U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N PFOp!\/pP i FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N F^iU-V^B— 3 ^ - '^i j WASHINGTON , D,C . ^^ ^ ' ' ^^^ ' 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T FA ADocke t No . CP10CE000 3 DM S No . FAA-2010-002 5 Ora l Argument s Requested'fr l e n — 1 

### V r r

. : • .[= • 

# s m sg ^ O""'
- I N TH E MATTE R O F GOJE TAIRLINES , LL C (V D GEA R PINS )
APPELLANT' S APPEA L BRIE F

T O TH E FA ADECISIONMAKE R COME S NO WRespondent/Appellan t GoJe t Airline s LL C (hereafte r"GoJet" ) by an d throug h it s undersigne d Counse l an d hereb ysubmit s thi s Appea l Brie fpursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(d ) t o th e FA ADecisionmake ri n connectio n wit h it s appea l o fth e Initia l Decisio n o fAdministrativ e LawJudg e Richar d C . Goodwi n issue d May20 , 201 1 i n regard s t o th e abov e captione d matte r(hereafte r"Initia l Decision") . 

### I . STATEMEN T O F TH E CAS E AN D REQUES T FO R ORA L ARGUMENT S Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereafte rth e "FAA" ) initiate d thi s enforcemen t actio n agains t GoJe t o n o rabou t Februar y16 , 2010 . Th e FA

Aallege d tha t GoJe t violate d th e § 43.13(a ) byvirtu e o f§ 43.13(c) , § 93.13(a ) an d § 121.153(a ) o fth e Federa l Ai rRegulation s ("FARs" ) base d upo n th e fac t tha t GoJet' s contracte d maintenanc e personne l installe d loc k pin s a/k/ a gea rpin s i n GoJet' s aircraf t N151GJ' s mai n landing'gea rwhil e replacin g th e aircraft' s numbe rtw o brak e assembl ybu t the n faile d t o remov e th e gea rpin s an d faile d t o make th e require d logboo k entrystatin g "landin g gea rpi n installed , remov e befor e flight" . Th e FA Arequeste d tha t thi s Cour tente ra n orde rassessin g GoJe t a civi l penalt yi n th e amoun t o f$33,00 0 fo rth e allege d

violations . GoJe t file d it s Answe rdenyin g th e allegation s an d assertin g certai n affirmativ e defense s includin g th e defens e tha t th e FAA' s action s i n rescindin g it s acceptanc e o fGoJet' s voluntarydisclosur e mad e i n accordanc e wit h th e Voluntary Disclosur e Reportin g Progra m ("VDRP" ) violate d th e FAA' s ow n publishe d guidanc e documen t an d therefor e constitute d arbitraryan d capriciou s action . Ahearin g wa s hel d o n Augus t 25 , 201 0 i n St . Louis , Missouri . Followin g th e submissio n o fpos t hearin g brief s b yth e parties , AL J Goodwi n issue d hi s Initia l Decisio n o n May20 , 201 1 findin g tha t GoJe t ha d violate d §§43.13(c) , 91.13(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2 ) o fFAR s an d assessin g a civi l penalt yo f$18,00 0 fo rthes e violations . GoJe t timel yfile d it s Notic e o fAppea l o fthi s decisio n o n Ma y26 , 2011 . O n Jun e 30 , 2011 a n orde rextendin g th e tim e t o fil e thi s brie funti l Augus t 11 , 201 1 wa s serve d o n th e parties . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(h) , GoJe t i s requestin g ora l argument s o n thi s matte rbefor e th e FA Adecisionmaker . II . SPECIFI C OBJECTION S T O TH E INTIA L DECISIO N

AN D BASI S FO R APPEA L GoJe t specificall yobject s t o th e Initia l Decisio n o n th e followin g ground s an d basis : 1 . Th e ALJ' s finding s o ffac t an d conclusio n o flawtha t th e FA Aprove d a violatio n o f§ 121.153(a)(2 ) i s no t supporte d b ya preponderanc e o fth e evidence an d i s no t i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicy . Specificall yth e weigh t o fth e evidenc e a t th e hearin g establishe d tha t th e aircraf t i n questio n coul d b e operate d i n a saf e manne rwit h gea rpin s installed . Further , ther e wa s n o evidence othe r tha n mer e speculatio n tha t th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unsaf e conditio n a t th e tim e o fth e allege d violation . Thi s evidenc e i s no t sufficien t fo rth e FA At o sustai n it s burden .2 . Th e ALJ' s finding s o ffac t an d conclusio n o fla wtha t a findin g o fa violatio n o f§ 91.13(a ) follow s a s a residua l violatio n onc e th e fac t o ftha t a n unairworth yviolatio n ha s bee n establishe d i s no t supporte d bya preponderanc e ofth e evidenc e an d i s no t i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicy . Specificall yfo rth e reason s specifie d i n # 1 above , th e preponderanc e o fth e evidenc e di d no t suppor t a findin g o f a violatio n o f121.153(a) . Further , extraordinarycircumstance s exis t whic h support a conclusio n tha t a findin g o fcareles s an d reckles s operatio n i s no t warranted . 3 . Th e ALJ' s finding s o ffac t an d conclusion s o flawi n findin g tha t FAA' s action s i n rejectin g GoJet' s voluntar ydisclosur e an d institutin g thi s enforcemen t actio n wer e no t arbitrar yan d capriciou s i s no t supporte d bya preponderanc e o fth e evidenc e an d I s no t i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicy . Specificall yth e Principa l Maintenanc e Inspector' s unilatera l action s I n rescindin g th e voluntarydisclosur e mad e b yGoJe t withou t notic e deprive d GoJe t o fth e righ t t o exercis e it s optio n t o elevat e th e disagreemen t ove rth e propose d comprehensiv e fi xt o th e nex t leve l o fmanagemen t withi n th e FA Aa s th e FAA' s ow n publishe d guidanc e document s provid e fo rwhic h constitute s a n arbitraryan d capriciou s actio n an d a violatio n o fpubli cpolicy . DISCUSSIO N A . STANDAR D O F REVIE W Excep t i n th e cas e o fa n affirmativ e defense , th e agenc ycarrie s th e burde n o f proo ft o prov e it s cas e b ya preponderanc e o freliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence . (1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.23 3 an d 13.224 ) Apartyma yappea l th e followin g Issue s t o th e FA

Adecisionmaker : (1 ) Whethe reac h findin g o ffac t i s supporte d bya preponderanc e o fth e evidence ; (2 ) Whethe reac h conclusio n o flawI s mad e I n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , preceden t an d policy ; an d (3 ) Whethe rth e AL J committe d an yprejudicia l error s durin g th e hearin g tha t support th e appeal . (4 9 C.F.R . § 1503.657 ) Th e FA

Adecisio n make rmayaffinn , modify , o rrevers e th e initia l decision , mak e an ynecessaryfindings , o rma yreman d th e cas e fo ran yproceeding s tha t th e FAAdecisionmake rdetemiine s ma yb e necessary . (1 4 CF R 13.233(j) ) 3B . ARGUMEN T

1 . Th e Findin g o fa Violatio n o f§ 121.153(a)(2)-Operatin g a n Aircraf t I n a n Unairworth yConditio n - Becaus e A n Aircraf t Wit h a Gearpi n Installe d i n Erro rI s No t I n a Conditio n fo rSaf e Operatio n i s No t Supporte d B yth e Preponderanc e o fth e Evidenc e an d No t i n Accordanc e wit h Applicabl e Law , Preceden t an d Publi cPolicy . I n hi s Initia l Decisio n AL J Goodwi n foun d tha t "th e agency[also ] prove d tha t GoJe t violate d §121.153(a)(2)-operatin g a n aircraf t I n a n unairworth ycondition becaus e a n aircraf t wit h a lockpln ^ installe d i n erro ri s no t i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation. " (Initia l Decisio n a t 5 ) § 121.153(a ) provide s i n relevan t part tha t n o certificat e holde rmayoperat e a n aircraf t unles s tha t aircraft... (2 ) i s i n airworth y conditio n an d meet s th e applicabl e airworthines s requirement s o fthi s chapter . Includin g thos e relatin g t o identificatio n an d equipment . A s note d byAL J Goodwin , t o b e airworthy , a n aircraf t mus t 1 ) confor m t o a typ e o fdesig n approve d unde ra typ e certificat e o rsupplementa l certificat e an d t o Applicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d 2 ) b e i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation . (Initia l Decisio n at 5 ; citin g America n Ai rNetwork , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 0 (Octobe r7 , 2008)) . I n support o fhi s conclusio n tha t GoJe t di d no t operat e th e aircraf t I n a saf e condition , AL J Goodwi n cite d t o testimon y whic h showe d tha t th e aircraf t riske d returnin g fro m flight wit h a greate ramoun t o ffue l tha n norma l whic h coul d lea d t o a n unreasonabl e ris k o faccident . (Initia l Decisio n at 5 ; citin g Tr . 29) . Thi s finding o ffac t wa s no t supporte d bya preponderanc e o fth e evidence .

^ I n hi s Initia l Decision , A U Goodwi n refer s t o a "lockpin" . Th e tria l transcrip t an d exhibit s refe rt o "gea rpins" . Fo r th e purpose s o fclarificatio n thes e ar e referrin g t o th e sam e thin g an d thi s brie f\Nil l us e th e tern ^ "gea rpin(s)" .At th e hearing , th e FAA' s ow n witness , GoJet' s Principa l Maintenanc e Inspecto r

Gar yCooper , testifie d regardin g th e implication s o fhavin g a gea rpi n Installe d I n th e aircraft . Coope rtestifie d tha t havin g th e gea rpi n installe d would : "affect th e aircraf t a s fa ra s th e weigh t restrictio n tha t shoul d hav e bee n impose d upo n th e aircraf t fo rtakin g of fwit h th e gearpin s in . I n thi s cas e i t require d th e aircraf t t o retur n fro m flight wit h mor e fue l tha n wha t i t woul d normall ylan d with . It' s a possibilit ytha t anothe rlanding , --anothe r possibilit yfo ra n acciden t t o happe n landin g overweigh t possibly. " (Tr . 29:3-12 ) Ye t i n hi s ver

ynext response . Coope rhimsel ftestifie d tha t th e aircraf t ca n flywit h th e gea rpin s I n i fcertai n procedure s ar e followed ; a fac t whic h wa s substantiate d b y GoJet' s witnes s JeffCraig , GoJet' s Chie fInspector . (Tr . 29 : 15-20 ; 120 : 12-21 ) Mr . Crai g als o testifie d tha t GoJe t ha s flown thei raircraf t an d don e s o safel yan d i n accordanc e wit h approve d policie s an d procedure s wit h th e gea rpin s installed . (TR : 120 : 12-21 ) Withou t furthe revidenc e o rtesfimony , mer e speculatio n byth e FAA' s witnes s that'ther e "could " b e ris k o fa n acciden t doe s no t establis h b ya preponderanc e o freliable , probative , an d substantia l evidenc e tha t th e aircraf t di d no t confor m t o th e approve d desig n an d tha t i t wa s i n a n unsaf e conditio n a t th e tim e o fth e allege d violation . Fo rthes e reasons , th e ALJ' s finding o ffac t i s no t supporte d b ya preponderanc e o fth e evidenc e an d hi s conclusio n o fla wI s no t mad e I n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicyan d therefor e shoul d b e reversed . 2 . Th e Findin g tha t a Violatio n o f§ 91.13(a)-Careles s Operation-i s No t Supporte d B yth e Preponderanc e o fth e Evidenc e an d No t i n Accordanc e wit h Applicabl e Law , Preceden t an d Publi cPolicy . I n hi s Inlfia l Decision , AL J Goodwi n foun d tha t " a violatio n o f§ 91.13(a ) wa s show n becaus e th e aircraf t was operate d followin g a fault yrepai rconstitute d a"careles s operation " an d a finding o fcareles s o rreckles s operatio n o fa n aircraf t

amounfin g t o a violatio n o f§ 91.13(a ) follow s a s a residua l violatio n onc e th e fac t o fa n unairworth yviolatio n ha s bee n established. " I t i s undispute d byGoJe t tha t th e lega l authorit ystate s tha t "absen t extraordinar ycircumstances , careles s o rreckles s operatio n follow s a s a residua l violatio n onc e operatio n o fa n unairworth yaircraf t i s established. " USAir , Inc. , FA

AOrde rNo . 1992-2 0 (Decembe r21 , 1992) . Howeve ri n thi s case , fo r th e reason s state d abov e th e finding o foperatio n I n a n unairworth yconditio n i s no t a prope rfinding. Further , extraordinarycircumstance s exis t i n whic h t o negat e thi s conclusion . § 91.13(a ) provide s tha t "n o perso n mayoperat e a n aircraf t i n a careles s o r reckles s manne rs o a s t o endange rth e lif e o rpropert yo fanother. " I n n o way , d o th e tesfimon yand/o revidenc e produce d suppor t a finding tha t GoJe t operate d a n aircraft i n a manne rwhic h endangere d th e live s an d propert yo fIts crew , passengers , an d others . A s note d above , th e FAA' s ow n primar ywitnes s testifie d tha t thi s airplan e flying wit h th e gea rpi n Installe d I s no t a n unairworth ycondlfion , i t i s jus t subjec t t o restrictions , an d i n n o cas e woul d i t constitut e a careles s manner . (Tr . 29 ) Further , GoJet' s Chie f Inspecto rtestifie d tha t th e aircraf t I n questio n ca n b e flown wit h th e gea rpin s Inserte d an d ha s don e so , legally , unde rthos e circumstance s o n mor e tha n on e occasion . (T R 120 : 12-21,121 : 1-3) Therefor e absen t a finding o fa violatio n o f§121.153(a)(2 ) fo rth e reason s se t fort h herei n an d above , ther e ca n b e n o finding o fa violatio n o f§91.13(a ) an d therefor e th e ALJ' s finding o ffac t I s no t supporte d b ya preponderanc e o fth e evidence an d hi sconclusio n o flawi s no t mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c

policyan d therefor e shoul d b e reversed . 3 . Th e ALJ' s Conclusio n o fLa wtha t th e Agency' s Decisio n t o Rejec t GoJet' s Self-Disclosur e an d Procee d wit h Enforcemen t Actio n wa s No t Arbitrar yan d Capriciou s I s No t i n Accordanc e Wit h Applicabl e La wan d Publi cPolicy . I n hi s Initia l Decisio n AL J Goodwi n foun d tha t th e FAA' s decisio n t o reject GoJet' s self-disclosur e wa s vali d because : GoJe t faile d t o implemen t al l o fth e step s i t se t ou t fo ra n appropriat e "comprehensiv e fix" conform s t o th e procedure s ofth e FAA' s handbook . Th e inspecto ri n charg e o fworkin g wit h th e carrie rdescribe d t o GoJe t th e step s t o follow . Th e partie s discusse d th e matter . GoJe t decline d t o implemen t al l th e steps.. . (Initia l Decisio n a t 7 ) AL J Goodwi n als o foun d tha t th e FAA' s actio n wa s als o no t arbitraryan d capriciou s fo rth e FA

At o fai l t o specificall yinfon n GoJe t o fth e VDRP's^ procedure s fo rcontestin g a n advers e decision . Th e VDR P doe s no t obligat e th e agencyt o d o so . Moreover , th e responsibilit yfall s o n GoJet , havin g invoke d th e VDRP , t o b e awar e o fth e Program' s provisions . Th e carrie r ma yno t justl yconten d tha t th e agencywa s obligate d t o Infor m i t o fa certai n VDR P provisio n whe n circumstance s showe d tha t i t wel l kne w others . I t woul d b e manifestl yunfai ran d unreasonabl e t o plac e suc h a burde n o n th e agency . Indeed , a FAA-regulate d ai rcarrie rsuc h a s GoJe t shoul d b e responsibl e fo rawarenes s o fth e conten t o fal l agency generate d document s whic h ma yaffect i t (Id. )

^ VDR P refer s t o th e VoluntaryDisclosur e Reportin g Program . Th e FA Aestablishe d th e VDR P t o provid e a n incentiv e t o encourag e carrier s t o voluntaril ydisclos e violation s o fth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . Se e AC-0058A . Unde rth e VDRP , th e FAAwil l forg o a civi l penalt yactio n whe n a violatio n of th e FAR s i s promptl ydisclose d t o th e FA Aan d promp t correctiv e actio n i s take n t o ensur e tha t th e sam e o ra simila rviolatio n doe s no t recur . Id . Th e FA Aha s state d tha t i t believe s tha t th e VDR P progra m wil l encourag e complianc e wit h th e FAA' s regulations , foste rsaf e operatin g practices , an d promot e th e developmen t o fth e Interna l Evaluatio n Program s (lEPs) . Id ^Unde rth e VDRP , th e FA Aha s agree d t o issu e a lette ro fcorrectio n i n lie u o fa civi l penalt yactio n fo rcovere d instance s o fnoncomplianc e tha t ar e voluntaril ydisclose d t o th e FA Ai n accordanc e wit h A C 00-58A ^ . (Tria l Exhibi t A-11 ) A C 00-58 Aprovide s fo r immunit yfro m a n enforcemen t actio n I fa violatio n i s voluntaril ydisclose d t o th e FA A an d certai n criteri a ar e me t i n regard s t o th e violation . Th e disclosin g carrie rmus t demonstrat e that : (1 ) th e certificat e holde rimmediatel ynotifie d th e FA Ao fth e violatio n afte r th e violatio n wa s detecte d an d befor e th e FA Aha d learne d o fth e apparen t violatio n throug h anothe rmeans ; (2 ) th e violatio n wa s Inadvertent ; (3 ) th e apparen t violatio n doe s no t indicat e a lac k o f qualification , o ra reasonabl e questio n o fth e qualification , o fth e certificat e holder ; (4 ) upo n discoveryo fth e violation , Immediat e actio n wa s take n t o correc t o rterminat e th e conduct tha t cause d th e apparen t violation ; an d (5 ) th e certificat e holde rha s develope d o ri s developin g a comprehensiv e fixan d schedule o fimplementatio n satisfactoryt o th e FAA . (Id. ) I n thi s case , i t i s undispute d tha t a s a Par t 12 1 carrie rGoJe t I s covere d unde rth e VDR P I fth e abov e reference d condition s ar e me L Th e issu e I n thi s cas e revolve s aroun d th e comprehensiv e fixrequirement . A C 00-58 Acontain s a specifi cdisput e resolutio n provisio n I n regard s t o comprehensiv e fixes. (A C 00-58A.13 ) Specifically , th e advisorycircula rstate s tha t "whe n dispute s occu rregardin g th e acceptanc e o fa propose d comprehensiv e fix, o ra modificatio n theret o befor e th e fixI s considere d satisfactory , th e P I an d th e pertinen t regulate d entit yma yreques t tha t th e Issu e b e resolve d a t th e nex t leve l o fmanagemen t withi n th e FA . (Id. ) A s th e A C notes , "thi s

^ AC-0058 Ai s th e AdvisoryCircula rwhic h wa s i n existenc e a t th e tim e o fth e allege d violation . Th e curren t for m o fth e AdvisoryCircula ri s AC-0058B .procedur e wil l provid e fo ra n independen t assessmen t o fth e area s i n disagreement. "

(Id. ) Th e FA

Acontend s tha t GoJe t di d no t submi t a n acceptabl e comprehensiv e fi x an d therefor e th e voluntar ydisclosur e wa s rescinde d an d thi s enforcemen t actio n wa s initiated . GoJe t contend s tha t i t submitte d a n appropriat e comprehensiv e fixan d th e FAA' s unilatera l decisio n t o rescin d th e voluntar ydisclosur e an d initiat e thi s enforcemen t actio n rathe rtha n allo wth e next leve l o fmanagemen t withi n th e FA At o revie wth e comprehensiv e fixi s a violatio n o fth e FAA' s publishe d guidanc e document s an d I s therefor e a n arbitrar yan d capriciou s actio n byth e agency.* * GoJe t submitte d a comprehensiv e fixwhic h i t reasonabl ybelieve d woul d resolv e th e issu e whic h gav e ris e t o thi s action . Coope rwas th e sol e decisio n make rwithi n th e FA Awh o fel t tha t fixwa s unacceptable ^ Rathe rtha n discus s othe roption s o rwor k wit h

^ GoJe t doe s no t argu e tha t i t i s th e FAA' s burde n t o infor m GoJet' s o fit s righ t t o appea l th e PMI' s decisio n t o th e next leve l o fmanagemen t o rt o elevat e thi s cas e t o th e next leve l o fmanagemen t fo r review . Rather , i t argue s tha t byfailin g t o notifyi t o fth e decisio n t o rescin d th e voluntarydisclosur e an d institut e a n enforcemen t procedur e i t wa s unabl e t o avai l itsel fo fth e optio n t o elevat e it s disput e wit h Coope rove rth e prope rcomprehensiv e fi xt o th e next leve l o fmanagemen t withi n th e FA Aa s th e FAA' s ow n publishe d guidanc e document s provid e for . 5 I n FAAV

. GoJe t Airlines , LLC , DM S No . FAA-2010-019 0 (May20 , 2010) , th e AL J foun d tha t Principl e Maintenanc e Inspecto rCoope rha d acte d i n a n arbitrar yan d capriciou s manne ra s th e agen t o fth e administrato rbyabusin g th e provision s o fth e Aviatio n SafetyActio n Progra m ("ASAP" ) an d usin g material s gathere d throug h th e progra m t o begi n a n enforcemen t actio n eve n thoug h th e program' s publishe d guidanc e document s specificall yprovid e tha t "neithe rth e writte n ASA P report no rth e conten t o fth e writte n ASA P report wil l b e use d t o initiat e o rsuppor t compan ydisciplin e o ra s evidenc e fo ran y purpos e i n a n FAAenforcemen t actio n excep t i n verylimite d circumstances . Thi s cas e is n o different . Whe n Inspecto rCoope rdecide d tha t hi s demand s i n regard s t o th e comprehensiv e fi xwoul d no t b e mee t h e neve rnotifie d GoJe t o fhi s decisio n t o rescin d acceptanc e o fth e voluntarydisclosur e i n orde rt o allo w GoJe t tim e t o invok e th e proces s o freview , h e simpl ywithdre wth e VDR P an d proceede d t o enforcement . (Tr . 85 , 115-116) . A s AL J Goodwi n state d i n hi s decisio n "th e agencymayno t tak e awaywit h on e han d wha t i t ha s give n wit h th e other. " {Initia l Decision , FAA-2010-019 0 a t 13) . Thi s decisio n shoul d als o caus e th e FAAdecisionmake rt o questio n Inspecto rCooper' s creditabilit ywhic h als o playe d a rol e i n th e ALJ' s Initia l Decisio n i n thi s matter .GoJe t t o com e u p wit h a mutuall yagreeabl e comprehensiv e fixa s th e VDR P require s

th e FA At o d o Coope rsimpl yIssue d a n ultimatu m tha t th e carrie rwoul d d o a s h e ordere d o rh e woul d proces s th e cas e a s a violation . Whe n GoJe t di d no t submi t h e instigate d thes e enforcemen t proceeding s an d agai n use d th e informatio n whic h GoJe t voluntarydivulge d t o th e FA Aunde rth e VDR P a s th e basi s fo rthi s enforcemen t actio n whic h i n an d o fItsel fI s arbitraryan d capricious^ . Fo rthes e reasons , th e FAA' s action s I n regard s t o thi s cas e ar e arbitraryan d capriciou s an d a violatio n o fpubli cpolicyan d therefor e th e decisio n o fth e AL J mus t b e reversed . IV . RELIE F REQUESTE D Fo rth e foregoin g reasons , th e ALJ' s findings o ffac t ar e no t supporte d bya preponderanc e o fth e evidenc e an d conclusion s o flawar e no t mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicyan d therefor e shoul d b e reversed .

*Th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA) , 5 U.S.C.S . § 706(2)(A) , provide s tha t a reviewin g court shal l hol d unlawfu l an d se t asid e agencyaction , findings , an d conclusion s foun d t o b e arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e o fdiscretion , o rotherwis e no t i n accordanc e wit h law . 5 U.S.C.S . § 706(2)(A) . Thi s i s th e APA' s catch-al l provisio n governin g th e scop e an d standard s o freview , an d th e court s rarel ydra wan y meaningfu l distinction s betwee n act s that ar e arbitrary , capricious , o ra n abus e o fdiscretion . Arbitrary , capricious , o ra n abus e o fdiscretio n revie wunde r§ 706(2)(A ) i s routinel yapplie d byth e court s a s on e standar d unde rth e headin g o farbitrar yan d capriciou s review . An d i t encompasse s bot h revie wo fth e factua l basi s o fa n agency' s action , an d revie wo fa n agency' s reasonin g a s distinguishe d fro m it s factfinding . Moreover , th e arbitraryan d capriciou s standar d govern s revie wo fal l proceeding s tha t ar e subjec t t o challeng e unde rth e APA . Thus , i fa n actio n i s subject t o revie wunde rth e APA , i t doe s not matte rwhethe ri t i s a forma l o rinforma l adjudicatio n o ra fomia l o rinforma l rule-makin g proceeding-al l ar e subjec t t o arbitraryan d capriciou s revie wunde r§ 706(2)(A) . Eagl e Broa d Group , Ltd . v . FCC . 56 3 F.3 d 54 3 (D C Cir . 2009) ; se e als o Butt e Co . v . Hogen , 61 3 F.3 d 19 0 (D.C . Cir . 2010 ) (holdin g tha t i fa n agency' s decisio n i s arbitrary , capricious , o ra n abus e o fdiscretion , i t mus t b e se t aside ) 1 0Dated : Augus t 10 , 201 1

Davi d J.A . Hayes , II I Vic e Presiden t & Genera l Counse l Tran s State s Holdings , Inc . 1149 5 NavaidRd. , Ste . 34 0 Bridgeton , M O 6304 4 Phone : 314-222-431 6 Fax : 314-222-431 1 dhayes@transstates.ne t Attorne yfo rResponden t GoJe t Airlines , LL C

1 1I hereb ycertifytha t a cop yofth e foregoin g Appea l Brie fwa s sen t thi s 10t h day

ofAugust , 2011 , vi a th e method s indicate d below , t o th e following : Origina l & Tw o Copies : vi a Federa l Expres s Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0

Wilbu rWrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 On e Copy : Vi a Federa l Expres s Charle s Raley , Attorne y Enforcemen t Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 

## ^JAJIJU ? 

# Ortuovch y

1 2