82/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 02/0 9



### -:PARTf.lENTO F -SPORT/VnC N UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S • .;- , .-o M O 1 : U 2 WASHINGTON , D.C . ' ' IN TH E MATTERO F BUS H AI RCARGO , IN C FA A DOCKE T NO . CPlOALOOO l (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO , FAA-2010-O3 n

COMPLAINANT' S REBUTTA LBRIE F Ther e i s n o disput e i n thi s cas e that Responden t

operate dcontrar y t o th e conditio n se t fort hin paragrap hc(2 ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 whe n i t use dWillia mCoo n a s th e secon di n comman do n th e 1 9 flight s reference di n th e complaint . Responden t asserts , however , tha

t thi s noncomplianc e wa s authorize db y it s havin g include dWilliamCoo n o n aseparat e list , whic h Responden t

assert s i s a

n optio n i t

ha dunde r

paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A008 . Whethe r Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 authorize s noncomplianc e withOperation s Specificatio n A03 9 i s amatte r

o f interpretation , whil e th e claime dexistenc e o f th e lis t i s amatte r

o f credibility . Paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 doe s no t provid e th e operato r

witha choic e o f alternativ e mean s fo r

complyin g wit hit s requirements . I n suppor t o f it s clai mthat

i t does , Responden t

list s som e eigh t

rule s o f construction. ' Conspicuousl y absen t fromit s list , however , an dno t

eve n discusse di n it s analysi s i s th e cano n o f constructio n Complainan t discusse s i n it s closin g argument—tha t al l word s b e give n effect . Here , i f th e comm aan dth e

' Curiously , al l of

the case s Respondcfl

t cite s a s authorit

y fo r thes e rule s ar

c rtlinoi s appellat

e cour t decision s from th e 1980 aan d1990s .02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 03/0 9

phras e i f applicabl e wer e no t

at th e en do f

th e sentenc e i n question , the n th e forma t o f th e sentenc e woul db e tha t

pilot s mus t

b e liste di n either

A o r B . Wer e i t

writte n tha t

way , a n operato r woul db e i n complianc e withthi s requiremen t i f it s pilot s ar e liste di n eithe r A or B . Whethe r i t i s th e operator' s optio n an dwhethe r th e separat e lis t

woul dnullif

y th e conditio n se t fort hi n paragrap hc(2 ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 are separat e matters , but at leas t gratnmaticall y speaking , withou t th e phras e i f

applicable , ther e woul db e alternative s i n ho w a n operato r coul dcompl y wit

hparagrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A008 . Th e fac t remains, however , tha t

th e phras e i f

applicabl e doe s appear

at th e en do f

th e sentence , s o i t

mus t b e give n effect . What th e phras e i f

applicabl e doe s i s tha t

i t establishe s aconditio n tha t i f met , nullifie s th e requiremen t

for th e operato r

t o maintai n alist . In othe r word , i t create s a n exceptio n t o th e requiremen t

i t imposes . Thus , whe n rea da s awhole , th e forma t o f th e sentenc e i s tha t

a n operato r mus t lis t it s pilot s i n A unles s B i s applicabl e i n whic hcas e pilot s mus t b e liste di n B . I n short , th e reasonable , plain , precise , an dlitera l meanin g o f al l o f th e word s i n paragrap h d(I)(b ) i s tha t eac hpilo t

Responden t

use s mus t

b e liste di n Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 i f i t i s applicable . N o othe r

interpretatio n give s meanin g t o al l o f th e word s o f

th e sentence , an d contrary t o Respondent' s assertion , ther e i s nothin g ambiguou s abou t it . Critica l t o Respondent' s positio n i s th e notio n tha t what i t consider s a s alternative s i n paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 are alternative s fo r complyin g wit

hth e condition s se t

fort hi n paragrap hc(2 ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A039 . Responden t doe s not , however , directl y addres s thi s o r explai n i n an y meaningfu l fashio n ho w it arrive da t suc ha conclusion , T o th e exten t on e coul drea dth e o r

i n paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 a s providin g alternatives , thes e alternative s are not alternativ e mean s for

complyin g with02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 04/0 9

paragrap hc(2 ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A039 . Rather , thes e alternative s hav e t o d o with th e requiremen t

i n paragrap hd(l)(b ) tha t pilot s an dco-pilot s b e identifie do n alist . I n othe r words , t o th e exten t

paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 provide s altematives , thes e alternative s hav e t o d o wit hcomplianc e wit hth e requiremeii t impose db y tha t

paragrap hrathe r tha n th e separat e conditio n impose db y paragrap hc(2 ) o f Operation s Specificatio n A039 . Responden t

assert s tha t

i t ha dn o notic e o f

th e Administrator' s interpretation . Thi s i s true , bu t s o what ? Responden t

neve r aske di f it s interpretatio n wa s correct , an dComplainan t di dno t hav e an y reaso n t o thiti k

Responden t

o r an y othe r operato r t o whic hOperatio n Specificatio n A03 9 o r A04 0 was issue dmigh t

conclud e tha t

i t coul devad e th e clearl y spelle dout condition s se t fort hi n i t merel y b y keepin g aseparat e lis t o f it s pilots . Regardin g credibility . Responden t assert s that

Complainant' s "suggestion " i s irresponsible . Responden t

the n assert s tha t

it s deferenc e t o th e Administrato r durin g th e investigativ e phas e wa s abusines s decisio n t o defer t o th e Administrator' s authorit y unti l ther e wa s afinancial threa t t o th e company, an di t

point s ou t

tha t AS l Stewart

testifie dh e neve r

aske dt o se e th e list . A s a n initia l matter , i t

i s quit e understandabl e tha t whe n AS I Stewart

firs t raise dth e issu e i n Jul y 200 9 tha t

Responden t

woul dimmediatel y reques t th e additio n o f

Willia mCoo n to Operation s Specificatio n A039 . Doin g s o ende dan y questio n regardin g future operations . What raise s th e credibility issu e i s why , durin g thi s process . Responden t didn' t a t leas t mentio n th e lis t o r it s interpretatio n o f

Operation s Specificatio n ADO S eve n i f i t wa s jus t for future reference . In othe r words , eve n befor e ther e wa s an y suggestio n o f acivi l penalty , human natur e bein g what i t is , i t jus t seem s logica l tha t

ha dth e lis t

existe dan dha dResponden t believe dhavin g it

nullifie d th e conditio n specifie di n Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 tha t th e respons e t o AS I Stewart woul d hav e gon e mor e like , "Okay , let' s ad dCoo n t o th e list , bu t b y th e way , w e didn' t

thin k w e02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 05/0 9

neede dt o becaus e ,... " I n an y event , th e claime ddeferenc e t o th e Administrato r unti l ther e was afinancial threa t

i s contradicte db y th e evidence . Responden t di dnot respon dt o th e lette r

o f investigatio n sen t

b y AS I Stewart , an dneithe r it s respons e t o th e Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty no r

it s answe r

t o th e complaint—^bot

ho f whic hare response s t o clear financial threats — contai n an y mentio n o f

Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 o r Respondent' s rathe r

straine d inteipretationofit . What Responden t

fail s t o addres s i s wha t

i s reall y th e hear t

o f th e matter . T o b e perfectl y blunt , wha t

Complainan t

contend s i s tha t

Respondent' s Exhibi t

4 wa s create dafter

th e 1 9 flights i n question . Thi s contentio n i s base dprimaril y o n tw o facts : First , i t wa s practicall y th e eleventhhoiu : befor e Responden t cam e forwar dwit hth e exhibi t an dpresente dit s argument s concemin g it , an dsecond , ther e wer e numerou s time s prio r t o th e elevent hhou r

whe n logi c an d commo n sens e indicat e Responden t woul dhav e presente dth e documen t and/o r it s argument s concemin g i t

i f i t existe da s claimed. ^ Mos t tellin g i n thi s regar di s th e respons e t o th e Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty . Tiema n testifie dtha t whe n h e receive dit , h e reviewe dOperation s Specificatio n A00 8 an dthough t the y wer e good . Tr . 102,104 . Ye t a s note dabove , hi s respons e o n behal f o f th e compan y make s n o mentio n o f thi s documen t

o r hi s claime dbelie f

that i t nullifie dth e conditio n se t fort hi n Operation s Specificatio n A039 . Se e Exhibi t C-13 . Th e Agency' s Notic e wa s clearl y afinancial threa t t o th e company , bu t

i n th e lette r

Tiema n essentiall y admit s i

t violate dth e regulatio n an dplead s fo r forgivenes s o f

o r areductio n i n th e civi l penalty . I n it s closin g argumen t Responden t

doe s no t eve n attemp t

t o explai n why , give n thes e facts , i t

i s unreasonabl e for

Complainan t

t o conten dtha t

th e claime dcreatio n o f Respondent' s Exhibi t

4 i n February 200 9 i s simpl y no t credible , o r

wh y som e othe r

inferenc e • Othe r factor s includ e the lac k o f an y corroboration fo

r th e list' s existenc e prior

to August 2010 , an dth e contradictor

y statement s regarding how i t was prepared .02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 06/0 9

shoul db e drawn . Complainan t draw s n o pleasur e fro mmakin g thi s contention , bu t th e fact s ar e a s the y are , an dthe y al l poin t t o bu t on e conclusion . Regardin g th e sanction . Responden t contends tiie company lacks th e ability t o pay th e propose damount , an dthat th e violation s d o not

warran t an y civi l penalty . It s contention s regardin g it s financial situatio n ar e base do n Tieman' s assertion s regardin g profitability an d Respondent' s ta x return s for 200 8 an d2009 . A s note di n Complainant' s Closin g Argument , suc hevidenc e i s insufficien t t o establis ha n inability t o pay . Ther e i s practicall y n o informatio n regardin g th e company' s cas hflow o r wha t asset s th e compan y has , an dther e i s nothin g bu t vagu e assertion s regardin g ho w th e company wa s doin g i n 2010 . I n short , Responden t faile dt o mee t it s burde n o f

proo f i n thi s regard . In support

o f hi s contentio n tha t

n o penalty i s warranted , Responden t contend s tha t

both Operation s Specificatio n A00 8 an dOperation s Specificatio n A03 9 ar e intende dt o addres s operationa l control , an dtha t th e secon di n comman di s irrelevan t t o operationa l control . Responden t

further opine s tha t

th e issuanc e o f

Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 t o i t wa s probabl y an administrativ e oversigh t an dserve dn o usefu l purpose . Hogwash ! A s AS I Stewart testified , the y ar e no t

bothintende dt o addres s operationa l control . Tr . 74 , 75 . Operation s Specificatio n A008—^whichi s issue dt o al l ai r carriers , larg e an d small—i s entitle d"Operationa l Control, " an dconsisten t wit hthi s title , i t

doe s addres s operationa l control . Operation s Specificatio n A039—^whichi s issue donl y t o operator s withonl y on e authorize dpilo t

in command—i s entitle d"Singl e Pilot-in-Comman dOperator, " an d consisten t withit s title , i t

set s fort hlimitation ^ an dcondition s th e Administrato r ha s deeme d I necessary fo r

singl e pilot-in-comman doperatdrs . On e o f tlies e condition s i s tha t

th e operato r02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA A PAG E 07/0 9

wil l onl y us e individual s specificall y liste di n paragrap hc(2 ) a s th e secondi n comman dpilot . Wha t thes e tw o operation s specification s addres s ar e distinctivel y differen t things . Whethe r th e secon di n comman di s relevan t t o operationa l contro l is , itself , irrelevant . A civi l penalty proceedin g i s neithe r th e tim e no r

plac e t o debat e th e wisdo mo r appropriatenes s o f th e requirement s th e Administrato r ha s deeme dnecessary for aviatio n safety . Whil e there are certainl y mor e significan t requirement s se t

forthi n Respondent' s operation s specification s dia t hav e amor e direc t

impac t o n aviatio n safety , aviatio n safet y i s alway s compromise dwhe n operator s don' t

abid e b y th e limitation s an dcondition s se t fort hi n thei r operation s specifications . I n fact , th e mer e fac t

Responden t

suggest s tliat

ther e shoul db e n o penalt y fo r violatin g a conditio n i t

deems irrelevan t

o r misplace di s a

n indicatio n Responden t

lack s a n appropriat e complianc e disposition . Regardles s o f wha t Responden t

though t o f th e conditio n se t

fort hi n paragrap hc(2 ) o f

Operation s Specificatio n A039 , thi s conditio n wa s se t fortl i i n an operation s specificatio n i t

accepted , an dther e i s nothin g ambiguou s abou t it . It wa s Respondent' s responsibility t o abid e b y i t withou t exception . Respondent' s apparen t inabilit y o r

refiisal t o comprehen dthi s rathe r

basi c concep t

is , indeed , troubling . Th e onl y othe r

matte r Responden t

raise s ostensibl y a s mitigatio n i s tha t AS I Stewart , th e company' s principa l operation s inspector , was awar e Responden t wa s trainin g someon e els e t o b e aco-pilot/second-in-command . Whil e thi s i s true , i t isn' t mitigatin g o r

exculpatory . Contrar

y t o what Responden t

implies , it s operatio n i s not conducte di n partnershi p withth e FAA , an dth e FA A share s non e o f

th e blam e fo

r Respondent' s failur e t o abid e b y th e clearl y state dconditio n i n it s operation s specifications . Wha t Responden t

doe s no t d o i n it s closm g argumen t i s discus s th e amoun t

o f th e penalty i n term s o f th e Agency' s sanctio n guidanc e policy . Complainan t agree s tha t

th e publishe dguidanc e02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 08/0 9

call s fo r aminimu mcivi l penalt y a s oppose dt o amoderat e o r maximu mcivi l penalty , bu t a minimu mcivi l penalty i s not zer o an dResponden t

doe s not eve n attemp t

t o sho w ho w alesser petialty coul do r

shoul db e calculate dunde r th e guidance . I n summary , th e evidenc e establishe s tha t Responden t

operate dcontrar y t o Operation s Specificatio n A03 9 whe n i t use dWillia mCoo n a s th e secon din comman do n th e 1 9 flights reference di n th e complaint . A s Responden t point s ou t

i n it s closin g argument , b y doin g s o i t als o operate dcontrary t o Operation s Specificatio n A008 . Eve n i f paragrap hd(l)(b ) o f

Operatio n Specificatio n A00 8 i s interprete da s givin g Responden t a n alternative , th e alternativ e i s i n respec t t o wha t Operatio n Specificatio n A00 8 requires . It i n n o way authorize s noncomplianc e wit h Operatio n Specificatio n A039 , bu t eve n i f i t did , th e claime dexistenc e o f Respondent' s Exhibi t

4 i s not credible . Th e civi l penalt y i s wel l belo w th e amoun t Complainan t

coul dhav e sough t consisten t v^dt hth e Agency' s sanctio n guidance , an dResponden t ha s no t establishe dthat

some lesse r amoun t i s appropriate . Th e la w judg e should , therefore , fin dtha t Responden t

violate d § 119.5(1 ) a s allege dan dasses s a$280 0 civi l penalty . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 7** ^ da y o f February 2011 , HOWAR D L , MARTIN , JR . Regiona l Counse l By : 

# 2 ^ Glen n H . Brow n Senio r Attorne y02/07/201 1 13:5 4 907271280 0 FA APAG E 09/0 9

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E Re : Bus hAi r

Carg o FA A Docke t

No . CPlOALOOOl DM S No . FAA-2010-031 1 I hereb y certif

y tha t ot i thi s dat e I hav e serve dacop y o f th e Complainant' s Rebutta l Brie f b y postage-prepaid , certifie dmail , retiu n receip t requeste dt o th e following : Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 ; U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE l 2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Barto n M . Tieman , Presiden t Bus hAi r Cargo , Inc . P.O . Bo x 9314 4 Anchorage , A K

99509-314 4 I further certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e serve dth e origina l an dtw o copie s o f th e Complainant' s Rebuttal Brie f

b y postage-prepaid , certifie dmail , retur n receip t requeste dan dfacsimile , addresse da s follows : Federal 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 2W100 0 

## DATED : F'^ , 7 ^O/ l 

# € ^ -ederal Aviatio n Administratioiw' ^ ^ f Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l ^ C J 22 2 Wes t 7t hAvenue , Bo x 14 , AAL- 7 Anchorage , Alask a99513-758 7