### .R7MEN T0 SERVE D JUN E 24 , 201 1 

### -I' d'jttm i 

# M m jn o UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN TO FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . SKYWESTAIRLINES , INC .

Respondent . FA ADOCKE TNo . CP09NM001 2 (Civi l Penalt

yAction ) DM S No . FAA-2009-097

9 INITIA LDECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found ; 1 ) Responden t

violate d1 4 CF R§§119.5(g ) an d119.5(1) ; an d 2 ) Responden t

di dno t violate 1 4 CF R§121.629(c) ; 3 ) Responden t

i s hereb y assesse dacivil penalty of $40,000 . I . Backgroun d Responden t SkyWes t Airlines , Inc . ("Respondent " o r"SkyWest" ) i s a Part 12 1 ai rcarrier . I t i s on e o fth e larges t regiona l ai rcarrier s i n th e country(Tr . 15) . Th e instan t matte roriginate d wit h surveillanc e o fth e carrier' s deicin g an d anti-icin g operation s a t th e Sal t Lak e Cit yInternationa l Airpor t ("SLC" ) o n February17 , 2009 . Inspector s Jaso n Grai n an d Benjami n Blaue ro fth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA, " "agency, " o r"Complainant" ) observe d th e operations . Thei rsurveillanc e showed , accordin g t o Complainant , tha t Responden t i n severa l instance s conducte d operation s i n violatio n o fit s operation s specification s ("o p specs") . Th e Complaint , a s amended , charge s tha t Responden t violate d th e followin g FAR s (al l i n 1 4 CFR ) i n seve n instances : sectio n 119.5(g) , fo rviolatin g a n o p spec ; sectio n 119.5(1) , fo roperatin g a n aircraf t i n violatio n o fa n o p spec ; an d sectio n 121.629(c) , fo rreleasin g an d operatin g a n aircraf t withou t complyin g wit h it s approve d deice/anti-ic e program whe n condition s wer e suc h tha t frost .2 ice, or sllowwere reasonably expected to adhere to the aircraft. The agEHlcy seeks a total civil penalty of $84,000. Respondent denied liability and interposed affirmative defenses. A hearing was held on December 1 and 2, 2010, in Salt Lake City, UT. The parties have filed briefs and the matter now is ready for decision. (Complainant's Brief'" "Campi. Br."; Respondent's Brief 

# = "Resp. Br."; Complainant's Rebuttal Brief'" "Campi. Rebut.") I find and conclude that Respondent violated §§119.5(g) and 119.5(1). do not find violations of §121.629(c), and I dismiss the allegations based on that regulation. I further hold that the facts and circumstances warrant an assessment against Respondent of $40,000. II. Discussion and Findings Inspectors Crain and Blauer, who worked for the agency's Salt Lake City Certificate Management Office ("CMO"), were Complainant's witnesses. I found each to be credible. They were sincere and their testimony trustworthy. When Crain's or Blauer's testimony was inconsistent with testimony offered by another witness, I generally credited the inspector's accounts. Inspector Crain was SkyWest's assistant principal operations inspector (Tr. 13-14). He testified that he and inspector Blauer were attending a meeting at the CMO office at SLC when they realized that the weather that morning created an opportunity to inspect the carrier's deicing and anti-icing procedures. Crain described the weather conditions as intermittent light snow mixed with rain, and a temperature of 33 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit. Inspector Blauer also called the snowfall "light" (Tr. 234). The inspectors agreed that it was a day in which frost, snow, and ice might reasonably be expected to adhere to aircraft.' SkyWest's approved ground deicing and anti-icing procedures are contained in a manual known as Standard Practice ("SP") 2800. SP 2800, which is rather extensive - perhaps 250 pages -- is applicable to Respondent through the carrier's op specs. Carriers are required to follow their op specs (Exhs. C-2 and C-7; Tr. 22, 59, 69-70, 74). Deicing and anti-icing procedures are particular to the type and model of aircraft. SP 2800 obligates ground crews working on the Canadair Regional Jet

I Tr. 18-21,218,234,406. I reject SkyWest witness Tylor Lewis' characterization of the precipitation as "a significant amount of snow full." Not only was it inconsistent with the inspectors' credible testimony, but Mr. Lewis' testimony also was self-serving -- he directed the deicing/anti-icing crews (Tr. 65-66; Exh. C-I3) -- and responded to a leading question (Q. "But there was a heavy accumulation that day, was there?"). See Tr. 303.("GRJ" ) an d Embrae raircraf t a t issu e i n thi s cas e t o begi n applicatio n o fdeicin g

an d anti-icin g flui d at th e left win g tip . The yma ythe n wor k thei rwa yaroun d th e aircraf t unti l reachin g th e startin g point . Applicatio n o ffluid s t o fligh t contro l surface s mus t procee d fro m th e leadin g t o th e trailin g edg e an d fro m win g an d elevato rtip s towar d th e fuselage . Thos e ar e th e defaul t procedures . The yma y b e overridde n whe n circumstance s s o dictate . Bu t applicatio n alway s mus t begi n a t th e left win g an d fro m win g tip s unles s countermande d b yth e pilot-in comman d ("PIC" ) (Tr . 44-47 , 72-73 ; Exh . C-2 ; Exh . C-8 , p . 4) . S P 2800' s procedure s ar e designe d t o minimiz e risks t o saf e fligh t i n condition s conducive t o icing . O n thes e aircraf t th e win g ti p i s highe rtha n th e win g root . Applicatio n o fth e fluid s beginnin g a t th e win g ti p allows contaminant s t o flo wdownwar d befor e bein g washe d of fth e aircraf t surface . Applyin g fluid s startin g a t th e root , b ycontrast , woul d allo wcontaminant s t o flo wbackwar d an d retur n t o critica l surface s o fth e aircraf t (Tr . 34-35) . I fthos e fluid s wer e t o the n freeze , safet ywoul d b e imperiled . Remova l fro m th e to p dow n als o reduce s stres s o n aircraf t components. ^ Th e inspector s drov e t o a n are a nea rth e E concours e know n a s Spo t 21 . SkyWes t deicin g operation s customaril yproceede d ther e i n fiv e bays , marke d b y th e letter s Athroug h E (Exhs . C-1 , C-10 ; Tr . 29-31 , 219) . Th e official s brough t wit h the m a cop yo fth e agency' s Elemen t Performanc e Inspectio n ("EPI" ) 3.1.7 . EP I 3.1. 7 instruct s inspector s i n wha t t o observ e unde rcondition s conduciv e t o aircraf t icin g (Exh . C-4) . Additionally , the ycarrie d a n excerp t fro m th e then curren t versio n o fS P 2800 . The yals o brough t a hand-hel d radi o (Exh . C-8 , C 10 ; Tr . 29-31 , 36 , 71-72) . Th e purpos e o fth e radi o was t o monito r communication s betwee n th e ground cre wan d othe rparticipant s i n th e deicing/anti-icin g proces s suc h a s supervisor s an d th e PI C (Tr . 34 ; Exh . C-2 , p . 1) . Th e inspector s watche d th e operation s procee d o n a portio n o fa ban k o f aircraft . The yexplaine d tha t deicin g an d anti-icin g solution s hav e differen t composition s an d ar e utilize d fo rdifferen t purposes . Deicin g flui d remove s contaminants . Anti-icin g fluid , whic h i s applie d afte rdeicin g i s completed , i s designe d (lik e antifreeze ) t o inhibi t contaminan t fo ra perio d o ftim e followin g applicatio n (Tr . 47) . No t al l aircraf t ha d require d anti-icin g (Tr . 19 3 (Grain) ; Tr . 23 7 (Blauer)) . Followin g completio n o ftha t bank , th e inspector s left fo ra n are a clos e t o th e Aconcours e know n a s Spo t 3 . The ywatche d on e airplan e underg o deicin g there . Jus t short o fa n hou rlater , the yreturne d t o Spo t 2 1 an d evaluate d th e deicing/anti-icin g technique s perfomrie d o n a secon d ban k o faircraf t tha t ha d

^ Tr . 35 , 54 . Responden

t witnesse s insistedtha

t the requiremen

t t o appl y fluids starting a

t the wing tip i s designedsimpl

y to conserve fluid. Tr . 274 (Katsalis ) an d307 (Lewis) . Inspecto

r Grain' s explanation demonstrate s tha

t thi s vie w i s mistaken .arrive d a t Spo t 2 1 i n th e meantim e (Tr . 32 , 48-50 , 62-64 , 141-42 , 219 , 230-31 ;

Exh . C-1) . Inspector s Grai n an d Blaue revaluate d procedure s fo releve n SkyWes t airplane s i n tota l (Tr . 42) . Th e inspector s foun d tha t o n seve n aircraf t - al l observe d a t Spo t 2 1 - ground crew s faile d t o follo wS P 2800' s deicing/anti-icin g procedures . The y observe d wha t inspecto rBlaue rcharacterize d a s "irregula rspra ypattern s an d start locations " (Exh . G-10 ; Tr . 229) . Groun d servic e personnel , tli e inspector s said , violate d protoco l i n applyin g deicin g flui d beginnin g a t th e win g roo t an d sprayin g upwar d towar d th e win g ti p instea d o fth e othe rwa yaround . Crew s als o commence d sprayin g o fdeicin g an d anti-icin g fluid o n th e righ t win g instea d o fth e left . A t n o time , th e inspector s emphasized , di d an yflight cre wauthoriz e a deviatio n fro m standar d procedure s (Exhs . G-4 , G-5 , an d G-10 ; Tr . 42-55 , 58 , 73 , 89 , 223-25 , 235-36 ; se e als o Exh . G-2) . Th e inspector s bot h stresse d tha t SkyWes t personne l remove d an y contaminant s adherin g t o th e aircraft . The yha d observe d SkyWes t groun d crew s perfor m a "tactil e check " - physicall ytouchin g th e win g - which , the y testified , eliminate d an ytrace s o fcontaminant . Eac h aircraf t too k of fclean , the y sai d (Tr . 44 , 61 , 75 , 192-93 , 244 , 253-54 ; Exh . C-11) . Th e inspector s too k

n o actio n jus t yet . The y"verycleari y[had ] understood " tha t SkyWes t ha d no t followe d instruction s containe d i n th e S P 280 0 excerp t the yha d carrie d wit h the m (Tr . 59) . Bu t the ywer e no t certai n tha t the y ha d witnesse d FA R violations . Inspecto rGrai n testifie d tha t h e neede d t o retur n t o hi s offic e t o loo k

at th e complete , 250-pag e manual , an d possibl yexamin e th e content s o fothe rmanuals . H e als o neede d t o furthe rasses s wha t h e ha d observed . Onl ythe n woul d h e determin e whethe rh e ha d witnesse d potentia l violations . Fligh t safet ywa s no t implicate d b yhi s deliberation , h e said . Precipitatio n ha d bee n "minima l a t best " (Tr . 60) , an d eve n wit h th e "imprope r techniques " used , eac h aircraf t ultimatel yha d bee n cleane d o fcontaminant s prio rt o fligh t (Tr . 59-62 , 130 , 144) . Inspecto rGrain' s evaluatio n le d hi m t o conclud e tha t h e ha d witnesse d possibl e FA R violations . A t tha t poin t h e contacte d SkyWes t officials . H e tol d the m tha t h e ha d observe d deicing/anti-icin g technique s whic h wer e contraryt o th e carrier' s approve d program . H e informe d the m tha t th e agencywoul d proceed wit h a Lette ro fInvestigation , th e first ste p i n enforcemen t actio n (Tr . 74 , 80 , 195 ; Exh . G-9) . SkyWes t ha s attacke d th e basi s fo rth e inspectors ' conclusions . Th e carrie rshowe d tha t inspecto rGrain' s notes , whic h h e use d i n reachin g hi s conclusions , lacke d independentl ymeaningfu l description s o fhi s observations . Indeed , th e note s ar e cryptic . The ycontai n disjointe d phrases . Clearl ythe yar e difficul t fo ra disintereste d observe rt o interpre t (se e Exh . C-4) . Grai n himsel f referre d t o them a s "chicke n scratches " (Tr . 44 , 139) . I n sum , th e conclusion sinspecto rGrai n dre wwer e no t objectivel yverifiabl e fro m hi s note s (se e Resp .

Br. , pps . 2-6) . I n a relate d argument . Responden t als o faulte d inspecto rGrain' s acknowledge d failur e t o alway s documen t SkyWest' s allege d violation s o n a per aircraf t basis . Grain' s conclusion s i n certai n instance s coul d no t b e source d t o a particula raircraft. ^

SkyWes t als o criticize d inspecto rBlauer' s notes . Th e carrie r explaine d tha t Blauer' s note s di d no t specif yde-icin g violation s h e assertedl yha d foun d (Tr . 229 ; Exh . G-6 ; Resp . Br. , pp . 5-6) . Responden t conclude d tha t Complainant' s proo fmus t fai l becaus e it s witnesse s coul d no t provid e a n evidentiarychai n demonstratin g SkyWest' s responsibilit yfo rth e purporte d violations . Complainan t faile d t o sho wal l element s o fth e violation s alleged , th e carrie rargue s (Tr . 261-63) . I rejec t Respondent' s arguments . Inspecto rGrai n acknowledge d tha t h e di d no t hav e a n independen t recollectio n o fth e purporte d irregularitie s h e wrot e up . Bu t h e expresse d confidenc e i n hi s abilit yt o correctl yinterpre t hi s note s afte rreviewin g the m an d i n examinin g the m i n conjunctio n wit h othe rdocuments . An d h e fel t sur e that , a s note s contemporaneousl ywritten , the ycontaine d a n accurat e recor d o fhi s observation s (Tr . 107-12 , 139) . Whil e inspecto rGrai n was unabl e t o remembe rspecifics , hi s note s enable d hi m t o determin e th e circumstances . H e testifie d t o severa l example s o f this . Fo rexample , h e testifie d tha t th e wor d "no " i n parenthese s o n th e lin e jus t belo wth e referenc e t o airshi p 91 3 mean t tha t SkyWes t ha d no t bee n i n complianc e wit h correc t deicin g procedur e (Tr . 137 ; se e Exh . G-4 ; se e als o Tr . 11 5 (". . . there' s tw o littl e notche s [o n th e page] , meanin g 'wing. ' It' s shorthand , meanin g tha t th e de-ic e wa s - wa s starte d o n th e righ t wing , whic h i s no t correct.")) . I n anothe rinstanc e h e wa s unabl e t o recal l whethe rSkyWes t ha d employe d on e truc k

o rtw o t o appl yth e fiuids, bu t hi s note s suggeste d th e answe r(Tr . 117-20) . I n sfil l another , h e coul d confidentl yconclud e tha t th e PI G di d no t overrid e th e groun d crews ' procedur e becaus e hi s note s sai d nothin g abou t th e PI G (Tr . 120) . Similarly , inspecto rBlaue r- wh o als o acknowledge d tha t h e di d no t independentl yrecollec t hi s observation s ~ testifie d that , whil e h e wa s unabl e t o remembe rwhethe rh e ha d hear d an yinstruction s fro m th e PIC , h e conclude d tha t h e ha d no t becaus e o fth e absenc e o fsuc h a statemen t i n hi s note s (Tr . 235-36 ; se e als o Tr . 238-40) . Respondent' s contenfio n essentiall yi s on e whic h question s th e credibilit y o fComplainant' s witnesses . A s suc h i t fails . I hav e foun d tha t inspector s Grai n an d Blaue reac h wer e credibl e (I.D. , p . 2) . Thei revidenc e was trustworth ybot h

^ See Tr . 98-99 , 103 , 108-10 . Inspecto r Blauer' s note s notedviolation s b y aircraf t tail number . Exh . C-6 ; Tr . 220-25 .i n th e sens e tha t I foun d them eac h t o b e sincer e an d truthful , an d i n th e sens e

tha t I find tha t the ycould , an d did , dra wlogica l an d credibl e conclusion s fro m thei rnotes . Th e abilit yo fa thir d part yt o deciphe ran d drawindependen t conclusion s fro m Grain' s "chicke n scratches " o rfro m Blauer' s note s i s irrelevan t t o th e reliabilit yo fth e inspectors ' conclusions . Wha t i s german e i s tha t th e makers o fth e note s coul d deciphe rthem , an d di d so . Th e fac t tha t Grai n somefime s coul d no t mak e sens e o fhi s note s withou t referrin g t o othe r documentatio n als o ha s n o bearin g o n th e trustworthines s o fhi s conclusions . Grai n i n particular , moreover , ha s ha d a grea t dea l o fexperienc e i n evaluatin g deicing/anti-icin g operations ; h e testifie d tha t h e ha d "a n extensiv e background " i n tha t area . H e ha s performe d thi s typ e o fexercis e man ytinies . H e wa s th e go t o expert withi n th e GM O (Tr . 146-48) . Grain' s experienc e lend s furthe rsupport t o th e trustworthines s o fhi s conclusions . I n thes e circumstances , I credi t th e inspectors ' conclusions . Th e preponderanc e o fth e reliabl e an d probativ e evidenc e showed , I conclude , tha t SkyWes t violate d it s procedure s respecfin g seve n aircraf t i n th e manne rtestifie d t o b yComplainant' s witnesses . I n vie wo fth e foregoing , I find an d conclude tha t SkyWes t faile d t o follo w it s deicing/anti-icing manual , S P 2800 , o n seve n occasions . B ys o doing , th e carrie rdi d no t hono rit s o p specs . Suc h conduc t constitute s a violatio n o fFA R sectio n 119.5(g ) (se e I.D. , p . 1) . I furthe rfind an d conclud e tha t Responden t als o violate d FA R sectio n 119.5(1 ) i n operatin g eac h o fthes e aircraf t i n violatio n o fa n o p spe c(se e Tr . 75) . Complainan t als o asserte d tha t SkyWes t violate d FA R §121.629(c) , bu t I declin e t o mak e tha t finding. Thi s provision , whic h bar s th e releas e an d operatio n o fa n aircraf t whic h i s ou t o fcomplianc e wit h th e carrier' s deice/anti-ic e program , prohibit s essentiall yth e sam e behavio ra s §119.5(1) . Findin g multipl e violafion s originatin g i n th e sam e transgressiv e conduc t generall yshoul d b e avoided . Se e Pau l A . Carr , FAAOrde rNo . 98- 2 (Marc h 12 , 1998) . I se e n o reaso n t o mak e a n exceptio n t o tha t principl e i n thi s case . A s such , I find seve n violation s o f§119.5(g ) an d seve n o f§119.5(1 ) only." * Responden t nonetheles s stresse d that , eve n i fComplainan t showe d tha t ground personne l spraye d deicin g an d anfi-icin g fiuids i n th e manne ralleged , th e agenc yfaile d t o prov e th e charges . Method s use d othe rtha n thos e specifie d i n S P 280 0 di d no t necessaril yamoun t t o FA R violations , th e carrie rpointe d out . Groun d personne l (a s ha s bee n seen ) ha d som e discrefio n t o deviat e fro m regula rspra ypatterns . S P 280 0 allowe d crew s t o spra yupward , o rroo t t o tip , i n certai n circumstance s (Exh . C-8 , p . 4,1|B.14 ; Tr . 121-22 , 253) . Responden t wa s abl e t o postulat e situation s i n whic h SkyWes t woul d hav e conducte d operation s

Inot e als o tha t theagenc y determine

dits penalt y recommendationbasedo

ntwo violation s an

dnot o nthe three charged . Se

e I.D. , p . 9 .consisten t wit h inspecto rGrain' s note s suggestin g a violation , ye t woul d hav e

proceede d correctly. ^ Bu t inspecto rGrai n countere d tha t th e manua l applicable t o thes e aircraf t requir e crew s i n al l situafion s t o start a t th e win g tip , unles s countermande d b y th e PI G (Tr . 182-83 , 185 ; I.D. , p . 3) . Crew s "don' t hav e discretio n jus t t o g o start a t th e root " (Tr . 188) . Permissibl e deviafion s fro m thi s techniqu e woul d hav e occurre d onl yafte rinitia l de - an d anti-icing . An d SkyWest' s root-to-ti p violation s involve d initia l spraying . I n an yeven t Grai n di d no t observ e an ysituatio n whic h migh t hav e prompte d deviation . On e suc h situafio n whic h migh t hav e justifie d deviation , fo rexample , coul d hav e bee n a sno weven t i n whic h precipitatio n ble w contaminant s fro m th e left win g t o th e right . Tha t woul d hav e warrante d sprayin g o n th e right win g befor e applyin g fluid t o th e left . Anothe rscenari o migh t hav e involve d contaminant s penetratin g th e cavitie s byth e roo t area . Tha t woul d hav e require d fluid applicatio n a t th e roo t befor e th e tip , th e opposit e o fth e manual' s command . Bu t inspecto rGrai n di d no t observ e an ysuc h situation . Precipitafio n simpl yha d bee n to o ligh t fo ran ysuc h scenari o t o occu r(Tr . 122-31 , 188-89 , 407-08) . Responden t als o interpose d a n affirmativ e defense . I n failin g t o infor m th e carrie ra t a n eariie rpracticabl e momen t tha t agenc yinspector s ha d see n possibl e violation s o fS P 2800 , agenc yinspector s ha d violate d provision s o f Orde r2150.3B , Responden t charged . Th e inspector s ha d observe d th e secon d ban k o fflights ou t o fSpo t 2 1 abou t a n hou rafte rth e en d o fth e first ban k an d stil l ha d no t contacte d SkyWest . The yha d compile d fou rcharge s at th e secon d go aroun d - charge s whic h earlie rnotificatio n migh t hav e avoided . SkyWes t pointe d ou t tha t Orde r2150.3 B direct s FAAenforcemen t personne l t o infor m responsibl e ai rcarrie rofficial s o fa potenfia l ongoin g violation . Th e policyi s designe d t o preven t th e violatio n fro m continuin g an d t o forestal l th e unwarrante d accumulatio n o fadditiona l penalfies . Agenc ydelay s als o ma yde-emphasiz e th e seriousnes s o fa violation . Failin g t o follo wit s ow n procedure s an d allowin g SkyWes t t o amas s additiona l potentia l violation s befor e notificatio n amount s t o arbitraryan d capriciou s behavio rwarrantin g foreclosur e o fenforcemen t action , Responden t asserte d (Tr . 267-68) . Inspecto rGrai n countere d that , followin g hi s observatio n o fth e first bank , th e questio n o fpotentia l SkyWes t violation s ha d no t bee n clear-cut : h e believe d i t necessaryt o retur n t o hi s offic e an d revie wth e situatio n afte rcompletin g al l o f hi s surveillanc e i n orde rt o b e sure . A s h e pu t it , "w e sfil l ha d som e homewor k t o do " (Tr . 62 ; se e I.D. , p . 4) . Th e inspector s ha d planne d t o consul t no t onl yth e complet e S P 280 0 manual , bu t other s use d b yth e carrier , suc h a s th e relevan t

' Resp . Br. , pp . 6-7 . SkyWes t showe dtha t i ninstance s i

nwhic hinspecto r Cra mha dindicatedtha

t the carrie r ha dunlawflill

y sprayedroot

to tip , i t was possibletha

t crew s ha dstartedde-icing onthe left, correct , sid e of the airplane , an

dafte r sno w an diceha daccumulatedo

nthe ftiselage, neededt

o spra y root to tip o n the righ t sid e becaus eprecipitationha

dgotte ntrappedi nanotchbehin

dthe engine . Thi s patter

nof spraying wouldhave constitutedcorrect procedur e unde r thos e circumstances . Tr . 136 ; se e als o Tr . 234 .GR J an d Embrae rmanuals . Grai n testifie d that , onc e h e determine d tha t th e

deviation s fro m procedur e h e ha d observe d possibl yamounte d t o FA R violations , h e notifie d carrie rofficials . H e insiste d tha t h e informe d SkyWes t official s o fth e carrier' s potentia l violation s i n a fimelymanne r(Tr . 61-62 , 68 , 151 - 72 , 241-49) . Inspecto rBlauer' s testimon ywa s t o simila reffect . H e agree d tha t a carrie rshoul d b e notifie d o fpotentia l violation s promptl y(Tr . 249) . H e concede d tha t perhap s eariie rnotificatio n i n thi s matte rwoul d hav e bee n wise r"wit h twenty/twent yhindsight " (Tr . 247 ; se e als o Tr . 249) . Bu t "[w] e weren' t absolutel y sur e wha t w e had . W e wante d t o b e sure.. . An d onc e w e ha d go t bac k t o th e offic e an d realize d wha t w e had, " Blaue rtestified , SkyWes t personne l wer e notifie d (Tr . 249-50) . Inspecto rGrai n als o defende d hi s action s b ynofin g that , withou t safet y issue s - an d non e wer e presen t ~ h e di d no t wan t t o chanc e freezin g SkyWes t operations . Th e carrie rmigh t hav e reacte d t o notificatio n o fa possibl e proble m followin g th e first ban k

o fflights b yhalfin g it s operafion s completel yi n orde rt o deal wit h th e situatio n (Tr . 208-09) . Grai n pointe d ou t tha t th e sanctio n guidanc e handboo k

(Orde r2150.3B ) instruct s FAApersonne l t o analyz e th e evidenc e gathere d befor e decidin g whethe ri t prove s a violatio n (Tr . 211-12 ; Exh . C-12) . Inspecto rBlaue rtestifie d als o tha t agenc yinspector s d o no t wan t t o divert attentio n awa yfro m othe rcritica l acfivitie s tha t a carrie rmigh t b e undertakin g (Tr . 243) . I find tha t th e acfion s o finspector s Grai n an d Blaue rwer e reasonabl e unde rth e circumstances . Th e behavio ro fth e inspector s neithe rindividuall yno r i n tande m warrant s th e conclusio n tha t the ybehave d i n a n arbitraryan d capriciou s manne ro ri n an yothe rfashio n whic h woul d warran t dismissa l o f Complainant' s charges . Respondent' s affirmativ e defens e mus t fail . Th e inspector s i n fac t followe d th e instruction s an d policie s o fOrde r 2150.3B . The yha d wante d t o b e sur e tha t the yha d witnesse d potentiall y violativ e conduc t befor e informin g SkyWest . The ywer e conductin g thei rrevie w agains t th e backgroun d tha t a prematur e warnin g migh t hav e worke d a significant , an d needless , disruptio n t o th e carrier' s operations . Hindsigh t suggest s tha t th e inspector s migh t hav e notifie d SkyWes t prio rt o thei rsecon d tou ra t Spo t 21 , an d thu s migh t hav e observe d fewe rpotentia l FA R violation s - bu t matter s canno t b e fairi yevaluate d i n hindsight . A s matter s actuall yunfolded , suc h a cours e migh t hav e seeme d rash . Th e inspectors ' behavior , I find, wa s characterize d b ycar e an d prudence . I t amounte d t o n o mor e tha n carryin g ou t th e handbook' s instructio n t o carefull yevaluat e th e evidence befor e reachin g conclusions . Ther e i s n o issu e concernin g th e effec t o fth e inspectors ' failur e t o follo w thei rinstructions , becaus e th e premis e o fth e argumen t i s incorrect . Th einspector s acte d i n accordanc e wit h thei rguidelines . I conclud e tha t th e action s

o fth e inspector s d o no t warran t overturnin g o rnegatin g thei rfindings. Respondent' s affirmativ e defens e i s rejected . Al l othe rargument s mad e hav e bee n considere d an d ar e rejecte d withou t commen t a s lackin g merit. ^ Respondent' s motio n fo rrelie ft o file a rebutta l i n support o fit s affirmativ e defense s als o i s denied . III . Penalt y A . Factor s Complainan t i s obligate d t o conside rth e followin g factor s whe n determinin g a n appropriat e civi l penalt yamount : (1 ) th e natur e an d circumstance s o fth e violation ; (2 ) th e exten t an d gravit yo fth e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o fculpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s historyo fprio rviolations , i fany ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit yt o pa yth e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec t o n th e entity' s abilit yt o sta yi n business ; an d (7 ) othe rmatter s a s justic e mayrequire . See , e.g. , Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , 200 8 W L4948488 , p . 11 . Th e determinatio n weigh s whethe rth e violatio n wa s inadverten t o rdeliberate , th e privat e o rpubli ccharacte ro fth e violation , an d th e attitud e o fth e violator . Th e agenc yals o consider s th e respondent' s size , particularl yi n determinin g th e offender' s abilit yt o absor b th e sanction . Th e principa l element s i n thi s analysi s ar e th e natur e o fth e respondent' s conduc t an d th e totalit yo fth e circumstances . Easter n Ai rCenter , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 2008- 3 (January28 , 2008) . Finally , th e civi l penalt yshoul d provid e sufficien t incentiv e t o dete rth e responden t an d similarly-situate d entitie s fro m futur e violations . Folsom' s Ai rSen/ice , Inc. , Id. , p . 20 . Th e Administrato rha s provide d polic yguidanc e fo ragenc yemployee s t o follo wwhe n recommendin g a n appropriat e civi l penalty . I t ha s publishe d penalt y guidelines . Th e guidelines , containe d i n FAAOrde r2150.3B , an d excerpte d i n Exhibi t G-12 , asses s al l relevan t statutorycriteria , includin g mitigatin g an d aggravatin g circumstances . Th e guideline s ai d Complainant' s penalt y determinatio n throug h a sanctio n guidanc e matrix . Th e matri xset s ou t specifi c penalt yrange s fo reac h input , cross-referencin g suc h factor s a s th e natur e o fth e * Just on e wee k prior t o the surveillance a

t issue , anothe

r agenc y inspector, Joa

nPeterson , ha

dobserved SkyWest' s deicing an

danti-icing operation s an

dals o ha dnotedpossible violations . Inspecto r Peterson' s findings wer

e unknow nto inspectors Grai

nan dBlaue r an dto SkyWes

t a t the tim e of the inspectors ' evaluation . Tr . 213,250 . He r observation s becam

epar t of a nenforcemen

t matte r i nwhic hthe agency an

d SkyWest reachedasettlement . Responden t contendedtha

t thes e circumstance s constitut e additiona

l evidence tha

t the agency unfairl

y faile dt o notif y i t o f possibleviolative behavio

r a t a nearlie r juncture . I reject thi s argument . Th

e evidence show s tha

t no on e i ntheagenc

y wa s i napositionto disclos e inspecto r Peterson' s finding s prior

to the surveillanc eunde

r review . See Tr . 319-20 . Since SkyWest ha dbee n unawar e o f inspector Peterson' s finding s a

t tha t point , Ihavenot

consideredthe matte

r i nm y penalt y determination .responden t an d th e natur e an d exten t o fth e har m produced . Complainant' s

sanctio n determinatio n nevertheles s doe s no t merel yreflect a fixe d mathematica l computation . No ri s th e numbe ro fFA R violation s o fthemselve s a n importan t consideration . Derivin g a n assessmen t simpl yb ymultiplyin g th e numbe ro f violation s time s th e penalt yrecommende d pe rsanctio n coul d resul t i n a fine disproportionatel ysevere . Warbelow' s Ai rVentures , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 2000- 3 (February3 , 2000) , pp . 20-21 , pet . forreconsid . den. . Orde rNo . 2000-1 4 (Jun e 8 , 2000) ; se e als o Tr . 177 . Th e sanctio n guidanc e matri xi s intende d t o indicat e th e Administrator' s "genera l views " abou t th e civi l penalt yrange s appropriat e fo r differen t type s o fviolations . Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , p . 13 . No rar e th e guideline s binding . Eac h situation , bein g dependen t o n s o man yvariables , i s unique . "Evaluatio n o fth e case, " th e FAAha s emphasized , "i s base d o n th e totalit yo fth e fact s an d circumstances." ^ A n administrativ e la wjudg e ("ALJ" ) i s no t require d t o follo wthes e guidelines . The yar e intende d fo ragenc ypersonnel , an d ALJ s ar e no t agenc y personnel . ALJ s mak e decision s independently , an d th e AL J determine s (subjec t t o agencyreview ) whethe ra civi l penalt yi s t o b e assessed , an d i fso , i n wha t amount . Th e guideline s nonetheles s mus t b e respecte d a s a n expressio n o fagenc ysanctio n policy . The yrepresen t a n effort t o produc e consisten t result s i n simila rcases . Th e Administrato rha s asserte d th e powe rt o impos e th e agency' s sanctio n policyo n appea l i fa n AL J assesse s a civi l penalt ytha t i s no t consisten t wit h th e policy . Warbelow' s Ai rVentures , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 2000- 3 (February3 , 2000) , p . 20 ; Northwes t Airlines , FAAOrde rNo . 1990-3 7 (Novembe r7 , 1990) , pp . 8-10 . 

### B . Complainant' s Positio n Complainan t ha s aske d fo ra levyo f$84,000 . I t bear s th e burde n o f provin g th e appropriatenes s o fthi s amoun t bya preponderanc e o fth e evidence . Whil e th e Complainan t charge d Responden t wit h thre e FA R violations , it s sanctio n recommendatio n i s base d o n tw o (Tr . 90 ; se e discussio n i n I.D. , p . 6) . Inspecto rGrai n testifie d tha t SkyWest , a s a Part 12 1 carrie rwit h annua l operatin g revenue s greate rtha n $10 0 million , i s classifie d unde rth e agency' s guideline s a s a larg e busines s concer n (Tr . 85-86 ; Exh . C-12 , p . 4) . Th e agenc y considere d th e o p spe cviolation s a s "technica l noncompliance, " placin g th e suggeste d civi l penalt yi n th e "minimum " category- a t leas t $2,00 0 bu t n o greate rtha n $9,99 9 pe rinfraction . Th e midpoin t o ftha t rang e i s $6,00 0 (Exh . C 12 , p . 4 ; Tr . 87-88) . Th e recommende d assessmen t fo rviolator s o fdispatc h an d flight releas e rule s i s "moderat e t o maximum " - translatin g t o $10,000-$25,00 0 fo ra larg e busines s concer n (Exh . C-12 , pp . 4 , 6 ; Tr . 88-89) .

^ Th e guidelines . Appendi

x C to FA AOrde r 2150.3B , ma

y b efoun da t the FAA' s we

b site , www.faa.gov . or , mor e specifically , a

t www.faa.gov/documentLibrarv/media/Order/ND/2150.3B.pd f1 1 Th e agenc yderive d it s propose d civi l penalt yb ymultiplyin g th e tota l numbe ro fviolation s i t ha s asserte d fo rpenalt ypurposes , fourtee n (seve n violativ e aircraf t times tw o violation s pe raircraft) , times th e amoun t i n th e middl e o fth e "minimum " categoryrang e o flarg e busines s concern s o f$6,000 . I t determine d tha t aggravatin g circumstance s wer e presen t becaus e th e infraction s wer e operationa l an d th e violativ e procedure s wer e "careless. " Additiona l aggravatin g factor s wer e tha t th e flights wer e carryin g passengers ; th e agenc y discovere d th e infractions , no t th e carrier ; an d SkyWes t ha d ha d eariie rde-icin g violation s (Tr . 91-94) . O n th e othe rhand , mitigatio n was suggeste d b yth e fac t tha t th e precipitatio n tha t da yha d bee n "verylight " (Tr . 92) . Th e resultin g recommendatio n o f$84,00 0 i n effec t balance d aggravatin g an d mitigatin g factor s (Tr . 90-91) . Th e penalt ysuggeste d work s ou t t o $12,00 0 pe rairplan e (Tr . 174 - 75) . 

### C . Respondent' s Positio n SkyWest , i n mitigatio n o fpenalty , state d tha t it s officials , onc e notified , responde d immediatel yan d comprehensivel y(Tr . 272-73 , 293) . I t asserte d tha t it s crew s hav e followe d th e manual' s instruction s withou t fai l sinc e the n (Tr . 292) . Responden t als o pointe d ou t tha t on e o fth e historica l violation s cite d b y Complainan t i n it s penalt ycalculatio n wa s fo rusin g a n untraine d person . A s such , i t wa s unlik e th e presen t matter . Complainan t ma yno t therefor e fairi y sugges t tha t a n aggravatin g facto ri n th e determinatio n o fa n appropriat e assessmen t i s th e carrier' s violatio n history(Tr . 199-202) . Further , a s note d eariier . Responden t contend s tha t th e propose d penalt y result s a t leas t i n part fro m addin g i n violation s whic h coul d hav e bee n disclose d t o th e carrie reariier . A s such , i t argues , th e propose d penalt yi s unfai ran d offend s du e proces s (Tr . 315 ; Resp . Br. , p . 11) . Finally , th e carrie rassert s that , eve n i fproven , thes e violation s warran t a lesse rpenalt ybecaus e the ywer e "highl ytechnical. " The yha d n o impac t o n safet y(Tr . 268) . 

### D . Decisio n I wil l asses s a civi l penalt yo f$40,000 . B yhabituall yaccomplishin g it s deicin g an d anti-icin g operation s a t varianc e wit h prope rprocedure , SkyWes t courte d peril . Fortunatel yprecipitatio n tha t da yha d bee n ligh t an d contaminant s wer e abl e t o b e completel yremove d wit h relativ e ease . Ha d precipitatio n bee n heavie ro rmor e continuous , th e carrier' s method s coul d hav e expose d passenger s an d cre wt o unthinkabl e danger . Imprope rdeicin g a s a direc t caus e o faircraf t accident s ha s bee n wel l1 2

documented. ^

I n thes e circumstances . Respondent' s conduc t warrant s a significan t penalty . O n th e othe rhand , th e evidenc e showe d tha t eac h o fth e aircraf t too k of f clean . Neve rwas an yactua l dange rpresent . Additionally , whil e th e agency' s failur e t o notifyth e carrie ro fit s apparentl yviolativ e behavio ra t eariie r opportunitie s doe s no t ba renforcemen t actio n o ra civi l penalty , I find tha t i t i s a circumstanc e justifyin g mitigation . Th e carrie rcorrecte d th e proble m followin g notificatio n an d ha s no t bee n cite d sinc e (Tr . 207) . Th e evidenc e suggest s tha t i t likel ywoul d hav e rectifie d it s imprope rprocedure s wheneve rwarne d - s o i t woul d hav e avoide d th e citation s i t receive d resultin g fro m th e inspectors ' secon d observatio n a t Spo t 21 . Complainant' s penalt ycalculu s di d no t accoun t fo rthi s circumstance . Additiona l mitigatio n als o i s suggeste d b yth e fac t tha t Responden t showe d tha t it s eariie rviolativ e behavio rcite d b yComplainan t a s a n aggravatin g circumstanc e actuall ywas o fa differen t characte rtha n th e infraction s whic h concer n u s today . I n weighin g th e al l th e fact s an d circumstances , I conclud e tha t Complainant' s propose d assessmen t simpl yi s no t warranted . I t i s excessive . I hav e determine d tha t a civi l penalt yo f$40,00 0 i s fitting . Thi s amoun t appropriatel yreflect s th e natur e an d exten t o fth e ris k t o ai rtransportatio n safet y pu t i n motio n b yth e SkyWest , whil e givin g prope rweigh t t o othe rsalien t factors . Th e assessmen t als o i s designe d t o achiev e deterrenc e an d promot e complianc e wit h th e HMRs . I t wil l hel p persuad e th e carrie rt o continu e t o achiev e complianc e specificall ywit h deicin g an d anti-icin g procedures . I find tha t th e civi l penalt yappropriatel yaccount s fo rth e factor s th e statut e an d agenc ypolic y direct s i n fixin g th e assessment .

' T o cit e on e of man y example s tha

t couldbe given , theNationa l TransportationSafet

y Boar dblamedthe crashshortl

y afte r takeof f o f aContinenta

l Airline s Denver-Bois e fligh t o nNovembe

r 15 , 1987 , whic

h resultedi n2 8 fatalities , o

n"the captain' s failur

e to have the airplan

e deicedasecon

dtim e afte r adela y befor e takeof f tha t ledt o uppe r win g surfacecontaminationan

dalos s o f control during rapi dtakeof

f rotationb y thefirst officer. " Se

e NTS B Numbe

r AAR-88/09 a

t vyvyw.ntsb.gov.1 3 SkyWes t Airiines , Inc . i s hereb yassesse d a civi l penalt yo f$40,00 0 fo r violation s o fFA R §§119.5(g ) an d 119.5(1 ) a s discusse d herein . Th e remainde ro f th e Complain t i s dismissed. '

Cichar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic eLis t

' Thi s decisio nmay b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r o f th e FAA . Th e notic e o f

appeal mus t

conformt o section s 13.210 , 13.211(e ) an d13.23 3 o f th e Rule s o f

Practice , whic hrequir e that anotic eo f

appea l 1 ) b e filedno t late r than1 0 day s (plu s anadditiona l five day s i f mailed ) fromth eservic edat e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfecte dwithawritte nbrie f o r memorandu mno t

later than5 0 day s (plu s a

nadditiona l five, i f mailed ) fromth e servic e date o f thi s decision . Th enotic e o f appeal an dbrie f

o r memorandu mmus t

eithe r b e a ) maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 80 0 Independenc eAvenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Atta : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , o r b ) delivere d personall y o r

vi aexpedite dcourie r

servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r

Wrigh t Building—Suite 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . Acop y o f th e notic e o f

appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mals o mus t

b e sen t t o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo nth e presidin g judg e i s optional .FA ADocke t No . CP09NM001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc eAvenue , 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 ToddC . Emerson , Responden t '5 Counse l Director , Governmen t

andLegal Affair s SkyWes t Airline s 44 4 Sout hRiver Roa d Lit . George , U T8479 0 TEL : 435-634-353 0 FAX : 435-634-350 5 Scot t R . Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic eo f

th eRegional Counse l Northwes t

Mountai nRegion , ANM- 7 Federal Aviatio nAdminisj;ratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl eRichar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i nperso no r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2 W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk . AGC-430.