line 3; and Tr. 11222-225. Tr. at 53, lines 11 - 13; Tr.«222-225; and Exhibits 

C-4, C-5, C-6, See also Exhibits C-3 and C-]0. 

' Tratl35,line21-1^.atl36,liiic2. 

'°Tr. at 135, lines 6-14. 

CoMPiAiMWT'* REIWTJH;. awEP - CP09NHOC)1Z 

SrvHcsT AIU.X«± - 20a9NM060042 

Pag e « o f 12 

sccTT R- Mowae, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: 435.227.1417 ; FAX: 425.227.100 7 
02/22/2011 10.37 FftX 2024935142 

uz/j.D/^oi i ib:4 4 4252271007 

FAA ^ OMS 

AHM7 

giooe/ois 

PAGE eS/13 

1 

3 

4 

5 

e 

7 

9 

1 0 

3.1 

1 2 

13 

14 

I S 

16 

17 

18 

1 5 

30 

31 

22 

23 

Z4 

25 

26 

27 

36 

29 

SO 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

3€ 

3 7 

39 

39 

4 0 

4 1 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

4 7 

48 

49 

50 

51 

53 

53 

0 L The propojied sanction is not cumulative and does not violation due process.'^ 

Complainant believes that its initial brief clearly and concisely explains why the sanction is 

not cumulative so it merely asks the A U to refer to it for that portion of Complainant*? rchmtal. 

Respondent claims that the Agency failed to nodfy it of violations that it ^Vas committing in 

z. timely feshion. Respondent tries to boot-str^ a case that has already been setded with this cast. ^ ^ 

It cites US. V, Heffiier^ 420 F.2d 809 (4* Cir. 1969) as its primary authoiity in support of its 

position that the Inspectors alleged failure to follow internal guidelines is grounds tor waiver or 

mitigation of sanction.^^ But Heffher is a criminal case not a civil case, and the issues raised in 

Hefner concerned an Agency*3 procedures published to implement the protection of existing rights, 

to wit the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of persons suspected of tax fraud. This was in part a 

reflex decision to the then recent landmark case oiMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) as the 

lower courts WTestlcd with the breatli of its applications. And courts began to immediately distance 

themselves from strictly applying Hefner \^6cn the procedures did not extend protection of right to 

'^ In Respondent's Brief at 2, it asscns thai the prior violations history was en "especially aggrtvating" factDr. 

Complainant assume; that Respo&denl is placing tbew words in quotes for ixa ovt^i purposes because 1ho3c words arc 

QOt in the tTHDScrifrt itself Ii is correct that the CoiDplainint did consider ax a factor th^ Respondetit had two prior 

de'icfng vlpIatioDS In its r&ecaii put. 

'^ In ftigtoote 48, Respotidfini addi facts iwt in the record. SpccificttHy the only ficts in ihc record, coijcemlng the 

earlier vioUtioo are t}ie vjolatioiif alleged and the i^ivjl penalty amount. Sae Hcspondent's Answer to Reqticst for 

Admission !Nlo. 4 in Respondem^f Response to Complainant's laiiial Discovery Requen located in DMS Document 

FAA-2009-0979-0005 (i)age 6). ThCTt is DO evidence in the record coDceniing the amount in tbe initial Notice and 

as such diis iafomiati(« should be stricken frorn Respondent's brief. 

" Rcspond«[ot also cites People v. RJ. Reynoldi Tobaecc Co., 124 ?.3d 40ft (Cal 2005) ai authority. No weight 

should be accorded this use for two reasons. First, there is federal preemption of the field of air coounercc. See 

Ci:y o/Burbarikv. LocJfheedAir Terminal Inc., 4] \ U.S. 624^ 93 S.Ct. 1854 (1973), A/oro/ar v. 7>at7S World 

Airlines, Inc. 504 U.S. 374,112 S.Cl. 2031 (1992). NotwithsTftnding this issue, the KJ. Reynolds case involved the 

iPtqp^onaJ delay of notifying a respondent for the purpose of increasing the violations In that case, the govcmTTieot 

agents allowed tije sale of 108,155 packets of cigarenes to 14.834 people at six different events bet^veen February 

and October 1999 and assessed it a 5 ] 4,826^00 fine- tt refewnced Walsh v. Kirby, 529 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1974) where 

the Califomla Alcoholic Bcvenge Control Department sought to impose tbe maximum penally ^eairiSt a licensee 

without a record of prior violacioru by accumubcting evidence inttntionallv such thai the penalty wguld bs increased 

thereby avoiding: the graduariob of penalties established by ibe lagislatuic: Id. at 105. Even in the 71./ Hgynoids 

case, the court rttognizcd "tJie relevajice of good faith to the detenninaTioa whetiler a fine oi pcna'ty is excessive at 

OOTVlAimuiT'S HSBUTEW. BRtCr " CP091IM0012 

SttHeOT AlRtlWEfi - 2D09NMO<004 2 

Pa^ e 7 o f 12 

9C6TT R. MORRIS, FAA ATTcmucT 

TBI.; 435.227.1417 ; fAX: 43S.227.100 ? 
02/22/2011 10:37 FAX 2024935142 

tiii/ltf/^Bll •lb:44 4252271307 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

[2]003/013 

PAGE [^19/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

Q 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1.3 

14 

15 

1€ 

17 

la 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

3& 

37 

28 

2d 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

3€ 

37 

38 

119 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

5a 

individuals. See, e.g., U.S. v. leaky, 434 F.2d 7,11 (l " Cir. 1970). Here, there are tio rights 

bestowed upon the Respondent in this Order. Further, afl mentioned in Complainant's Brief, the 

Accardi doctrine docs not extend to safety related regulations where no rights are granted, it must 

be cinpihasi;iod diat this Order is not a regulation but a guide. 

Respondent wants to dictate to the Complainani what it means by its term **rcsponsible 

person." Courts have long held that Agencies are in the best position to interpret their oxvn 

publications. In fact^ Congress goes so far in some situations to require Courts to give deference to 

Agency intaptetation of its own policy guidance. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C, 447Q9(d). When the Agency 

is referring to a "responsible person" in Chapter 2 of FAA Order 2150.3B, in this case, it is clearly 

not referring to someone on A e tarmac sitting in a truck whose status was unknown to the 

Inspectors until after their observations.^'* The best evidence of who & responsible person would be 

is the practice of the parties. Here, upon learning that there were violations Inspector Crain made a 

telephone call to Maggie Aiken, the Respondent's Director of Customer Service Training, after 

returning to the office and confirming thai violations had occurred. See Tr. at 74, lines 13 - 22; Tr. 

*i 151, liiic 22 - Tr. at 152, line 5; and Exhibit C-9, As Inspector Crain stated: "Because that 

responsible person, as far as how the manuals are derived, he [Mr. Lewis] is not noted as one of the 

people with responsibility for thai program, Maggi Aiken would have been one of them/' Tr. at 

162,ljne38 - 12. Further, boThlnspectoTS Crain and Peterson explained, FAA Order 2150.3B 

provides a mechanism to notify a person once apotcntial violation is discovered.^^ As part of tbe 

process set foTth_ a letter of investigation is sent to notify a responsible person of potential 

is a denial cf due process." Id. at 422, reftmng to/'a/tf v, Aibryon, 584 P.2di 12 C1978). To say the least..»./ 

Rvynolda is inapposite to the frets before the ALI. 

" The leun "rciponsible person" is not deflbed in FAA Order 2150 JB. 

'^ Tr. at 74, linej 15-22 md Tr at 395, line 11 - Tr. at 395, line ] 0. 

SICVWSrt A1IU.XUF:3 - 20O9NMO60C42 

F&ge fi o f 12 

Scorr R. HOI*TS , PA A ArtoRwcT 

TEL: 42S.22T.1417 ; FWt: 425.227.100 7 
02/22/2011 10:38 FAX 2024935142 

y;^/ lb/ -^tJl 1 16: 44 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

21010/013 

PAGE 10/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

& 

& 

10 

11 

12 

12 

14 

15 

16 

17 

le 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3e 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4€ 

47 

49 

49 

50 

51 

52 

55 

violations. "A letter of investigation (LOI) serves the dual ptaposes of notifying an apparent 

violator that he or she is under investigation for a possible vi olation and providing an opportunity 

for the apparent violator to tell his or her side of the stoiy."" FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 4, para. 

9.3. 

Respondent criticizes Inspector Peterson because she did not express her concerns to Mr. 

LewisonPebruary 10, 2009- However, Mr. Lewis did not icU Inspector Peterson his job title- what 

he was doing; what his responsibilities were that day; that Inspector Peterson had never met him 

before or whether he was a member of management or a front-line worker. Tr. at 379, line 9 - Tr. 

3 80, at line 1. What Respondent does not address is Inspector Peterson's testimony that she was 

not sure if a violation had occurred. Nor does Respondent infonn the reader that it was this generic 

information (she saw something inconsistent with her understandinE of their program) tliat she 

communicated to some supervisor after she retumed.^* Respondent takes issue with the delay 

between her observations and her learning that her observations were actual violations seven days 

later, lialso wants to impute the knowledge of what she actually saw to her super^nsors. However, 

Inspector Peterson made it very clear in her testimony that she did not communicate with her 

supervisor what she saw, she only communicated that she had a concern about the de-icing 

operations. Inspector Peterson did not even write her inspector's statement until February 17.2009. 

Tr. at 382, line 20 - Tr. at 383, line 12. and Tr. at 398, lines 4 - 7. What she told her supervisor was 

*T had observed some procedures I didn't .recall and that I woiald look into it." Tr. at 385, lines 4 -

6andTr, at 386 lines 15- 1.9. It was more of a passing comment to them.'^ It was not until 

February 17* that she made the determination that violations had occurred. Tr. at 385, lines 6-10. 

" Tr at 386, lines 15-19. 

^' 5e« generalfy, Tr- tn 395, lines 1-16. 

COHPUXmHT'S Rflum L BXIBF ' CP09HM0012 

SKTVCST AIU.IUBS - 20D9iaMOe0042 

Pag e 9 o f 1 2 

SCOTT R . MDRSI*, PAA AiTORHir 

TEL: 425.227.1417 : PAX: 425.227.100 7 
02/22/2011 10:38 FAX 2024935142 

o^/i.af^ai i lb: 44 4252271397 

FAA -> DMS 

ANM7 

aoii/013 

PA6E 11/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

g 

7 

e 

3 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

as 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

^3 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

i3 

44 

*5 

4« 

47 

48 

49 

50 

SI 

52 

53 

It is not until February 17* that she informs her supervisor of what she observes and then 

documents it in her Inspector's statement Tr. at 397, line 9 - Tr. at 398, Une 12. So there was no 

way thai her supervisor's could have even distributed a case, because tbcy did not even have a 

statemcirt from the inspector about what she observed until February 17*. It is a stretch, at best, for 

Respondent to claim that her supervisor should have acted upon this infbrraetion thai he could not 

even possible possess. 

Next, Respondent asserts some significance to this seven day time period because after 

Respondent was notified of the violation tbe three inspectors did not witness the deviations again. 

What Respondent doesn't address is whether these Inspectors had the opportunity to observe deicing opcratioiis in. tfie interim period. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent even 

conducted de-icing operations between the February 10 and 17, 2009. "Nor is there any evidence 

that the Inspectors went to The airport dating this time period lo conduct inspections. In £ict, 

Inspector Blauer testified that "I have not bad the opportunity to do other de-icing observations 

since that time."'^ . Inspector Peterson-was out of the office shortly after returning to the office on 

February 10 until Februaiy 17, 2009 J ^ And Respondent never asked if Inspector Crain had 

performed de-icing surveillance since bis observations on Febnaary 17, 2009. There is a big 

difference between the Inspectors "never witnessed the deviations again" as stated by Respondent 

(Brief at 10) and the Inspector never finding further violations when they did not have the 

opportunity to observe further dc-icjng opexaiiohs. It is also total speciilation that "none of the 

seven observed de-^iations would have occurred.'' The mere fact thai FAA Inspectors did not 

=^' Tr. at 252, linea 13-15 

" Tr.at394 lines 1-12. 

COHPl^lKMit'fi RffcoTtAt ftM^;^ - CP09VrM0012 

pag e ID o f 12 

sco n R. MOWIS, FTVh ATTOHNETC 

TBL: 42S.337.1417 ; TMi: 425.227.100 7 
02/22/2011 10.38 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

AhW7 

(21012/013 

PAGE 12/13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B 

7 

6 

10 

11 

13 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

26 

27 

SB 

23 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3« 

37 

^8 

39 

40 

41 

4;: 

43 

44 

iS 

4£ 

47 

AB 

4 9 

50 

s: 

S3 

observe de-icing operations during this time period or thereafter does not equate to no violations 

occurring. 

Conclusion. 

The Respondent's brief fails to address the totality of the evidence. The FAA has 

demonstrated by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the violations were committed and has 

set fortli in detail the factors it considered in determining ilie sanction. Having demonstrated that 

the Complainant followed its sanction guidance^ deference shotild be given to the amount sought. 

Respondent has the burden of establishing its defense, which it has failed to do. Complainant has 

already considered fliis issue of multiplicity and the actions of the Inspectors in this case were 

proper and timely. Theargumcntthatthcreisadncprocessviolationis wholly without merit. To 

compare the actions of these inspectors to The actions in government actors the cases cited by 

Respondent is without a bases in fact or law. 

*'Tlic promulgation, preservation, and enforcement of standards of safety in the air are 

among the most critical -functions entrusted to any rcgulatoiy agency. The field of aviation safety 

carries special responsibilities because so much is at stake." In the Matter of Delaware Skyways. 

LLC, FAA Order 2005-5, 1995 WL 916051 (March 10,2006), at 6 (statement from Judge 

Kolko's Order Granting the Motion for Decision). Respondent should be held to this standard 

and the $84,000 proposed in this case provides the appropriate penalty and will serve as an effective 

deterrent. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ISth day of February 2011. 

^ Sco-tt R. Morris 

FAA Attorney 

CGMRAIKMT; ' s RCBUrzM. BURF - CP09HM0012 

. SlCXifxsT AlUINES - 20O9HMO6D042 

Pog e 1 1 o f 12 

SCOTT R . MoaaiS, FAA A.TrQ»jw.T 

T£t: 423.227.1417 ; TXX: a2S-227.1007 
02/22/2011 10:38 FAX 2024935142 

02/18/2011 16:44 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

0013/013 

PAGE 13/13 

1 

' 2 

3 

4 

5 

« 

7 

e 

9 

10 

li 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

IS 

17 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

25 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

43 

4€ 

47 

48 

49 

50 

SL 

52 

53 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

T hereby certify that the foregoing Complainani's Rebuttal Brief, has been served via Facsimile 

and Certified Mai] this date, to the foUo-wing: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of heariaigs, M-20 

1200 New Jftrtey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E) 2-320 

Washington, D.C 20590 

FAX: 202.366.7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43 0 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave SW 

Wilbur Wright Bldg. - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

FAX: 202. 493.5142 

Todd C. Emerson 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 S. River Road 

St George, Utah 84790 

FAX; 435.634.3505 

Dated this 1 Sth day of Febiuary. 2011. 

MOIFAIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425.227.2160 

FAX: 425.227.1007 

ConvLAimUT' C Rs?UTTAL BblGF - C£>09HM0012 

SnrVEST AZiCLlHKS - 2009NKOfi0042 

Pag e 1 2 o f 12 

SCOTT R . MOBRIS, FAA ATTOIWEY 

TEt,: 425.237.1417 , PAV, 425.a27,i00 7