OG/03/2010 17;0G FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 21001/025 

RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION /iiii « -i o 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '^^*^ " 3 20t0 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINI S I RATION 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMiNlS I RATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. CP10SO0002 

Judge Bcnkin 

COMPLAlNANT\S RESPONSE TO PREHEARING ORDER ^^ 

Complainant, by and through the undersij^cd counsel, submits the following Responisc to 

the Administrative Law Judge's Prehearing Order in this mailer. 

WITNESS LIST 

The Complainant expects to call the following witness to testify at thelhearing: 

1. FAA luspcctor Thomas T. Frishe 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

ASO-230 , Flight Standards Division - Technical Branch 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, CA 30337 

Mr. Frishe is expected to testify concerning FAA policy and procedure in determining the 

amount of a civil penalty sanction as it relates to the person or entity being chaiged, 

the alleged Federal Aviation Regulations violation(s), and any mitigating or aggravating 

factors. 
06/03/201 0 17;0G FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @l002/025 

EXHIBITS 

The Complainant may offer in evidence during the hearing the following exhibits: 

Al. FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B - Table of Sanctions. 

A2. DOT'S "Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quanerly.' 

A3. FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7 - Sanction Guidance Policies. 

The Complainant may also offer in evidence any other documents as necessary and 

appropriate for purposes of rebuttal or impeachment that cannot be reasonably anticipated at ihis 

time. 

Copies of the above exhibits are attached for both the Judge and for counsel for 

Respondent in accordance with the Prehearing Order. 

Respectfully submitted this J"" day of June, 2010. 

ROBHRT B. DIXON 

Allomcy 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
06/03/201 0 17;0 6 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS @l003/025 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this Complainant's Response To Prehearing Order was sent by 

facsimile and FedEx to: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benlcin 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax (202) 366-7530 

and 

Stephen J. Kolski, Esq. 

Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs 

AirTran Airways, Inc. 

9955 Air Tran Blvd. 

Orlando, FL 32827 

Fax (407) 318-5901 

and the original and one copy via FedEx to: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2WI000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Dated 
06/03/2010 17:06 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 121004/025 

10/01/07 2150.36 

Appendix B 

Table of Sanc<ions 

A l l Rnforccmcnt Programs 

Eicep i Hazardous Materials 

Part One - Al>breviafions and Definirions 

1. Applicabiliiy This lable of sanctionj applies lo violaoons that occurred on or aher 

October I, 2007 For violations occurring b<;fore October 1. 3007. FAA cnforceiiicin personnel 

apply «he sanction gtiid;inc(.- /jnncipks m TAA Order 21.SO 3A u.sing up lo (he siatuioiy 

maximum sanciion amouni in ett'eci A\ iho limeofih c viohiuon 

2. Abbrcviaiion.s. The (bliowmg abbrcvuuions/in: used in (his Tabic 

APliy means approved prt»du<.iion mspeciion .sy.'.icni 

A/W means air^orihiness 

/4W^C means airworthiness ccmficaie 

/Jr5 means Under Secietary lor Bor<k-f and Transponaimn Security 

[A means in.spectioii auihon/.alion 

LE means law entorcemen( 

/ ' C means production cenificadSTC means supplemcnlal type certificate 

TC means typt certificate 

Tf-'R means Temporary Flight Restriction 

TSA means Transportation Security Administration 

3 Defmilions: 

a. A coniinuing violation arises when a specific violation occurs over more than one day 

or over more than one flight. It also may involve a violation (hat is ongoing,y^r example, an 

ongoing refusal to provide required records to (he FAA for inspection. Punitive sanctions arc 

appropriate for continuing violations thai are not currently ongoing. Sanction guidance for 

these violations is set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 (multiple acts or multiple violations) ol 

chapter 7, A combination of punitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing 

violations are ongoing. 

b. Violation commiKcd by a small business'concern. Section 503 of Vision 100—-Century 

o f Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended 49 U.S.C § 46301 to change the civil 

penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations (hat occur on or after December 12, 2003; 

the law sets difTcrcnt limits on the civil penalties the FAA may seek for violations by small 

business concerns, as opposed to violations by other entities. Vision 100 CAR A gives small 

business concern the same meaning as in (he Small Business Act (15 US.C. § 632). Section 

632 defines small business concern as an enterpose "which is independently owned and 

operated and which is nol dominant in ic: field of operation." The Small Business 

Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and define business concern as 

B-1 

EXHIBIT. Al 
06^03/2010 17:07 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0005/02 5 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

"a business entity organized for profit, wjth a place of business located in the US., and which 

operates primarily within the US. or which makes a significant contribution lo the US. 

economy through payment of (axes or use of American products, materials or labor" 13 

C PR. § 12 1.105 fhe SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, 

describing each kind of entity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for 

small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number of employees, (The si/e limits generally 

are established under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS),) For the 

complete list, see I3C-F.R. § 121 201 or ihe SBA's website at www.jiba.Rov. Thus, if a person 

meets the definition oi business concern and has annual receipts or the number of employees 

within the applicable- SBA limit, it is a small hu.^ine.s.^ concern, and the FA.A will determine the 

civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in 

numbers of employees, unless otherwise no(cd) 

Manufacturing 

Aircraft - 1,500 employees 

Aircraft engine and part - 1,000 employees 

Other aircraft pan and equipment 1,000 employees 

Air transportation 

Scheduled passenger - 1,500 employees 

Scheduled freight - 1,500 employees 

Nonschedulcd passenger - 1,500 employees 

Nonschcduled offshore marine passenger - $25.5 million annual receipts 

Nonseheduled freight- 1,500 employees 

Nonschedulcd offshore marine freight - $25.5 million annual receipts 

Other nonschcduled - $6 5 million annual receipt.'? 

Support activities - $65 million annual receipts 

Flight Training - $23.5 million antiual receipts 

Airport operations 

Airport operator, organized for profit - $6.5 million aiuiual receipts 

Other operations, excluding air traffic control - $6.5 million aruiual receipts 

Note that the following guidance uses large business concern for some civil penalty ranges. 

That is not a statutory or regulatory term for purposes of FAA enforcement. It includes each 

business concern that exceeds the maximum limit for small business concern, as well as any 

other entity that does not meet the definition of "small business concern." 

c. Civil Penalty Ranges. For the purpose of this table, when civil penalty action is 

recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, or Maximum, the penalty ranges are 

defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) of this paragraph. Note that the middle of each 

recommended sanction range would be for a single violation without aggravating or mitigating 

factors. 

B-2 
OG/03/2010 17:0 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @l00G/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

(I) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR U.S. COMMERCIAL 

OPF-RAIOR. 

Cl.ASSlFlCAllON OF AIR CARRIER AND OPERATOR 

GROUP 1 Each air carrier operating under part 121 or pan 135, with an annual operating 

revenue of $ 100.000,000 or more. Operating revenue is determined by reference to DO Is 

'Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quanerly." See 

httt:i://QStpxweb.dot.t>ov/aviation/index.html, and click on 'Airiine Financial Review." 

CiROUP II - hach air canier oi commercial operator operating under pan 121 with an anniial 

operating revenue of less than $ 100.000,000, or under part 135 with an annual operating 

revenue of Ics.s than .$100,000,000, if the 135 operator lias 50 or more pilots and 25 oi mure 

aircrofi on its uper;iii<ins- spociriciitions. Operating revenue is determined by reference to 

DO I's "Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quanerly " 

(iROUP Ml - hach air carrier or coininercial operator operating under part 133 with 6 to 49 

pilots Of 6 to 24 iiircraft 

GROUP IV - Hach an carrier or commercial operator operating under pan 135 with no more 

than 5 pilots and no more than 5 airL-rafi 

GROUP I - large busines.s concern 

Maximum $l8,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$ 18,749 

Minimum $2,000-59,999 

CJROUP I - small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $8,250-$ 11,000 

Moderate $4,400-38,249 

Minimum $l,l00-$4,399 

GROUP 1 - small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.SC § 46301(a)(1)(A) 

or (B) but nol under 49 U.S.C § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $850-51,100 

Moderate $650-$849 

Minimum $500 $649 

GROUP 11 - large business concern: 

B-3 
06/03/2010 17:07 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 21007/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

11. Al l individuals and entities: Failure to Surrender Ccrtincato, Authorization, or Other 

Approval. 

Fig B-1 I. 

1. U.S. AIR CARRIERS. V.S. COMMERClAl. OPLRATORS . PART 125 OPERATORS. A^D 

PART 129 OPERATORS 

Fig. B-l-a. Maintenance Manual 

(I) Failure to maintain current manual 

(2) Failure lo provide adequate 

in.?imc(ions and procedures in 

manual 

(3) Failure to distribute manual to appropriate pci^onriL-l 

(4) Release of aircrall wnhoui rcquircj <.'quiprncni 

Civil Penalty 

Minimum 

Moderate lo Maximiini 

M in I rru mto^ Moderate 

Modoraii; \u Maximum 

Fig. U-l-b. AAV Diiccrive 

(I) Failure to comply 

Civil Penalty 

Moderate K> Maximum 

Fig. B-l-c. Operations Specifications 

(I) Exceed in-jpection or overhaul time limiiation 

(2) Operation contrary to ops specs - technical 

nQncomplianCi 

(3) Operation contraiy to ops spces - likely potential or acf\isl 

adverse cftecc on safe operation 

Civil Penalty 

Moderate 

Minimum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Fig. B-l-d. pHcilities and Equipment 

(1J Failure to provide adequately for proper servicing, 

maintenance, repair, or iaspection of facilities and equipment 

Civil P«aa(ty 

Maximum 

Certificate 

Action 

i;p 10 7-d3y 

.suspension 

Up 10 7 day 

.suspension 

CertiHcatf 

Action 

Certincate 

Action 

Up to 7-day 

suspension 

Certificate 

Action 

Indefinite 

Suspension 

until prof)er 

servicing, 

niainlcnauce, 

repair and 

inspection of 

facilities and 

equipment is 

provided to 

Revocation 

B-12 
OG/03/2010 17:0 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA -> DM S @|009/025 

10/01/07 2150.313 

Fig. B-l-e. Maintenance and Inspection Organization 

( I ) failure to provide or maintain a maint^-nancc an(J 

inspection organization 

Fip. B-l-f. Trainin g Program 

( I ) failure to ha^e training program 

(2) Failure to maintain training pro^jram 

(3) Failure lo train personnel .idequately 

FIR . B-I-g. Maintenance or Aircraf t Paperwor k 

(1) Incomplete or un.signed re lease 

(2) Failure to revise a/c data after repair 

Fig. B-l-h . Performance of Mainrenance 

(1) By unauthorized person 

(2) Failure to perform or irn£r<)£er maintenance 

Civi l Pena|r> 

Fig, B-I-i. SEAR 36 

( I ) Failure lo comply second offense 

Fig. B'Nj. Records and Reports 

(I) Deliberate violation 

<^a) Intentionally false or fraudulent entry, 

reproduction, or alteration in record or 

report 

(b) Other 

L... 

Maximu m 

Civi l Penalty 

Max I muni 

Moderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Civi l Penalty 

Minimu m lo Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Civi l Peoalty 

Maximu m 

Moderate to Maximum 

Civil Penalty 

Maximum 

Civil Penalty 

Certificate 

Action 

Indcfmiie 

Suspen.sion 

liiiiii an 

appropiiiite 

m;tinicn;ince 

and 

inspection 

or[iani/.iiUon 

i.s provnifd i(.) 

Revocation 

Certificate 

Action 

Indefmitc 

Suspension 

until 

ctjinplianoc 

to 

Re vocal ion 

Certificate 

Action 

Certificate 

Action 

Certificate 

Action 

Certificate 

Action 

Revocation 

I80.day 

Suspension 

to 

Revocation 

B-13 
06/03/201 0 17:0 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS gl009/025 

10/01/07 2150.36 

Fig. B-l-j. Records & Reports cont. 

(2) Failure to make accurate mechanical interruption summary 

report 

J^j^F^WuK to make accurate mechanical reliability repon 

(5) Failure to make required entry in aircraft log 

(6) Failure to make available pilot record 

(.3) Failure lo make available report of major alleiation or 

repair 

(7) Failure to make available load inanifcsi 

Civil Penalty 

Moderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Minimuin to Maximum 

Miiderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

(X) Failure to monitor and record enroutc radio comrnunicaiion Moderate (o Maximum 

Mg. B-l-k. Dispatch and Flight Release RUIF.% 

(1) Any violation of.subpan U of 14 Cl- R pan 121 

Civil Penalty 

Moderate to Maximum 

Fig. B-l-l. Operation ofunairworthy aircraft 

( I) Technical non-conformity to TC; no likely effect on .safe 

Operation 

(2) Non-conformity to I'C that may have, or has, adverse 

effect ^nsafe operation 

(3) Release of aircraft without required equipment 

Civil Penalty 

Minimum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

Certiificato 

Action 

Indefinite 

Suspen.sion 

to 

Revocation 

Indefinite 

Su.'jpen.sion 

to 

Revocation 

Indefinite 

Su.^pensioii 

to 

Revocation 

Certificate 

Action 

Certificate 

Action 

Up to 7-day 

suspension 

Fi^. B-1-ID. Provisions specific to passenger-carrying 

(1) Boarding, or serving alcoholic beverage to, a person who 

appears to be intoxicated 

(2) Failure to brief passengers 

(3) failure to ensure seat a^d belt for each pa-ssenger 

(4) Operation w/o operable public address system 

(5) Failure to store baggage properly 

Civil Penalty 

Maximum 

M(xlcratc to Maximum 

Maximum 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Certificate 

Action 

Fig. B-l-D. Provisions specific to fiigfat deck crew 

(1) Use of crewmcmber v*rilh expired medical certificate 

(2) Failure to make flight deck seat available to authorized 

eru^oute inspector 

Civil Penalty 

Minimum to Moderate 

Maximum 

Certificate 

Action 

B-14 
OG/03/2010 17:07 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS iaolO/025 

10/01/07 2150.30 

Fig. B-l-n. Provisions specific to fiigbt deck crew cont. 

(3) Use of unqualified erewmember 

(4) Flight and Duty Time vjolaiion 

Civil Penalty 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Certificate 

Action 

Fig. B-I-o. Other provisions 

(I) Improperly Rctiimin^^ Aircraft to service 

(2) Illegal carriage of controlled sub.slance with knowledge of 

carrier, that is, knowledge of or involvement in, conduct by 

top manatJcment peisonnel 

Civil Penalty 

Maximum 

(J) U.se ofunqualidcd personnel other than flight deck 

trcwmcmbcr 

Miiximum 

Certificate 

Action 

Revocation 

Fip. B-l-p. Operations at airports requiring slots 

(1) Operation wiihoui a resen'ation from AFC." 

(2) Operation wuh ii reservation, but at the wrong time 

(3) Use orinlemaijonal slot lor domestic night 

(4) Use of aircraft not meeiiiiB criteria in 

|4C.f.R. j 93.123(c)(2) m conunuter slot 

Civil Penalt)' 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Certificate 

Action 

2. PERSONNEL OF AIR CARRIERS, COMMERCIAL OPERATORS. AND PART 125 

OPERA TORS. 

Fig. B-2-a. Maintenance, including inspection 

(1) Performing maintctiaiiee without certificate, rating, or 

authorization 

(2) Performing maintenance that exceeds limitations 

(3) Failure to perform maintenance properly 

Civil Penalty 

Maximum 

Certificate 

Action 

30- to 45-day 

Suspension 

30- to 120-

day 

Suspension 

Fig- B-2-b. Inspection 

(I) • Failure to make required inspection 

(2) Making improper inspection 

(3) Improper relea.se of aircraft to service 

(4) Releasing aircraft for .service without required equipment 

Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

30- to 60-day 

Suspension 

30- to 120-

day 

Suspension 

30 to 60-day 

Suspension 

30 to 60-day 

Suspension 

B-15 
OG/03/2010 17:07 FAX 2024935142 FAA •* DMS 12)011/025 

AIRLINE 

QUARTERLY 

HNANCIAL 

REVIEW 

FOURTH QUARTER 2009 

MAJORS 

1 •• • 

...'.r.rj. j " 

< - •••• -.....--"'i f : \ 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF AVIATION ANALYSIS 

COMPETITION AND POLICY ANALYSIS DIVISION 

EXHJBIL A2. 
06/03/201 0 17:07 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l012/025 

TABLE OF CONTEKTS 

i:iR.<!CRIPTION PAGE 

IntroducLioii 3 

Total .yy3C.em Paesenger d All-Cargo Majors a 

Chart 1 Operating and Net Profit (Loss) Fourth Quarter 2009 7 

Chart 2 Operating and Net Profit (Loss) 

12 Months Ended rourth Quarter 2009 7 

Chart 3 Operating Profit (Lose) Hy Quarter 8 

Chart 4 Net Income (Loss) By Quarter S 

Chart 5 Opsrating Profit (Loss) By 12-Month Ending Periods 5 

chart 6 Net Income (Loss) Cy 12-Month Ending Periods 9 

Chart "7 Operating Revenue Pilr Revenue Ton-Mile 

Pcret;nt Changft Prom Same Period A Year Earlier 10 

ChiixT S Ton Load Factor Percentage Point Change From Year Edrli*i'... 10 

Chart 9 Operating Expense Per Rcvetlue Ton-MJle, 

Percent Change From .<;ame Period A Year Earlier 11 

Chart 10 Operating Expense Per Available Ton-Mile, 

Percent Change from Same Period A Year Earlier ll 

Total Passenger Maj ora 12 

Chare 11 Passenger Revenues Par Revenue Passenger-Mile, 

Pfircenc Change From Same Period A Vear Earlier IS 

f:harn 12 Revenue Passenger-Miles, 

Percent Change From Sjinc Period A Year Karl ier 15 

Chare 13 Avtiilable .Seat-MiIftp, 

Percent cihange From Same Period A Year Earlier 16 

Chart 14 Passenger Load Factor, Percentage 

Point Change From Same Period A Year Earlier 16 

Chart 15 Passciiger (RPM) Yield 1"? 

Charr lc-> faesenger Load Factor 17 

Ai V Iran , Inc 18 

Alaska Airlines, Inc 19 

Amoi icon Ai r1 i nfi.i, Inc 20 

American Eagle, Inc 21 

Atlantic Southcuat Airline.'S 22 

Comair, Inc 23 

Coritinuntul Air Lines, Iiic 24 

Delta Air L.i.neir., m c 25 

ExpressJet Airlines 36 

Front i li t A,.i rl i ne..". 27 

JetBlue Airways 28 

Mega Airlines, Inc 29 

Nor Chwe!?C Ai rl i nfis , Inc 3 0 

Skywest Airlines Co 31 

.30iithvJrir.i:. Airlines Co 32 

US Airways, inc 3 3 

Wni rr-A Air r.i nft-s, inc 34 

Tccal All-Cargo Majors _ 3 5 

Fccl-e-ral Fxprejns Corp 38 

United Parcel Service 39 

Ccmparison of Individual Major Operating Profit (Loss) 10 

Comparison of individual Major Net Income (Loss) 41 

Comparison o l Individual Major .Scheduled Pas.=ienger Load Factor 42 

C>'mpai-i.=ion of Individual Major Scheduled Passenger Yield "3 

Comparison of Individual Major Operating Profit Margin 44 

Compari-'jon of Individual Major Dt-bt To Investment Ratio and Total Debt .. 45 

Footnote.". "16 

Explanation of Line Items 47 
OG/03/2010 17:0 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @1013/025 

INTRODUCTION 

This repon coniains staff comments, (ables and charts on the financial condition of (he IJ,S. 

major airiines. 

The data are presented on both a carrier group and an individual carrier basis, but the primary 

focus is on the rndividuai major carrier and its performance. Data are presented for the most recent 

Ouarterly period and the comparable quarter a year earlier and also on a 12-month ended basis as at 

the end of the five most recent quarters, in addition, data on charges over comparable periods 12-

months earlier are presented. A graphic presentation of comparative irands, on a carrier group basis, 

is made for several unit and overall financial indicators. In the case of merged carriers, data for the 

carriers involved have been combined and presented under the name of the surviving carrier so that 

meaningful comparisons could be made. 

All data presented in this financial and traffic review are derived from data reported to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation on Form 41 Schedules by Large Certificated Air Carriers. For 

comparison purposes, this analysis is limited lo the major scheduled passenger and all-cargo air 

carriers only. Alaska Airlines, with revenues exceeding $1 billion in calendar year 1995, became a 

major airline effective January 1.1996, and is now included in this review. All financial and traffic 

results have been retroactively restated to Include the operations of Alaska. Certain data in this review 

is classified in two broad categories; namely "domestic" and "international". "Domestic" 

encompasses operations within and between the 50 states of the United States, tf^e District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealih of Puerto Rico, and thg U.S. Virgin Islands, li also encompasses 

Canadian tronsborder operations and for certain carriers Mexican iransborder operations All other 

operations are considered "iniernational", which is separated into Atlantic. Latin, and Pacific. 

Suggestions from users for the improving either the scope, presentation, or utility of this review 

are invited. It will also be appreciated if suggestions, discrepancies, and errors in the data arc called 

lo the attention of the Economic & Financial Division, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of llie Secretary. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590. 
06/03/201 0 17:0 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA DMS 21014/02 5 

QUARTERLY FINANCIAL & TRAFFIC REVIEW 

SYSTEM OPERATIONS 

AirTrau Airways 

ITEMS 

1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

FINANCIAL RESULTS: (SMUHonst 

Operating Revenues 

Operating Expensea 

Operating Profit (Loss) 

Net Income (Loss) 

TI^^FFIC (^liiffnf) 

r^PMs - Scheduled Svt. 

ASMa - scncciuiea Svc 

Overall RTMs (All Svc.) 

Overall ATMs (AH Svc.) 

YIELD & UNIT C05T & PROFITS: (Cents) 

Operating Revenue per RTM 

Operating E)tpeni;6 per RTM 

Operating Profit (Loss) per RTM 

Operating Expense per ATM 

Passenger Revenue per RPt^ 

FtNANCIAI. RATIOSOpersting Revenues to Total Investment 

Times interest Earned 

Cun-ent Assets to Cunent Liabilities 

No. of Days Cash Coverage of Casn Exp. 

FINANCIAL PtRCENTAGES 

(Jperatint] Profil (Loss) to Operating R«venu< 

Net Incomo to Stockholders Equity 

Corporate Return on Inveslmwit 

Debt to Total Invesinieni 

PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR: (Sch. Svc, % 

Actual 

Breakeven 

CmDlovmem A Proauptivity: 

Employment, Total V>/eighled Avg CY 

Overall RTM's per Employee (000) 

QUARTER ENDED 

2009/12 

596.1 

572.3 

26.1 

17.1 

4.5 

5,6 

0,5 

0,7 

132.7 

127,0 

5 8 

8S.3 

11.86 

4,4 

77.7 

73.6 

7.801 

57.8 

2006/12 

589.4 

534.6 

549 

-llfl.4 

4,2 

5.3 

0.4 

0 6 

1407 

127.6 

13 1 

86.4 

13.13 

9.3 

78.1 

69,5 

7,387 

56,7 

12 MONTHS ENDED | 

2009/12 

2,341.4 

2,164,4 

177.0 

134.7 

18,5 

23.3 

1.9 

2.7 

126.5 

116.9 

9,6 

80.3 

11,25 

1.57 

2.65 

1.04 

103 2 

7.6 

35 85 

14.5 

70.7 

79.5 

72,1 

7.898 

234.4 

2009/09 

2,332.4 

2,126.7 

205.8 

-o.e 

18.2 

22.8 

t.8 

2,6 

128.2 

116,9 

11.3 

80,S 

11 53 

161 

1.0S 

0 62 

81.4 

8.8 

-0.23 

5.4 

72,8 

79,6 

71.0 

7,795 

233,4 

2009/0$ 

2,408.3 

2,285.7 

122.6 

-118.3 

18.2 

22.9 

1.8 

2,7 

132.1 

125.3 

6,7 

56.2 

12.06 

1.61 

0.06 

0,93 

74.6 

5,1 

-32.21 

0,2 

72.1 

79.6 

74.7 

7.765 

234,9 

2009/03 

2.498,0 

2.467,1 

10.9 

-210.3 

18,5 

23.3 

1.9 

2.7 

134,9 

134.3 

0.6 

92.0 

12 53 

1.65 

-1,77 

0.85 

70.9 

0 4 

-5697 

-8,9 

77.8 

79.2 

78.7 

7.012 

237,0 

200a/12 

2,552.5 

2,624.5 

-72.0 

-273.8 

18.7 

23.8 

1.9 

2.8 

135.9 

139.7 

-3.8 

95.3 

17.78 

1.67 

-3,13 

Q.82 

59.6 

-2.8 

-65.06 

-13.3 

E2.0 

78.9 

61.5 

7.306 

22.7.7 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Opa rating Revenues (%) 

Operating Expenses {"M 

Operating Profit (Loss) (in Millions $) 

Net income (L05S)(in Millions S) 

RPMs(Sdi. Svc )(•/.) 

ASMS (Sch. Svc.)(%) 

Operating Revcnuec per RTM (%) 

Operating Fxpense per RTM (%) 

Passenger Revenue per RPM (Sen. Svc.)(% 

CHANGE OVER COMPARABLE PERIOD 12 MONTHS EARLIER 

1.5 

7.1 

-28,8 

135.5 

7.8 

8.4 

-5,7 

-OS 

-9.7 

1.0 

-6.0 

40.0 

-116.2 

-2.9 

-6 7 

3.8 

-3.4 

2 2 

-8.3 

-17,5 

249.0 

408.5 

-1.4 

-2.1 

-6,9 

-16.3 

-12.0 

-8.4 

-20.0 

317.7 

156.8 

-3,8 

-5,5 

-1,8 

-16.9 

-9,3 

-3.0 

-8.9 

150.0 

-78.4 

-1.5 

-4,6 

-1.5 

-7.5 

-5,2 

4.0 

7 5 

-77.7 

-224.9 

3,0 

04 

1,1 

4.5 

-1.5 

10.6 

ioe 

-208 a 

-325.4 

8.8 

4.7 

1.9 

11.4 

0.4 

18 
r»« * nM«; 121015/025 

OB/03/201 0 17:08 FAX 2024935142 FAA 0M5> 

10/01/07 2150.36 

Chapte r 7. Sanctio n Guidanc e Policie s 

I- Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA' s policies for (Jetermining an appropriate .s;tncuon 

once FAA eiiforcemenl personnel dircide that legal cnforccmeni action is appiopriaie Tins chapter 

contains (he general policy the KAA intends (o apply in selecting tlu: types o(\sanc(ions. ranges o( 

sanctions vi^ilhin (hose types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal cnrorcement actions 

Tor typical violations cif the FAA's statute and regulations This guidance covers the paraniclt-.r'; 

both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the infonnal procedures. The 

guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U S.C. §§ 44106, 44709, 447 ifl 

44726. 44924, 4611 1, 46301. and 70115 Hazardous materials sanciion guidance iind policies are 

;iddresscd m Appendix C 

2. Gcneri l Guidelines. 

a, CeriiHcatc Suspension Action and Civi l Kenaity Action: Sanccions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(1) General, If a certificate holder improperly exerckscs the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period of time commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, licvevei, the FAA considers the adverse impact 

that a certiOcaie suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA u.sually lakes- eivjl 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because .such actions do not dismpt service, ^^liich 

may adversely afTect (he public. Nevertheless, when the FAA determines that safety 

considerations warrant it, the agency wil l suspend the certificate of any type o f certificate holder. 

In no case wil l the FAA lake civi l penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same 

violations. The FAA generally does not lake civi l penalty action and punitive cenificate action 

(that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period o f time) against a certLfi^we holder for the same 

conduct. I f unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this practice, legal counsel consult i 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment o f the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily does not change the type of sanction iuiles.s additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that wairant a change. I f the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Saoctions for Remedial Purposes, 

( I) Indefinite cenificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 

A3 

EXHIBIT- ' 
06/03/2010 17:08 FAX 2024835142 FAA + DMS 0018/02 5 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending dcmon.stration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual docs not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

Si^e chapter 5. 

(2) Cenificaie revocation - general, The FAA revokes a cenificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The cenificaie holder's continued cxerci.ie 

of the privileges of the certificate ir\ such circumstances would bc contrary to safery in air 

commerce or air transponation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a 

certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a cenificate. Orders of 

revocation arc issued on an emergency ha.sis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a practical maitei to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

docs not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismis^sal ofchargcs under 49 CF.R. § 821.33. 

the NTSB's stale complaint mlc. 

(3) Cenificate revocation • individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificaic or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involve grossly careless or reckless conduct Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes ail certificates of a 

person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. 

cert 

(4) Certificate revocation - entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a 

i,ciiificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the staaite or regulations or falsifies 

records. Revocation aLso is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has commined the 

same or similar violations in the recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificaic holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44710, the FAA is required to 

revoke the cenificates of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or sutc 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

offense and the airman served as an airman, or was aboard the aircraft, in connection with 

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the commission of the offense. Even when there 

has been no conviction, revocation is required when an ainuan has knowingly carried out an 

activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if 

a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will 

facilitate law enforcement purposes. See 49 U S.C. § 44710(0- Under 49 U.S.C. § 44106, the 

FAA also must revoke the registration cenificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C- § 44726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of a violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
OG/03/2010 17;08 FAX 2024835142 FAA •^ DMS 12017/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

ii^ent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The 

Administrator may waive thai sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather 

than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. Sec 49 U S.C §§ 44726(0 and (g). 

(6) Mandatory cenificate action for security concerns. Under 49 USC § 461 11, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any 

FAA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) of (he Department of Homeland Security (DMS) thai the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, al the 

request of the Under Secretary of BTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station cenificates m 

connection with security audits 

3. Applicability and LxclusionS- The sanction guidance table (tabic) m Appendix R provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 U.S.C; subtitle VII 

and 14 C.F.R. pans 1,-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.F.R. chapter 111. 

Once the agency has determined that legal enforcement aciion is warranted for a violation, FAA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of (his chapter, as well as any other 

sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanciion The matters described in 

chapter 7, .vubparagraph.s 3a.-d. arc some types of ageney aeiion thai fall outside ihc scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table, 

a. Decisions (o Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices ur Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a finding of violation. For thai reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. 

b. The FAA's Exercise of Trosecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular ease is based on a review of (he evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision (o bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune fi-om review. Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, K31 (1985). 

c. Hazardous Materials Violations. Actions involving violations of the federal hazardous 

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department of Transportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.SC. 

§ 46101(b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, 

however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not 

7-3 
06/03/201 0 17:09 FAX 2024835142 FAA •* DMS 121018/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation corruniticd when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements- The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a, through tn. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a violation and for 

selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also 

described These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for 

violations specifically listed in the table as well as those not specifically listed Al l (he factors 

and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that 

arc relevant to a violation are considered in determining a sanciion for the violation This list of 

factors and elements is not intended to he exhaustive; other factors may bc relevant as well 

a. Nature of the Violation. Three elements define (he nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, vvhether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(1) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges iif that cenificate, the natural consequence of that act should bc loss of privileges for a 

period of lime commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate 

actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The 

potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood docs not 

alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type of sanciion. 

(2) Entities. The FAA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificaie-holdiny 

entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would bc a subsianiial adverse 

impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is 

not outweighed by safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, 

when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any 

certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to 

qticstion the qualifications o f any certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. §91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acling under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation o f a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation o f 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.F.R. §91.13, however, that violation constiottes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.F.R- § 91.13 ifitactuall y or potentially endangers the lives or property o f others. 

7-4 
06/03/201 0 17:03 FAX 2024835142 FAA ^ DMS 0018/02 5 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

When calculating the amouni of sanciion based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 CFR, § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is 

residual to another violation. Wlien a 14 C.F R. § 91 13 violation is residual only, a higher 

sanction generally is nol warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Delibcrale or intentional misconduct is an aggravating circumstance and 

includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumsiiinccs indicating intent to 

commit a violation, 

(2) Inadvcnencc, An act is inadvertent when it is the result of both maueniion and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertenl aci occurs when a pilot flics at an incorrect 

altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's in.struments; however, ii is not an inadvcncm act 

when a pilot flics at an incorrect altitude as a result of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instalments or choosing not to use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether (he conduct, not the factual or legal consequences, is inadvenent and unintended. 

Ferguson v. National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F.2d 821, H28-829 (9lh Cir. 1982). 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience. 

(1) Level of experience refers primarily to the type of cenificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or cenified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Cenificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held lo a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilols may bc held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard than commercial pilots, 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with ihe certificate holder's level of experience. A significant deviation from the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may wanant a more 

aggravated sanciion. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(1) A good compliance attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. 

A pnor violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is 

an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to 

statutory or regulatory requirements after receiving notice through a prior administrative action 

or counseling that such conduct is in violation of those requirements might well be regarded as 

having a poor comphancc disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, (he FAA does noi 

7-5 
06/03/201 0 17:0 8 FAX 202483514 2 FAA + DMS 12020/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to 

a letter of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing ihe attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration 

of an emergency (o air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not of the person's 

own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 CF.R. § 91.3(b). However, this situation is 

distinct from the situation where a declaration of emergency is not exculpatory but is a factor thai 

might be appropnate lo consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA 

views declaring an emergency to air trafUlc control as a sign of good judgment and a con.structive 

atiitude When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may he considered mitigating in dcitrmining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations commuted, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

c. Degree of Hazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of (he interplay of the operational 

environment (for example, weather condidons, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to .safety (to the life or propeny of another, including those in (he aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents, The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduci. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply wiih an 

airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when (he aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond ihe required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual hami; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) fhe sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph 5.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extrenie 

departures from required altitudes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of 

persons at 50 feel 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and 

whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

(1) Employment discipline. Where the violation would nomially call for a certain type 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the same conduct, local, state, or federal 

prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor 

7-6 
06/03/201 0 17:0 8 FAX 2024835142 FAA •> DMS 1021/02 5 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

does it preclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive cnforccmenl action. For cases where 

federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial 

enforcement actiort if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for ftjturc violations by the 

violator and others .similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation histoiy 

record. If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the 

criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings 

in determining the appropnate amount of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action, 

g. Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the ,s-everity of the sanction. Air carriers 

arc held lo the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged m air iransponalion are 

held to the highest safety standard 

h. Viulatioii History. 

(1) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not 

a mitigating factor Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvenent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compliance disposition or of a paltem of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justify imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It mighl 

also justify revocation rather than suspension if the partem of violation reflecis a lack of 

qualification In addition, a violation history might justify a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanciion or changing the u.sual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length of time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar, 

(2) The following actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become final; orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificaic; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contained in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court In 

addition, a party may agree as pan of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. 

L Decisional Law. Decisions of the FAA decisionmaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts wi(h FAA 

decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after 

7-7 
06/03/2010 17:08 FAX 2024835142 FAA * DMS @|022/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

the issuance of this document ihai conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document 

and are controlling 

j . Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive .sanctions 

should not be unduly harsh, they should bc substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanciion should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations Penalties should never bc permitted to bc a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to 

established safety standards. Wliile the FAA docs not allow financial circumstances to excuse 

any violation, it does consider a earner's size and financial strength in choosing the appropriate 

sanction amount. The difference m the penalties fixed in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact A civil penalty that may bc a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier mighl compel a small air carrier to go out of business. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each aii 

carrier thai violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set fonh in pan one of the table. For all entities and individuals, 

the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a 

person's ability to continue in business to the extent it knows such information. 

k. Consistency of .Sanction. One of the agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in 

imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues (his objective to a.ssure 

fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree of deienent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always bc achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions, 

1. Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily. 

(1) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations 

and receive lesser enforcement action provided cenain criteria are met. These programs include 

the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the 

aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement 

consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her repon of 

another's violations, voluntarily discloses his or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enforcement action is required. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one ofthe.se programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation lo the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works wiih the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sancrion depends on the extent and timing 

of the corrective action, that is, how extensive was (he corrective action and how quickly was i( 

taken. Implementing new procedures that are above (hose required under the FAA's regulations 

7-8 
06/03/2010 17:10 FAX 2024835142 FAA * DMS 1023/02 5 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

to prcven( future violations ordinarily is considered a miligaiing factor in determining an 

appropriate sanciion. Corrective action taken after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action tha( is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice o f the FAA' s 

enforcement action. Corrective ac(ion (aken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person 

into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of 

sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic 

disadvantage competitors who have expended (he resources necessary lo maintain compliance 

S. Vse of Ihe Tabic of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along ;i 

spectmm of gravity Ultimately, the circumstances of each ease arc evaluated in temis of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

b. Single, First-time, inadvertent Violations. 

(1) Part 11 o f Ihe table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA oidinwnly seeks 

to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time viulalion that is generally 

inadvertent (the table includes ranges of sanctions for several violations thai usually arc 

intentional, for example, interference with a erewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, 

the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law 

and to remedy any noncompliance and that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

altitude, and violation history), the FAA docs not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

lablc solely based on the inadvertence o f tlie violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or consinictive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be fotmd in the facts and circumstances of the violation itself 

(3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a 

sanciion should be imposed, ihe FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i, j , k, and m o f 

paragraph 4 (that is, nature o f the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use o f certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency o f the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent ihcy are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanciion amount within a range, FA A enforcement 

persoimel begin with an amount in the middle o f the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end o f the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

(4) Deviating from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based on justifiable mitigation under factors j , I, and m o f paragraph 4 

(that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, volunury reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

7-9 
06/03/201 0 17:1 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA * DMS 0024/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

impose sanctions above the nomial ranges when the following circumstances, relating to factors 

b, d, e. and h of paragraph 4 are present: the violation is other than inadvertent', the violator has 

a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree of hazard, or the violator has a 

poor compliance disposition. The ranges also may be exceeded when the case involves multiple 

violations (See chapter 7, paragraphs 6 and 7) 

c. Types of Sanction. 

(1) (Jeneral. The FAA ordinarily docs nol initiate punitive civil penally and punitive 

certificate actions (that is, fixed-period cenificate suspensions) against a certificate holder for the 

same offense. While electing to impose one sanction is not a legal bar to a concurrcni 

proceeding lo impose another, pursuing both acdons solely for puni(ive purposes usually is not 

necessary. The FAA takes remedial and punitive aciions in the same case, however, when 

warranted. 

(2) Selecting types of sanctions Except in exceptional circumsiances, the FAA uses the 

type of sanction recommended in the table The FAA must impose any sanction mandated by 

stamtc (for example, revocation under 49 US C. §§ 44106(b), 44710(b), and 44726(b) unless 

waived by (he Administrator). 

6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations. 

a. Description of Multiple Violations, h'nforcemeni actions often involve multiple 

violations: multiple violations of a single regulation; a single violation of multiple regulations; 

or multiple violations of multiple regulations. In addition, under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(2), if a 

violation is a continuing one, each day the violation continues, or each flight for which the 

violation was conunitted, constioites a separate offense, 

b. General Sanction Guidance. Multiple violations ordinarily result in high sanction 

amounts. Such sanciion amounts ordinarily are not determined by simply adding up the 

individual penalties for multiple violations set fonh in the table, however. Simply adding up the 

individual penalties for each violation could result in compounding a sanction in a 

disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. Conversely, multiple violations may 

be so serious in their consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty 

greater than the sum of the recotmnended amount of penalty provided for in (he table for each 

violation. 

c. Single Act of Noncompliance Resulting ia Multiple Violations. When a single 

instance of noncompliance resuhs in multiple violations of general and specific regulations 

involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to 

reflect the amount of sanciion recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. In 

calculating the amouni of sanction for multiple violations, FAA enforcemcnl personnel consider 

When the violation is one ihat is generally inherently deliberate (e.g., imerferencc with erewmember or smoking 

violations), factor b. is not considered in detenuining >¥hcthcr the sanction should be above ihe range in the table. 

The ranges in the table fur such violations already h»vc taken into consideration the inherently deliberate nature of 

the violaiioi\. 

7-10 
Oe/03/2010 17:10 FAX 2024835U2 FAA * DMS 12025/025 

10/01/07 2150.3B 

the totality of circum.stances relating to (he muUiple violations, including the alleged violator's 

degree o f culpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessftil, to 

prevent the violations. 

d. Type of Legal Enforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the rype of legal 

enforcement action for a single violation, the FAA ordinarily selects the same type of sanciion 

for multiple violations of a similar nature The seriousness of multiple violations, however, may 

recjuire changing what is nomially a civil penalty action (o a eeriific;ile action or. sometimes. 3 

punitive cenificate suspension ton remedial revocation action. 

7. Special Considerations for Nwmer(;tis Multiple Violations Resulting From an Initial Act 

or Omission. To deicmiine penalties for numerous multiple violations that result from an initial 

act or omission, the FAA applies (he special considerations and guidance in ehapicr 7, 

subparagraphs 7.a. through e. Ihese cases involve such a high numbci of multiple violations that 

if FAA enforcement personnel were simply 10 add the recommended amounts of penalty for ciich 

flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount could bc 

disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

<i. Determining Proposed Penalty. To deiermine :in appropriate civil penalty in a case 

involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act oi omission (fiir example, an 

aircraft operated on a dozen or more flights after being improperly returned to service), FAA 

enforcement personnel: 

(1) Identity each initial act or omission that cau.scd or resulted in the multiple violations 

(for example, improper maintenance plus improper return to service; failure to maintain a quality 

control system). 

(2) Consult the tabic in Appendix D and the general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount of penally appropriate for each 

initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations (for example, in 

airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act of improper maintenance or inspection; in 

manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act of failing to maintain a quality control system) 

(3) Determine the amouni of penalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying 

the guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Of particular importance in determining 

an appropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree of the alleged violator's 

culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree of culpability is present when the alleged 

violator neither knew nor was likely lo discover the continuing violations. For example, once 

improper maintenance was done there were no signs of ii from such things as discrepancies 

reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have led to its discovery were scheduled- A 

more significant degree o f culpability is present when factors such as the following are present: 

• the initial act or omission was entered in records (hai should have led to 

immediate deicclion and correction; 

• the initial act or omission remained undetected and continued tlirough required 

inspections or checks designed to reveal such discrepancies, 

7-11