02/16/201 1 1G:1 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S glOOI/01 7



### loiU i C , liiiicrson , "S I 7 5 44 4 Soutli Rivor

ROIK I 

### Si . (icoi-yc . LlUili

, S470() -jf ! Telephone ; (435 ) 634-353 0 Fncsiinilc : (435 ) 634-35 1 > 5 AtloniL'y fo

r SkyWciJ t Airlines . Inc . 

### PARTMENTO F

J!3TORW!0 N :E TOPFRATiON S •E 6 l b P U : m 

## f'EBl B 

# m'^

^ ^«B»l»®@^jg ^

UNrrr o ST A IK S O FAMKRIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPO R

### I ATIO N OFFIC E O FIIEAR[NC S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n tlie Matter

of : SkyWcs i Airlines . Inc . RESPONDE N I S POS T FIEARIN G BRFE F F A A rXJCKE T CP009NM001 2 DM S No . FAA-200y-(>97 0 FA A Cas e No . 2009NM060()4 2 Jutiiic : Richiir

dC . Goodwi n INTRODUCTIO N O n ih e mornini

j o f Februar y 17 , 2000 , tw o FA

A inspector s arrive da

t th e dc-icini

j pad s o n th« wester n sid e oClh e Sal t

Lak e Inlcmationai Airpor

t t o perfor melement

pcrfomianc e inspection s on .SkyWcs l Airlines . Thes e inspectors , .lason Craii i an dI3c n Bhuicr , vver

e bot h fnmilia r wiil i SkyWcst' s deicin g pro^^ram , havini » studie dnn

dsurveye dil o n previou s occasions. ' The y als o ha

da n cxccrp l o f

StandardPractic e 2<S0

0 wit hihem . whichi s the iipprovc d dc-icin y progra

mfo r Sk y Wcsl Airlijies. " h

i fact , Mr . Grain wy s (h

e S P 280 0 content

exper t and the point of contac t fo r dc-icini, ' que.slion s a

t th e Ccrtillcat e Managemen t Ofllc e ("C.MO")." '

I'r . a t 10 . [.iiK'Ci-S . I'r . ;u:i7 . Lin e >S-1 0

" \r . ;i i IM , l.iii e 17-1 8

• ' II" . ; U 13 . I.iiiL-22 , Ir . j i 14 , I.inL>4-l lr* . * DM S 2)002/01 7 02/16/2b1 1 16:1 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

Despit e this , li e di dno t

kno w dia

c th e deviation s li e wa s abou t t o .se e wer e previousl y note dh y inspecto r Joa n Peterso n o n Februar y 10 , 2009.' ^ Neidierdi dSkyWest, ' I n it s brief

, th e F.-\.- \ignore s th e undispute dfact dva i it s CM C ha devidenc e o f si x potenliii l \iolaiion s for

I6 S hour s belbrenotifying ' SkyWes t li s require db y th e F.A

A Adminisu'iiior' s Oriio r

2 1 50,JB . Seve n day s late r Crai n an dfJlaue r

observe dseve n mor e deviations , which , i f

the y di dno t

immediatel y recogni/ e the ma s violations , tcslit'ie dthe y kne w i t withi n tw o hours.' ' Thes e allege dviolation s resulte din a n adviitional penalt y o f

584,00 0 sepiirai e fro mth e alleijc dviolation s o n th e lOth . Ironically , th e FA A factore dth e previou s week'. s undisclose dviolation s int o th e penalt y a s "especiall y aygravating " becaus e SkyWes r no w ha da"violatio n history " for simila r offenses. ^ Apparentl y th e FA A believe s i t doe s no t nee dto follo w th e Administrator' s Order , whic hrequire s immediat e notificatio n o f potentia l violations , bu t i s fre e t o slowl y compoun dviolation s an dthe n presen t th e carrie r

wit hapenalt y "lary o enoug ht o sei-v e a s adeterrent."' * A s discusse dbelow , thi s violate s SkyWest' s righ t t o du e proces s an dloni^-establLshc dSuprem e Cour t preceden t

forbiddin g agencie s fromignorin g thei r ow n enforcemen t

regulations . Instead , Ih e FAA' s brie f mostl y focuse s o n defendin g th e calculatio n o f it s penalt y an d skip s ove r

it s burde n t o sho w liability , claimin g liabilit y i s obviou s an dha s alread y bee n admitted . I

n fiict , th e Responden t

ha s specificall y denie dliability ' an dadmitte donl y tha t th e spra y patter n o n certai n aircraf t commence dat

th e roo t o f th e right wing . I . Th e FA A Ha s No t Me t It s Burde n O f

Proo f Th e FA A ha s th e burde n t o establis hliabilit y lo r th e penall y - bu t

simpl y assume s th e burde n i s me t

wjdiou t statin g th e standard , th e rul e o r analy?:in g th e evidenc e i l offere dat th e hearing . Althoug hth e FA A treat s the ma s such , th e seve n allege dviolation s ar e no t identical . Th e inspector s lestifie dtha t sometime s an airjilan e wa s spraye droo t t o tip , at othe r limes , th e groun dcre w allegedl y starte do n th e right win g instea do f

th e left . " However , neithe r in.specio r

" ^ V\ \ai2r)0 . Lin e 16-2 1 ^ Tr . ;ii 250 . Lin e 16.2 1 ^ l Y Ji74 , 1 iiiL

- 10-1 5 ' fr . ar^ L(.iuo4-2( )

' ^ Ir . vi t 16 9 (A/I ) I ) ('oiiipliiiivjm' s PoM-llc;uiiiy , (iiii:!' , I*nyi : 4 ' " Fr, , u i:^S , Lin e 17-22 , TT . at l^d , lin e 1-14 . li . ii

c 240 , Liin ; 2-1 4• > DM S §1003/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202433514 2 FAA

ha s a n indepeiidei u reeoKcclio n o f th e fact s surroundin g an y particula r violation. " 'fhe y hav e neve r prepare dacatalo g o f

per-aircral l violations.' " hrsleacl . the y relie dcompletel y o n thei r note s an dthe n tisc dSk y Wes t deiein g log s l o lin k

u p allege dviolations . ' Messers . Crai n an d Blaue r di dno t 1111 ot n th e F.lenKn t

Performanc e Workshee t an dthei r

Inspector' s Statemen t

doe s no t link an y allege d\iolalio n t o an y specifi c aircraft . Neithe r ar e pcr-airci'af

t allegation s piesen t in th e Notic e o f

Propose dHenall y o r

Ih e origina l o r

.Amende dComplaint . I n fact , th e FA A lia s neve r

iiemi/.e dwha t

wen t v\ron g in th e deicin g procedur e fo r an y particula r

aircrall . Al l i t ha s ar c th e inspectors ' testimony , base dentirel y o n handwritte n notes , whic hInspecto r Crai n describe da s "chicke n scratch " an d"contradictory." ' ' ^ I'hes e note s ar e als o ver y sparse . The y d o no t documen t

th e aircraft' s location , th e tim e o f th e observation , conten t o f observe dradi o conununicatiun s betwee n tligh t cre w an dgroun d crew , (In ^ wan/if r conditions , accumulatio n o f contaminant , absenc e o f contaminant , whethe r

th e aircral t go t asingl e o r

two-lruc k

operation , whic hde-ic e pa dwa s use dan dn o indicatio n tha t th e pilo t i n comman dfaile dl o aulhori/. e adeviatio n fromih c approve dprogram." ' Th e note s ar e no t

helpfu l t o th e trie r

o f fact becaus e the y canno t

b e deciphere db y anyon e othe r fiuu i Ih e inspectors . I

n fiici , Mr . Crai n coul dno t interpre t som e ofhi s note s at

hi s depositio n withou t

rcfeiTin g t o SkyWest' s de-icin g log s t o hel p hi mmak e sens e o f th e numbers.'' ' A t

trial , h e kne w wha t

hi s "chec k

de-ice , no t

anii-icc " not e signified , bu t U ) month s earlie r a t hi s depositio n h o sai d"numbe r ! i s chec k

de-ice , no t

anti-ice , an dI don' t

specificall y remembe r

wha t tha t not e means . Hu i th e flui dapplicatio n requirement s starte dde-ic e o n th e righ t wing . The anli-ie e .starte do n th e Icl l wing." ' Hi s explanatio n for hi s improve ddecipherin g skill s vva s "Well , I' dsa y withi n m y answe r there , it contradict s itsel f

I say , one , tha t

I don' t kno w wha l il mean s an dthe n I basicall y describ e wha t i t means , s o I thin k

i t —kin do f

lik e \vha l I mentione dn secon dag o —starte dou t on e wa y an dende du p gettin g th e answe r for both . S o I

' ' t'r . a i Li6 , Lin e I-14 , Tr . .il 2.13 . l.ii w V-2 2 '

- Tr . ;)i 103 . Lim

> S-15 . Ir . ai 229 . Lini ; .Vl. ^ '• ' I r . J I 109 , Lin e 11-1/ . Tr. j i 229 . Lin e .Ul. l '; ! Ir . u r 104 , Lin e l'^2n , jr . ;i

r 107 , Lin e 21-22 , Ir . a

i lOS , Lin e .S-1 2 ' ^ I c ; u 44 , Lin e <) . Ir . a r 11 4 (,\ll) , Ir . u t

I.>S , Lin e lS-22 , IMge t3<J , f.in c 1- 2 " ' Tr . Li i 120 . Lin e 7-17 . Tr. -

u L^^2 , Lin e 2-22 , Ir . j i \},:^ , lin e 1-7 . I'r . ; U 19. ^ ' ^ Tr. .1 1 109 . Lin e 1117 . Ir . .i l 110 , I m e 21-22 , Tr . .ii 1 1 LLin e \- \ ' ^ li.a i 111 . Lin e 21-22 . I r . lit 112 . Ir . J t

11. 1C4 4 ^ DM S 2)004/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FAX 202493514 2 FAA

don' t renicMiber

vvha t 1 referre dt o o n th e llrs t part , bu t th e secon dpart

i s clea r a s l O wha t I saw.""' ' Th e allege dviolaiion , whic hSkyWes t ha s neve r

admitted , i s tha t

de-icin g improperl y starte do n th e righ t

wing . However . Crai n al.s o claim s anti-icin g commence do n th e lef t wing . whic hmean s th e lef

t win g wa s previousl y de-iced . Hi s bar e note s d o no t e.xplai n thi s incongruit y an dh e coul dno t accoun t fo r i t a t th e hearing : Q ; You r noi e there , ca n yo u lel l u s wha t tha t says , di e nc.v

t tw o note s dow n unde r "Cliec k de-ice , no t

anti-ice. " A ; "Flui dapplicatio n requirement s starte dde-ic e righ t wing , anti-ic e left, " an d the n there' s tw o littl e notches , meanin g "vving. " It' s shorthand , meanin g tha t th e deic e wa s —wa s starte do n th e right wing , whic hi s no t

correct . I h e secon done , whe n the y di danti-ice , apparentl y the y di di t con-ect , Q : Ho w ca n the y slar

r th e anti-ic e o n th e lef

t wing ? I t alread y ha s to b e de-ice d first. Yo u can' t

anti-ic e withth e Typ e 4 llui dunti l th e de-icin g ha s happene dflist . A ; Tha t i s correct . Q : Bu t yo u sa y her e tha t

[de-icing ] starte do n th e righ t wing . If the y starte dth e anti-ic e o n th e lef

t wjng, th e Icf

l win g ha dt o alread y b e de-iced ; right ? A : Yeah , That' s no t

a n issue . Basically , ifthe y starte dright win g an dworke d thei r vva y aroun dth e truc k

—it coul dhav e bee n atwo-truc k operatio n —I don' t recal l — bu t workin g thei r

circuit , i f

there' s tw o irucks , coul dhav e ha dth e othe r gu y o n th e lef

t sid e sprayin g th e lef

t win g llrs t

a s required . Q : I t migh t h?ivc bee n atwo-truc k

operation , i

t migh t hav e bee n one ? Yo u don' t know ? .A : That' s no t

i n m y note s an df

don' t remembe r

nov v o n tha t specifi c aircraft , no . Q : Wer e Ihc y doin g two-lruc k ops . that day ? .V ; Yes , o n som e o f

th e aircraft . Q : S o you'r e no t

sur e wha t

happene dwii hihi s airplane ? A : Well , in thi s particula r case , whethe r

iher e wa s on e truc k

o r tw o truck s i s no t s o muc hrelevant . It' s wher e di dth e applicatio n began , knowin g tha t th e representativ e surfac e i s ke y here . S o i f they'r e followin g th e procedure s an dthe y .starte do n th e lel \wing , a s expected , dial' s wha t ih e pilo t i s gonn ab e lookin g for

'"Vr . a i 114 , Lin e 17-22 , Tr.ii l 115 , Lin e 1-. ^•> •QM S @)005/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

i n hi s represeniativ e surface . Whe n Ihe y starte ddeic e o n th e righ t uing . no w they'r e o n th e complet e opposit e sid e o f th e airplan e ;ipplyin y (luids . Q ; Di dyo u eve r

se e on e irue k

start o n th e right

sid e o f a n airplane , star t

th e de

icing , g o al l th e wa y iiround , an dthe n anti-ic e fromth e lel i side ? .\ : Yo u sa y on e truc k

o r luo ? Q : On e truck . .V : No , yo u couldn' t

d o tha i becaus e Ih c circui t ha s to b e completed . Q : S o thi s ha dt o be , yo u think , atwo-truc k operation ? A : Well , that' s \vhat

I' msaying . I don' t

remembe r

wha t I sa w o n tha t

particula r aircratt . You'r e talkin g specifi c airplan e an dm y note s aren' t in apoin t

t o cove r - ba.sc do n tha t

not e right

ther e o n tha t

airplane , I couldn' t

lel l you . Fo r

som e multipl e taick.s , yes . Wa s that one ? I don' t

know." " Th e torture danswe r

amount s l o "althoug hiv y note s arcn' l clear , I knov v wha t I saw . Maybe. " Th e proble mis , a s bothCrai n an dBlaue r hav e admitted , the y hav e n o independen t memoryo f

an y specifi c violatio n wiihou t thei r noles . Inspecto r tJlaue r wa s candi dabou t

th e hole s i n hi s notes , admittin g tha t th e tim e o f

th e allege dviolation s wa s no t included. " H e note daroo t l o li p spra y palle mo n aircraf t 66 S bu t doc s no t kno w o n whic hwin g i

t occurred. " H e canno t

say , fro mhi s noles , whethe r contaminiin l lia daccumulate dat th e roo t o f th e win g tha i require dspo t remova l b y startin g a

t ih e roo t bu t sai di t i s reasonabl e l o assum e ther e vva s some." ' Althoug hh e testifie dtha t n o pilo t ordere dadeviatio n i n ih e spra y paiteni . h e admit s tha t thi s ke y elemen t

i s no t documented."' ' Ther e wer e severa l aircraf t tha t ha dtwo-lruc k

operations , whic hmigh t explai n ho w de-icin g coul dstar t

o n th e wron g wing , bu t Mr . Blaue r

di dno l mak e aspecifi c not e a s t o whic hairciaf t ha dtw o iruck s an dwhic hha don e truck." ^ H e understoo dtha i S P 280 0 allow s de-icin g crew s th e discretio n t o spo t

clea n accumulation s o f snow , eve n i f

i l mean s sprayin g Hui duphill , agains t ih e pilc ho f

th e wing , H e als o admitte dtha t hi s note s di dno t

accoun t fo r this .

-"TV . .1 1 115 , 116 . 117 , Tr , H I IIS , Lin e 1-7 , Tr , . u IIS . Lin e 18-22 . Tr.,i i 119 . Lin e 1-3

- ' Ir . ai 229 , I m e .1-1."^ , Tr . .i t 229 , Lin e 17-2 0

- " Ir . J ( .'.]•} , Lin e 9-2.'. . I ru i 2.U , Lin e 1-.^ •'• ' Ir . iu2.>4 . Lin e 16.22 . lY. .ir2.'- \Lin e 1-1 5 "• ' I'v . -.i l 2.--5 , I.in c 14-15 , IV. 2.V> , Lin e 2- 3 -• ^ Ir . a t 23« , Lin e 9-1,'t! . Ir . M 239 , [,ine l-.'. O02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •i- DM S 21006/01 7

Withou t i-eferrin g to hi s notes . .Mr . Blaue r ha s n o independen l rccollcetio n o f wha t wen t '.M-on g o n eac hparticula r

aircraft."' ' H e als o admitte dtha t non e o f th e specifi c discrepancie s h e note dmad e i

t int o hi s memo , th e join t in.specior' s sialenicnt , ih e Notic e o f Propose dPenall y o r ih e tw o version s o f

th e Coniplnint. '

. \rc \ie w o f

th e inspector' s noles , couple dvvii hth e uncertaint y o f

th e testimon y offere d a t th e hearing , demonstrate s tha i ih e F.A A i s pro.sccutin g acas e base do n speculatio n an d conclusor y statements . Al 512,00 0 pe r aircraft , th e FA A need s l o specificall y suppor t eac hclaim . Th e FA A di dno t

sufficientl y documen i th e evidenc e o f ih c allege dviolation s an di t canno t as k thi s cour t t o fil l in th e blank s to hel p i

t mcei it s burden . II . Th e Progra m.\l.s o Allow s Fo r Spra v Patter n Devjiition s t o Conduc t Spo t Cleaning , Whic hTh e Inspector s Canno t Refute . Further , ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e inspector' s note s to rul e ou t spo t cleanin g a s describe d i n S P 2S00 . pag e 1 1 Paragrap h14 . Th e de-icin g progra mha s mor e discretio n tha n Ih c governmen t

concedes . Th e progra mallow s th e de-icin g cre w t o deviat e fro mtip-lo-roo t an d leadin g edg e l o trailin g edg e spra y palicrns."' ^ '"I t ma y b e necessar y t o spra y fromth e trailin g edg e forwar dwhe n ic e accumulatio n i s presen t in urea s suc ha s fiap trac k an dcontro l cavities. " U LThes e area s ar e locate da t th e win g roo t

an dmidsection , no r

ih c lips , wher e heate dde-icin g llui dwoul db e firs t

applie dan dallowe dt o soak in an dmel t

th e contaminant s a s th e crewma n work s ih e hos e awa y fro mth e fuselage . Thi s commonl y occur s a s contaminan t fromih e lef

t win g an dfuselag e i s blow n ont o th e right win g durin g th e cleanin g process . Th e inspector s coul dno t rul e thi s ou t

b y referrin g l o thei r

ihi n notes : Q . S o ii' s possibl e tha t the y starte dth e de-icin g operatio n properl y o n th e lef t sid e o f th e aiiplane , again , sno w an dic e blow s ove r th e to p o f

thi s fuselage , get s trappe d in thi s notc hbehin dih e engine . An dwhe n ihe y cam e aroun do n th e righ t side , the y starte dher e an dthe n wen t ou t an dde-ice dth e res t

o f ih c wing , f

s tha t pos-siblc ? A . Base do n th e note s that I hav e here , woul dtha t b e possible' ' Sure. "

• Ir , Jli.^Ci . Lin e 2-1 2 ' ^ Tr . ; n 229 , Lin o .1-13 . T "'" ^ Tr . J i 253 , 1 in c 19-2 1 " " Ir . :i l 136 . Lin e 3-1 2 22') . Lin e 17-2 0

( >+ QM S 121007/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A



### Th e Sk y Wes t de-icin g log s indicate there wa s mut e acti\ e snowfal l tha n th e inspector s remember (ther e i s no weather

informatio n i

n thei r noles ) becaus e several aircraf t requeste dih e typ e I V de-icin g lluid , whic hincrease s hol do^-e r lime i n activ e precipitation," " hve n wiihoii i contaminan t buildin g u

p a t Ih o root , Jaso n Crai n admit s tha t th e hos e passe s liae k andfort hacros s the wing , .sometime s goin g fro mthe roo t

out , an dth e spra y directio n varies , Q . The y then star t application . Will ihey oscillat e th e hos e i n differet U directions ? A . Sure the y do. . . th e locatio n to star t fro mwha t you're explaining , iha

t they're startin g o n the vvin

g li p an dgoin g i

n an dthe n comin g back , no , 1 don' t hav e a problemwit

hthat,' ' Finally , bot

hinspector s repeatedl y .state dtha t all airplane s were fre

e fro mcontaminan t when ihe y le dth e de-icin g pads.' " no safet y o f flight issu e existed , andSkyWes t complie dwit

h th e program' s puipos e o f

(1 ) removin g froze

n coniaininani s fro

mth e critical surface s o f

ih e aircraft , (2 ) ensurin g cha

t al l froze n coniaminani s hav e been remove dfro mth e aircraft' s critical surface s afte

r de-icin g ha s been completed , an d(3 ) providin g proteclio n agains i froze n contaminant s forming on critical surface s o f th e aircraft."'^ " '

^ Th e FAA doe s no t

hav e reliabl e evidentiary suppor t t o prov e liability , an

dif i t did , i t ha s no evidenc e l o refut

e Ih c nee dt o spo t clea n the right

vvin g root . M LTh e Propose dPenalt y I s Cumulativ e An dViolate s Du e Process . SkyWcs i als o raise dthe affirmativ e defens e tha t th e FA A i s haire dfro

menibrcin g it s propose dpenall y becaus e i l failedl o follow it s own piibli.shedenforcemcn l policy . ' ^ A t th e hearing , .loa

n Peterson , Jaso n Crai n an dBe n Blaue r testifie dtha

t Ihey ha dreadan dbeen traine d

Tr . ;i i 292 , Lin e 3- 5 ' ' Tr . Li l Ls: , Lin e 2-6 , 20-2 2 •'•Tr . :if251,Line4-1 3 ''T(.i n 19 3 (.All ) •'" * fr , u i 2.'> 4 - 25 5

~ ,V(i,s"vr . paniiirapl i 2 . [T^ . - I0 2 /16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DMS (21008/01 7

o\- \ F.A.AOrde r21.50.313."' ' Chapte r2- 2 sectio n 3(d. j oi'ih e Order , eniiilci i '"N'otifyin g Person s oi ' I'otenlia l Violations " instruct s th e inspector s "i n an ysituatio n vvhere F.A.A. enforcemen t personne l identif ya potentia l violation , the ytak e appropriat e step s immediatel yl o notif ya responsibl e perso n wh o ca n tak e appropriat e actio n t o preven t it, " (Rxhibi t A)(emphnsi s added. ) Th e Orde rals o liiieoi s "FA. Aenforcemen t personne l |lo ] lak e complianc e an d enforcemen t acti«) n t o preven t futur e action s tha i woul d violat e th e regulation s (fo rexample , inunediat e coneciiv e actio n . . ."" " Chapte r2 sectio n 3(F)(2) . Du e proces s require s an yfedera l agenc yl o scrupulousl yobser\ e th e rules , regulation.s , o r proceiiiire s whic h i t ha s established , "Whe n i t fail s t o tl o so , it s actio n caniio l stan d an d court s wil l strik e i l down. " U.S . \ : Hi'JfiK' r^2 0 F.2 d 80' J (4i h Cir : 190^) ) citin g Uniw d Suite s e. vrcl . .\ccanl i V

. Slniu^^hncs.'iy , 34 7 U.S . 26 0 (1954) . Eve n i f immediat e notic e ha d no t bee n require d b yOrde r2150.3B , o ran yothe rrul e o rregulation , ih e notio n o f du e proces s require s ih e FA A l o ac t swiftl yt o notif yth e regulate d entit yo f polentia l violation s .s o tha t the yma yb e addressed . Allowin g penaltie s t o accumulat e an d compoun d no t onl yoffend s du e process , i t als o defeat s th e publi csafet yfunctio n o f th e agency . Th e FA Aargue s i n a footnot e tha t th e Accard i docirin e doe s no t appl ybecaus e Orde r 2150.3 B doc s no t provid e a statutor yo rregulalor yright an d i s merel ya guid e t o inspectors. ^ I lowevcr , lU'ffne rteache s u s tha t fonnall yenunciate d right s ar c no t required . I n Hcfjhc ra n IR S investigato rfaile d l o war n th e defendan t tha t h e wa s investigatin g ta xfrau d an d h e neve radvise d th e dofendai u h e coul d retai n counsel . Thes e advisorie s wer e no t require d b ylaw , regulatio n o r officia l order , instead , th e IR S ha d issue d •"instruciions " t o it s agents , whic h vvere publishe d i n "IR S New s Releas e No . S97 , Oct . 3 , 1967. " Th e defendan t wa s convicte d o f la xfraud , whic h th e circui t cour t reversed , sayin g "i t i s o f n o significanc e tha i th e procedure s o rinstruction s whic h th e IR S ha s est.iblishe d ar cmor e generou s tha n ih e Con.stiuilio n require s . . . No rdoc s i t maile rtha t ihes e ir< $ inslruclion s t o Specia l Agent s wer e no t promulgate d i n somethin g formall y

•" ' Tr , ;> i K) X Lin o 14 , I'r . a l 16.^ . lin e 17-22 , Tr . ; n 166 , Lin e 9-15 , Tr . a t 241 , lin e l,S-22 . Tr . i U 242 , Tr . :i t 3'')2 , Lin e 16-2 2

llii." ; i s no l ; i suiprisin g po.inio n An - ih e I'. AAl o uk'c- . liuleeil , tli cOi\le r.siato s "Tlii i Oiile riloc b no t ereat e an yni;li i o rbenel'il , .^ubsuniiv cO f proeeilurn L ciil'oree;ibil e j l la\ vb yan ypurr yuizains i ih e l'.\.'\, " Orde rli t I I . lin t thi s i.

s no t a eonii:ic i uin j noi: ) mer e "uuul c l o iiispeeioi'j. " l i i s a deuulev l eniinenuio n ullh e l-.X.^' s ('i.>nipliaiie e -.nKl Lnl"(.>reenK-ii t I^ogrjni , spuiuiini j 33 7 puiies . eivaiiii; : iiution;i l policie s tli,'» t eamid i b e (.li.seluinied . ,\li' . .Molli s ciio d i t lepeatedl yj i til e lieanng , ,iiu l i n \\\- i biiel~ , u s justilleiiiio n fu r(li e peiuli yeLileuhium . Mi e ;iirmoi i oin d c;iiiiei s operi^i e i n iclianc e llia i th e .Ayene y\v.il l follo wiji cpollcie.' i .se i (oirl i i n lli e (."oiiipliaiie e an d Liiloreeuien r I'loiiriiiii . However , ili e .A^ene yargiio. s tlia f i i i s ire e l o iijiior e it s piibhilie d Order , wlijcl i i, s Ih e dcllnilio n of'ili e ,iil)ilrin y,ibu> e nidi.'iereiion . I h e ..Veejrd i doctrin e i.' * riiiie h broadi. T ilui i ili e f-A A. s crampe d intorpreiaiion .* DMS 2)009/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

labele da"Regulalion " o r adopte dwithstric t

regar dto tii e Administraliv e Procedur e Act ; th e Accitni i doctrin e ha s abroade r sweep. " Jfc/Jhc r

a t .S12 . .A s such , thi s requiremen t

ha s bee n applie dt o aDepartmen t o f Ih e Interio r

'Order' , t

o th e Anny' s 'Weekl y Bulleti n 42, " t o afC C "rule " v\hic hha dno t

bee n fomiall y promulgate dan daDepartmen t o f Defens e "Directive. " fd . Thes e case s ar e consisten t withili e doctrine' s puipos c t o prevcn l th e arbitrarines s vvhichi s ) (J inhcrcnll y characteristi c o f a n agency' s violatio n o f

it s ow n procedures , ' Here , .loan Peterso n lestifie dthat sh e witnesse diiTcgula

r de-ic e an dami-ic e spra y patiern s wher e aircraf

t wer e spraye droo t

l o ti p o n Februar y 10 , 20(19.''' ' Accoixlin g to he r testimon y an dhe r

writte n statement , sh e spok e withSkyWes t de-icin g pa dmanage r

Tylo r I.evvi s prio r t o commencin g he r

surveillanc e o n th e mornin g o f i'ebruar y 1 0 t o mak e sur e he r positio n o n Ih e fielddi dno t

interrup t operations.'' ' H e tol dhe r sh e wa s fine, returne dt o work , bu i the n revisite dMs . Peterso n 2 0 minute s late r l o fomiall y introduc e him.sel f an dge t he r contac t information . Sh e di dno t hav e abusines s card , s o Mr . Level s gav e Ms . Peterso n hi s contac t infomiation , tol dhe r

h e wa s ne w to ih c position , an daske dhe r t o le t hi mkno w i f

sh e .sa w anythin g amiss."* ' A l thi s point , Ms . Pcierso n ha dalread y witnesse dpotentia l violation s h m.uii d n<yihiii\ y t o Mr . Lewis . ' Clearl y h e wa s a"responsibl e person " a s contemplate db y chapte r 2- 2 .sectio n 3(d ) o f

Orde r 2 ! 50. 3 B bu t

Ms . Peterso n di dno t

advis e hi mo f

th e polentia l violatio n sh e noted . Instea dsh e retume dl o th e offic e an dreporte dth e variation s t o he r bo.ss , Pau l Ramire z an dto th e Principa l Operation. s Inspector , Noa l .lohnslo n o n Februar y lO."* ^ Unfortunately , i l loo k mor e tha n 16 8 hour s fo r anyon e at

th e CM C t o informSkyWcs l o f th e potentia l violation . Compar e thi s l o ih c 2 hour s i l too k .laso n Crai n t o notif

y SkyWes t

o f th e potentia l violatio n afte r h e relume dt o ih e offic e afle r completin g hi s FPI."*" " Ms . Peterso n testifie dtha t it wa s he r regula r practic e l o notif

y th e carrie r

o f apotentia l violation , an dtha i Noa l Johnsto n al."; © mad e suc h

I S I n aIbornote , ili e FA/

V eite s ro ;in unpubli.'ilic dease , Bdiri c \ ; F.l.t . for ili c propo.siiio n rhai ih e prio r Olde r .215().3.- \<loe s no i erear e individua l rii;hi s in rh e ai r operaror . LLnvevYr , fiiirr w als o opcii.'^ wii hih s >-varriiii g "Thi s orde r

an djiidynien t

i s no r bindin g preeederit . excep t unde r th e doctrine s o

Fla w ofrh e ease , re s judicat aan d collaiera l c-itoppel.s . I h e cour t iiencrall y di.it'avor. i th e citatio n orortlcr. s an djudymcnis, " Biin w \> > ea.sil y diiliniiuishabl c (Vo

mth e prc>eii t

cas e in dia l i i involve dan ;iirma n wh o plolle dt o violai c hi s .fipecia l (ligh t perini i an d complaine dwhe n di e inspeclor s di dno l .sto p him . pe r

M' i Orde r iha i i s no i a l is<ii c i

n ilii s C.TSC . •^'' T) . j i 3IS7 . Lin e 19-22 . Tr . a t 3S« , Lin e I •^ " Tr . a t 373 , Lin e 21-22 . T r

a t 374 , [.in e l- « "* ' Ir . al2S;3.Liiw2.l 2 "" ' Ir . ar3Sl,Lin c 15-2 2 I r ai3,Si . l.iiu ' 1.^-22 , Ir . M ."(S.^ , 1Y , a t 3S(I , I ine.S-l( i •*• ' n . a l 74 . Lin e lO-l.^ "T A A+ UVi ^ 01010/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA ADM ^ ' ^



### notillcaiions . bu

t nothin g wa

s don e o n th e 1 ()''' , ' ^ Worse , he

r bosse s kne w sh e woul db e absent lor a n indefinii e amount

o f tim e bu t n o effort s wer

e mad e t o distribut e he

r workloado r comnuinicat e the potential violatio n t o SkyWes t

o n he r behalf" ' He

r case s simpl y sa

l o n he r desk . ' The F.A

A make s n

o effor t l o explai n or

excus e Lhi

s laps e an dcanno t se e how i

t relate s l o th e discrepancie s of

th e 17'" , ^' ^ Thi s lime laps e i s critical becaus e cd l iliiw : iiis/Hxlor s icsdjic dthat tln' v iu'vt- r

witiicsse d ih c dcviaiion s nnaii i after

notic e iiv/.

v iciyc n t o SkyWc.'i

l o n P'chnutr y I 7 , 2009.' ' Davi dKatsila s an dTylo r Lewi s testifie dtha

t SkyWes t took inunedial e actio n t

o addres s the FAA' s concerns."" ^ I n fact, Mr . Lewi s lestifie dtha t hi s corrective s measure s were taken minute s afte r Mr . Crai n poke wit hhims o tha

t th e next ban k o f airplane s woul deonfom

i t o th e FAA' s directives.'^ ' I t i s saf e t o .sa y tha i ha dth e CM O informedSkyWes t of th e polential violation s i

t observe do

n Februar y 10 , non e o f

th e seven obsei^'c ddeviulion s woul dhav e occun'c do n Februar y 17 . Instead . Ih

e FA A le t 168 hour s g o b

y an dwitne.ssed7 mor

e deviations , t

o th e tun e o f

S84,(K>(), befor e i t finally alerte dSkyWes i o f it s concerns . Even state court s hav e looke ddubiousl y upon agencie s tha t allo w penaltie s t

o mount before noiifyin g the regulate dentit y o f the potential violation . I

n Peopl e v. R.J . Reynold s Tobacc o Co , 12

4 P.3 d40 8 (Cal , 200,5 ) the Attorne y General wa s aware o f defendant' s fre

e di.slribulio n o f

cigarette s but

delaye dtellin g defendant

tha i i l considere ddefendant' s action s lo b e illegal . Lik

e SkyVVcsl , th e dcfcndani halte dit s action s immediatel y afte r th e Atlonie y General put defendant

o n notice , bu

t by tha t tim e amassiv e potential fine ha daccrued . Th e Californi a Supreme Cour

t remande dth e cas e andinstructe dth e lowe r cour t t o conside r whethe r th e delay contribute dt

o th e si/. e o f

th e fine, i f so , ihal fac

t woul db e relevant

i n determinin g whether

th e fine wii s excessive . A/

, a t 422 . s

"'•"

' Ir.ai390 . Lin e 3-1 0 ""_ ' 1 r, ai 399 . Lin e 1-13 . Ir . a r 491 . Lm e 1- 6 ^ ' Tr.i M 401 , Lin e U->-l \ • I K Inisieadi t

ariiuc s tha i thi s laps e wii s take n int o accoun t o n ih e civ dpenally , whic h W-,I H reduce dto S20.t)0(. ) fro mdi e oriijina l propo.se dpenall y ot'S72.00<) . OfcoiiKC . ih c sam e acknowlcdi>enien i o f faile dnotic e KlKHiU i tlovv. ' l o ih e instan t

alleyei. 1 violation.s , ^Oiich woul dliav^

- bee n iibviate j wii h a.smyl e phon e cal l Iron i rh e (MO , ""

^ Tr , a t 2()V , Lin e h-]2 . Tr . a

t 2.^2 . Lin e 1-

0 ' " I r, a l 272 , l,in c 14-22 , Tr . a i 273 . ( in e I -3 , Tr , a i 277 . Lin e 11-l.S . IV

, 292 , t,iii e S- l I , Ir . a

t 31)3 , i im

- ( . • ' Tr . j t 2V2 . Lin e 3-.5 , Lin e S- l I+ DMS @1011/01 7 02/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

'fh e Californi aSuprem e Cour t wa s follovvin g it s ow n precedcni : i l hadpre-viou-sly iiualidale dafine levie db y th e Departmen t o f Alcoholi c Beverage s becaus e i t resulte dfromth e government' s practic e o f accumulatin g "differen t bu l es.sentiall y identica l violations , befor e i t file dit s accusatio n chargin g th e lieeiLse e wit hth e whol e serie s o f violation s an dassessin g concomitan t

cumulativ e penalties." " Id . I n additio n t o th e w<eeklong lapse , th e FA A continue dit s penall y stackin g o n th e 17'' ' a s Mr . Crai n an diV|r

. Blaue r note dthre e discrepancie s bu t sai dnothin g t o Tylo r

Lewi s durin g th e hou r lon g brea k

wher e n o aircraf

t cam e t o th e wester n de-ic e pads . I n hi s testimony . Mr . Bhiuc r mad e n o excuse s for

no t complyin g wit hth e Order . With "Twenty/twent y hindsight , I ihin k [noiifying ] probabl y woul dhav e bee n beilcr " h e candidl y adn^iilcd.'^ ' Ifthe y \\\\

dnotifie dSkyWest , i

t vvouldhav e prevente dS48,00 O o f additiona l potentia l viylLition s fromhappening . Mr . Crai n wa s mor e evasive . He reluctantl y admitte dth e valu e o f noiifyin g th e compan y prio r l o commitiin g fou r

mor e polentia l violations . However , h e claim s iha t h e coul dno i tel l whelhe r Tylo r Lewi s wa s managin g di e de-ic e operations , despit e bein g parke dafew yard s awa y an doperatin g ahand-hel dradi o a s h e watche dih e operatio n i n aSkYW\;gt tJUt k ' " * I f rnilfllSiri l llKuil f I ylor , li e Ivnc

w vvh u 10 cal l a

t compan y headquarter s bu t th e FA A di dno t

provid e Mr , Crai n wii hacel l phon e an dh e wa s no t goin g t o us e hi s persona l phone."^" ^ Eve n i f ever y obstacl e ha dbee n removed , h e didn" t "se e Ih c valu e in that

hou r you'r e speakin g o f

o f ho w tha t woul d hav e hada

n iinmedial e impac t

o n ihci r operation. " ' ^ CONCLUSIO N Th e KA A ha s no t me t it s burde n o f

proo f o n th e particula r

fact s o f eac hallege dviolation . Il prefer s t o ski p thi s paii , claimin g that SkyWes t

admitte dawa y th e case , largel y becaus e th e FA A canno t

credibl y suppor t

it s claims . I

t al.s o argue s tha t

ii s broa ddiscretio n include s enforcin g th e policie s o f Orde r 2150.3B , wiihou t

bein g subjec t

t o th e Orde r

itsel f Whethe r unde r th e Accard i doctrine , o r genera l notion s o f

du e process , th e FA A canno t si l silentl y by , rackin g u p penaltie s bu t

takin g n o actio n l o slo p th e allege dwrongdoing , unti l th e fine i s ;'^Tr , a t 247 . Lin o 4-2 1 ''Tr . a t 15(. . LineV-1 3 '• ^ tr . a i l.>3 . Lin e 16-2 0 "" ^ Tr . a t 1<)4 , Lin e 1-1 202/16/201 1 16:1GFA X 202493514 2 FA A • > QM S 2)012/01 7 

### disproportionatel y larg e fo r th e mino r

violatio n a

t it s core . Thi s canno t

stand . ' I he FAA' s priipo.sedpenall y o f

SiS4,00 0 shoul db e decline di

n it s entirely . fMTf:Dlhi s 14' " da

y o f February , 2011 ,

ToddC . Hmerson " ^

Attorne y fo r

SkyWest Airline a

1 202/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • » DM S 21013/01 7

CKRllFK A Li : O FSERVIC E I h e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t o n thisj.4^ ' da y o f

February , 20 1 1 , atru e an d correc t cop y o f th e foregoin g RKSPONDKNT^ S POS T IIEARriN GBKIK Fwa s serve da s follows : Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodvvi n Offic e o f Hearings . M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y .Avenue , S.E . Fas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mF12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0

[Fac.sitnil e an dFedera l E-xprcs aI Federa l Aviatio n Adniinislratio n i!0 0 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh l Building

- Suiie2WIOO 0

(Federa l Expix's.s J Scot t R . Motri s Federa l Aviatio n .Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region . ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W . Ronton , Washingto n 9805 7

/Facsimil e an dFedera l E.xpres^ }

\ /or/iaiin a Bake r 

# f02/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 01014/01 7 

# EXHIBI T A02/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A DM S 2)015/01 7 

## U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

Nationa l Polic

y 

## ORDE R

2150.3 B Effectiv e Date : 10/01/0 7 SUBJ ; _FA AComplianc e an d Enforcemen t Progra m Thi s ordtr

contain s policies , procedures , andgtudeline s fo r th e Federal Aviatio n Administration' s complianc e andenforcemen i program . Th e order als o articulate s tli e FAA' s philosoph y fo r usin g variou s remedie.? , includin g education , correctiv e action , informa l action , remedial training , administrativ e action , an dlega l enforcemen

t action , t o addres s noncomplianc e wit hstatutor y an d regulatory requirement s enforce db y the FAA . I

t provide s fo

r the publi c awritte n statement o f th e Administrator' s polic y (guidance fo r imposin g sanction s fo

r violation s o

f suchrequirements . Th e orde r i s use da t all level s b y agenc y peraomie J wh o ar e engage di

n the investigation , reporting , an dprocessin g o

f enforcement

actions . I t applie s t o al l office s wit

hregulator

y re.sponsibilities . Thi s revisio n o f

the order comprehensivel y update s policies , procedures , guidance , andassignment s of responsibility . I t

reorganize s the orde

r in amanner

mor e useful fo

r agenc y personne l andi s availabl e electronicall y t o agenc y personne l an dth e public . Th e revisio n amend s agenc y sanctio n guidanc e t o confonrr i t o statutor y change s resultin g fro

mVisio n lOOCentur

y o f Aviatio n Reauthorizatio n Ac t aiid incorporate s guidanc e int o th e agency' s complianc e andenforcement progra morder on policie s an

d program s tha

t hav e develope dsinc e th e las t compiehenijiv e orde

r revisio n in 1988 . Thos e includ e policie. s rentin g l o th e F/VA' s exerci.s e o f it s authorit

y to administrativel y asses s civi l penaltie s an d guidanc e o

n th e agency' s voluntar

y safet y program.? . A workgroup o f

agenc y personne l fromthe fieldan dheadquaner s wit hextensiv e experienc e i n statutory an

dregulatory enforcemen

t reviewe dth e agency'.<

i polit;ic s an dprogram s i n thi s are at o produc e thi s comprehensiv e revisio n o f tli e agenc y orde

r o n it s complianc e an denforcement program . 

# M Rober t A . Sttir g Actin g Adminifilfato r

f)islribution : A-W.|;A- W(AT/PS/SlVf)-2;A-W(PP/AM/SF / GC1FS/IA/VS)-3;A-XY

Z ( A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (A.<5/AM/GC/FS)-3 ; A- Y (AM/AR]OC)-3;A- Z(AM/AN/GC).3;A-FAC/FACl f CS-O ; A- FAF/F A T/FIA-0( LTD);ZFS-,12 5 Initiale dBy : AGC.30 002/16/201 1 16:1 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A DM S 1016/01 7

10/01/0 7 2150.3 B .^ . Complianc e an dEaforcemcn t Philosophy . a . Voluntar y CompliaDcc . Civi l aviatio n safet y depend s o n voluntar y adherenc e t o legal requirements . 1"hercfore , th e FA A administer s program s to promot e aclear awarenes s an d understandin g o f

th e governin g Statut

e an dregulations . b . Education . FA A investigativ e personne l shoul dtak e advantag e o f opportunitie s durin g thei r surveillanc e an dinspectio n activitie s t o strengthe n aregulate dperson' s understandin g o f th e statutory an dregulator y requirements . Th e FA A als o prornote s educatio n throug hpubli c awarenes s program s an dothe r specia l aviatio n educationa l etTorts . c . Surveillanc e an dDetection . A n importan t elemen t o f a n effectiv e complianc e an d enforcemen t

progra mi s th e promp t

discover y o f

noncompliance . Althoug hth e agenc y ha s program s t o encourag e self-disclosure , surveillanc e remain s th e primar y metho do f detectin g violations . Consisten t

withit s statutory mandate , th e FA A maintain s ahig hleve l o f surveillanc e o f air carrie r operation s an dmanufacturin g facilities . d . Notifyin g Person s o f Potentia l Violations . In an y situatio n wher e FA A enforcemen t personne l identif

y apotentia l violation , the y tak e appropriat e step s immediatel y t o notif y a responsibl e perso n wh o ca n lak e appropriat e actio n t o preven t it . Fo r example , FA A investigativ e personne l ma y counse l aregulate dpart y an densur e tha t it take s immediat e actio n t o preven t

aviolatio n fro mhappening , o r groun daircraf

t unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 44713(c ) whe n ai r carrie r aircraf t ar e no t i n conditio n for

saf e operation . An y FA A employe e wh o receive s informatio n abou t

acrewmember' s operatio n o f a n aircraf t in violatio n o f

th e FAA' s alcoho l an d dru g regulation s mus t

immediatel y contac t

andpas s o n that

informatio n to aflight

standard s inspector . I f

th e crewmcmbe r

is a n air carrie r employee , th e inspecto r

quickl y notifie s th e air carrier' s managemen t

o f al l relevan t

informatio n abou l th e matte r s o th e ai r carrie r ca n tak e appropriat e action . Th e inspecto r request s th e ai r

carrie r t o hel p th e FA A i

n it s investigation , an d i f appropriate , t o tak e actio n t o ensur e th e crewmembe r doe s no t serv e o n atlight . e . Investigatio n an dReporting . FAA investigativ e personne l mus t conduc t investigation s promptly . The y mus t

gather , an daccuratel y an dcompletel y report al l facts , an dconduc t

thei r investigation s i

n a n unbiase dan dfocuse dmanner . A violatio n report withou t al l th e fact s onl y lead s t o delay s tha t

compromis e th e objective s o f fair an dresponsiv e enforcement . An incomplet e o r

inaccurat e enforcemen t

investigativ e report

can mislea dreviewin g official s an d HA A legal counse l an dresul t i n wron g o r

inappropriat e action s bein g taken . f . FA A Response s t o Violation s an dPurpose s fo r Coinpli»nc e an dEnforcemen t Actions . FA A enforcemen t personne l mus t

investigat e an dappropriatel y addres s every apparent o r allege dviolation . (1 ) Responses , fh e agenc y ha s awid e rang e o f option s availabl e for

addressin g apparen t violations , suc ha s ora l o r writte n counseling ; administrativ e action , includin g remedia l training ; legal enforcemcn l action ; an dreferral for criminal prosecution . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.11 , FAA investigativ e personne l issu e a n administrativ e actio n in th e for mo f eithe r awarnin g notic e o r

a lette r o f correctio n fo

r a n apparen t

violation . FAA legal counse l amends , su.$pends , modifies , o r revoke s certificate s unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § § 44105 , 44106 , 44709 , 44710 , 44726 , 44924 , an d46111 ;

2- 202/16/201 1 16:1 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A• > DM S 21017/01 7

e 10/01/0 7 2150,3 B seek s civi l penaltie s primaril y unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301 ; seize s aircraf t unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 46304 ; an dfssue s judiciall y enforceabl e order s under 4 9 U-S-C . § 40113 . FAA enforcemen t personne l als o refer apparen t violation s t o foreig n government s or t o th e Departmen t

o f Defen.s e (DOD ) fo

r appropriat e handling , an di n case s wher e ther e i s possibl e crimina l conduct , t o th e Offic e o f Inspecto r Genera l (Old! ) fo

r crimina l investigation . Generally , unde r 4 9 U.S.C , § 40113 , FA A enforcemen t

personne l lak e action s believe dnecessary t o carry ou l th e Administrator' s siaiulory safet y dutie s an dresponsibilities . Regulation s governing th e transportatio n o f hazardou s material s ar e enforceabl e by civj i an dcrimina l penalties , order s directin g compliance , an d equitabl e judicia l relie f

(4 9 U.S.C . § § 5121 , 5122 , 5123 , an d5124) . Regulation s governin g commercia l spac e transportatio n arc enforceabl e by civi l penaltie s an dlicensin g action s (4 9 U.S.C . §§70107,70115) . (2 ) Purposes . FA A enforcemen t personne l tak e complianc e an denforcemen t actio n t o preven t future action s tha t

woul dviolat e th e regulation s (fo r example , immediat e correctiv e actio n afle r

counselin g o r

alette r o f correction ; ceas e an ddesis t orders ; injunctions) . The y als o tak e enforcemen t

action s fo

r remedia l purpose s (fo r

example , administrativ e remedia l training ; immediat e correctiv e actio n an dcomprehensiv e fixes unde r th e voluntar y disclosur e reportin g programs ; certificat e suspensio n pendin g demonstratio n o f qualifications ; o r

revocatio n fo

r lac k o f qualificatio n o r

competency) . The y als o tak e enforcemen t action s t o dete r

future violation s b y thf c subjec t o f th e enforcemen t

actio n an dthos e similarl y situate d(fo r example , punitiv e certificat e action s o r

civi l penalties) . g - Fairness . T o b e effective , th e agency' s complianc e an denforcemen t progra mmus t

b e fair an dreasonabl e an dshoul db e perceive da s fai r b y thos e subjec t

t o regulation . Thi s doe s no t an dshoul dno t

impl y an unwillingnes s t o appl y th e ful l forc e o f statutory sanction s wher e warranted . I t

doe s encompas s th e righ t o f a n apparen t

violato r t o b e give n objective , evenhande d consideratio n o f

al l circumstance s surroundin g th e allegation s before final actio n i s taken . I l als o require s goo dfait

heffort s t o understan dth e apparen t violator' s positio n an dlak e i t int o account , a s well a s t o appris e th e apparen t violato r o f th e agency' s positio n i

n atimel y manner . h . Timeliness . (1 ) Th e agency' s discovery of , an drespons e to , violation s shoul db e timely . Delay s i n investigatio n o r

processin g o f

enforcemen t

investigativ e report s ca n adversel y affec t th e effectivenes s o f

th e agency' s complianc e an denforcemen t progra min severa l ways . Delay s ma y le t a n unsaf e conditio n continu e i f

promp t correctiv e actio n i s no t

taken . Delay s als o may de-emphasiz e th e seriousnes s o f agive n violatio n an dlesse n th e deterren t valu e o f an y enforcemen t

actio n taken . Th e deterren t quality o f

enforcemen t

action , an deffectiv e linkin g o f th e enforcemen t

.sanctio n t o objectiv e chang e i n complianc e behavior , can b e bes t realize dif

th e FAA investigate s diligentl y an dpromptl y an dadminister s th e appropriat e sanctio n withi n a rea.sonabl e lim e period . I f th e allegations o f

violatio n ar e no t

sustained , an y unwarrante ddelay i n processin g th e cas e may impos e a n unjustifie dhardship . Th e tim e neede dfo r investigatio n an dprocessin g wil l vary dependin g on th e complexity o f eac hcase . Certai n ca.ses , becaus e o f thei r effec t o n .safety , includin g th e nee dfo r emergenc y action , wil l sometime s deman d immediat e involvemen t

o f th e entir e investigativ e an dlegal tea mt o effec t

timel y agenc y action , .someiime s i

n onl y amatte r

o f hour s o r afe w days . 2- 3