SERVE D MA Y 19 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N -p ] QFI H ASPORWIO

N OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . P ""••'!'7 0

I N TH EMATTE RO F AIRTRA N AIRWAYS , INC. , Respondent . DOCKE T NO . CP10SO000 2 (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 3 ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S ORDE RDENYIN GMOTIO N FO RDECISIO N O N TH EPLEADING S AN D GRANTIN G MOTIO N FO RHEARIN GO N SANCTIO N ONL Y I n thi s case , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA " o r "Complainant" ) ha s sough t t o recove r

a$15,00 0 civi l penalty fromth e Respondent , AirTra n Airways , Inc . ("Respondent " o r "AirTran") . Th e FA A ha s charge dAirTra n withviolatin g th e hours-of-servic e restriction s applicabl e t o th e us e o f

on e o f it s flight attendants . Thos e restriction s ar e foun di n §121.46 7 o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FAR") , 1 4 C.F.R . §121.467 . Th e Responden t

fileda n answe r

t o th e FAA' s complaint . Th e answe r admitte dal l o f

th e factual allegation s o f th e complain t

bu t interpose dan affirmativ e defense . Th e affirmativ e defens e claime dtha t th e civi l penalty sough t b y th e FA A wa s "excessiv e an dunwarranted. " Th e Responden t als o requeste da n administrativ e hearing . Th e cas e wa s assigne dt o m e for th e purpos e o f

providin g th e hearin g sough t b y AirTra n an dissuin g an initia l decisio n basedo n th e evidenc e acquireddurin g th e hearing . Th e FA A the n filed amotio n fo r adecisio n o n th e pleading s or , i n th e alternative , for adeterminatio n tha t th e hearin g woulddea l onl y wit hth e issu e o f th e appropriat e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalty t o b e assessed . Th e Responden t

submitte da n oppositio n t o th e motion . Th e Respondent' soppositio n concede dtha t o n th e merit s o f

th e complaint' s clai mtha t AirTran ha dviolate dth e hours-of-servic e rule s withrespec t t o th e flight

attendan t identifie db y th e FAA , ther e wer e n o issue s o f materia l fac t

t o b e decided . AirTra n i n effec t

agree dthat

i t ha drequire dth e flight

attendan t t o excee dth e limitation s in §121.46 7 o f th e FAR . However , AirTra n als o argue dthat the " ($15,000 ) sanctio n sough t b y th e FA A wa s excessive , an dtha t th e agenc y improperl y electe dt o us e it s authority t o exac t acivi l penalt y for

th e violation . "Responden t

believe s tha t

th e factor s traditionall y relie dupo n b y Complainan t

t o arriv e at

a n appropriat e sanctio n i n matter s similar t o th e on e before thi s Court

cal l for th e impositio n o f

aLette r o f Correctio n o r

acivi l penalty muc hles s tha n th e $15,00 0 sought. " Th e Complainant' s motio n paper s purport t o sho w tha t

th e amoun t

o f th e penalty i t

ha s sough t

wa s calculate din accordanc e withFA A Orde r 2150.3B , effectiv e Octobe r 1 , 2007 . Th e FA A point s ou t tha t Orde r 2150.3 B contain s guidanc e o n th e matte r o f sanction s for

us e b y FA A employee s involve di n th e investigatio n an dprosecutio n o f enforcemen t cases . I t als o note s tha t

i n Folsom' s Ai r

Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r N o 2008

- 1 1 (November

6 , 2008) , th e Administrato r hel dtha t Orde r No . 2150.3 B reflect s th e Administrator' s genera l view s abou t th e civi l penalt y range s that are appropriat e for

different type s o f violations . Tru e a s tha t

may be , i t

remain s clear

tha t administrativ e la w judge s are no t boun db y th e content s o f Orde r 2150.3B, ' an dtha t

th e Responden t

i s entitle dt o ahearin g o n th e questio n whethe r $15,00 0 o r

som e lesse r

su mi s th e appropriat e sanctio n fo r th e violatio n i t

committed . Thi s mean s tha t ther e ar e dispute dissue s o f materia l fac t

tha t mus t b e plumbe di n orde r

t o arriv e at th e appropriat e sanction . I t follow s that , althoug hth e FAA' s motio n t o limi t

th e hearin g t o th e issu e o f sanction s mus t

b e granted , ther e remain s a n issu e o f

th e appropriat e sanctio n tha t can b e decide donl y after th e hearin g o n tha t

issu e i s held . I s o ruling , I wis ht o mak e i t clear tha t th e onl y issu e remainin g i s th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalty t o b e assessed . I t i s well-settle dtha t

th e FAA' s determinatio n t o institut e acivi l penalty proceedin g rathe r tha n employin g som e lesse r

for mo f sanctio n (suc ha s alette r o f correction ) i s amatte r

' Se e Eric Salcido . 200 8 DO

T Av . Lexi s 1 6 (initia

l decision) ; Lambto

n Doors . FA

A Docke t No . CP03SO001 3 (Ma

y 7 , 2004 ) (initia

l decision) ; Airway s Freigh t Corp. . FA A Docke t No . CP99002 1 (Decembe r 29 , 2000 (initia

l decision) ; Stebbin s Aviation . Inc. . FA A Docke t No . CP00SW001 4 (August 30 , 200 4 (initia l Decision) .committe dt o th e agency' s soun ddiscretion . I t cannot , an dwil l not , b e reviewe db y an administrativ e la w judg e conductin g th e hearin g unde r th e rule s in Subpart

Go f Par t 1 3 o f th e FAA' s regulations . Offshore Air , FA A Orde r No . 2002-7 , 200 2 W L104230 4 at 1 (Apr . 16 , 2002) ; Glen n E . Wvatt . FA A Orde r

No . 92-73 , 199 2 WL73322 0 (Dec . 21 , 1992) ; Boston-Main e " Airwav s Corp. , FA A Docke t No . CP085 , 200 8 WL348580 2 at 2 (Aug . 8 , 2008 ) (initia l decision) . Fo r thi s reason , evidenc e regardin g th e FAA' s decisio n t o us e it s civi l penalt y powe r rathe r tha n som e othe r

sanctio n wil l no t b e relevan t

i n th e upcomin g hearing . Fo r th e reason s se t

fort habove , th e FAA' s motio n fo r decisio n o n th e pleading s i s denied , an dth e FAA' s motio n t o limi t th e hearin g t o th e issu e o f th e appropriat e amoun t

o f th e civi l penalt y t o b e assesse di s granted . I T I S S O ORDERED . 

### f ' Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg eFA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Stephe n J . Kolski , Executiv e Vic e Presiden t Operation s & Corporat e Affair s AirTran Airways , Inc. , Responden t 995 5 AirTran Blv d Orlando , FL3282 7 TEL : 407-318-510 8 FAX : 407-318-590 1 Rashaw n Ric hGeorge , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , GA 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

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

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

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

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