## 2017-02-10 09:31

Inthe Matterof: 

## AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

## 2022671293 U.S. DEPARTMI'NT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### DocketNo: FAA-2015-3307 FELTS FIELD AVIATION 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### CaseNo: 2015WP910090 Respondent


## ---- ----

# ____) 

### Judge J.E. Sullivan COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FORPRECLUSION OFEVIDENCE p 

## 2/14

Complainant, by and throughcounsel, files this opposition to the Motion forPreclusion ofEvidence filed by RespondentonJanuary 31,2017. J<'ACTUAL BACKGROUND 

### On December 15, 2016, Judge Sullivan, verbally Ordered Complainant to provide Respondent a detailed calculation ofits proposed civil penalty by January 17,2017. Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order,
**C~nnplainant** 

### provided a detailed wlculation of the proposed civil penalty llJ 

### Respondent's cuunsel by facsimile and U.S. First Class Mail on January 17, 2017. Additionally, ptlrsuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.210, the Complainant filed a copy ofits calculatiun of the proposed civil penalty withJudge Sullivan and the Federal Aviation Administration Hearing Docket Clerk on January 17, 2017. 1 

### After receiving **Complainant'~** 

### calculation, on January 17, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss; and on January 24, 2017, Complainant filed an Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 

### In response to Complainant's oppusition, on January 31, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss-Supplemental Brief On February 3, 2017, the parties participated in a conference call with Judge Sullivan. During the conference ISeeCornpta[uant1SCalculation ofthe ProposedCivil Penalty with Certificate ofService and Transmisslon Logs (Attachment I).

### 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 3/14 2 call Judge Sullivan interpreted Respondent's Motionto **Dismi~s-Supp1cment<~l** 

### Briefto include an altemalive Motionfor PreclusionofEvidence. OnFebruary 6, 2017, Judge Sullivan issuedan Order denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and reserving Respondent's Alternative Motion for PreclusionofEvidencepending the Complainant's submission ofaresponse. ARGUMENT 

### Respondent's Motion for Preclusion should be denied because Complainant provided Respondent with a calculation of the proposed civil penalty in compliance with 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220(n). On January 17, 2017, Complaimmt provided Respondent with a detailed calculation ofthe proposed civil penalty. The calculationofthe proposed civil penalty clearly explained that pursuant to FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, fig. B-5-b(l), a maximum civil penalty was wan-anted in

**thi~** 

### case because Respondent failed to include a safety-sensitive employee in its drug and alcohol program foryears and allowedthatemployeeto operate over 60 part 135 flights on its behalf. Respondent's (ai!ure to inclLtde a

**~afety** 

### sensitive

**~mployee** 

### initsrandom drug and alcohol testing program for such an extended period of" time and allowing that employee to operate part 135 flighh on its behalf were careless acts that posed a substantial threat to air safety. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a maximum civil penalty is consistent withthe FAA'sguidance in FAA Order 2150.3B. 

### In Accordance with Judge Sullivan's December 15, 2016, verbal Order, Complainant provided Respondent with a calculation ofthe proposed civil penalty that explained the factors the Agency considered when cvalLLating this case. Although Complainant did not provide the calculation in a chart format with headings and duplicativeinformation as Respondent suggest; it

### 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 4/14 3

**nonethele~~** 

### disclosed the rel<;Jvant information to Respondent. Forexample, Complainantclearly explained thatthe degree ofhazard lor this case was **~ignificant** 

### because Respondent's failure to subject apilotto random drug and alcohol testing for years could have Jed to the p\lrfonnance of safety-sensitive work in an impaired statc.2 

### Additionally,
**Compl~inant** 

### explained that Respondent allowed an employee to operate over 60 part 135 tlights in violation ofregulatory requirements. As a result, Respondent committed multiple acts that were considered aggravating factors.Complainant also highlighted that the proposed civil penalty was consistent with the Agency's guidance in FAA Order 2150.3R, and assessed **Re~pondent's** 

### ability to absorb the proposed sanction. Whenthe Agency assesses an
**cntiti~s** 

### ability to absorb a sanctiontheAgency classifies the entity based on its size to

**ensur~** 

### that the sanction is substantial enough to be a deterrent and not merely the cost ofdoing business.J 

### In its calculation Complainant states that Felts field is considered a Group IV operator; and the sanction range fbr a maximum civil penalty is $4,400 lo 

### $11,0004 

### From the face ofRespondent's Motion, itappears that Respondent misunderstands the Agency's enf:'orcement process and is confusing the analysis ofthe ability to absorb sanction with the aualysis of the inability to pay affirmative defense. However, the Agency is not required lo establish Respondent's inability to pay the proposed civil penalty; but rather, the burdenofprooffor the inability to pay affirmative defense lies withRespondent. Fmthermore, Respondent's argument that Complainant'scalculation ofthe proposed civil penalty is incomplete because the calculation is less voluminous than the enforcement 2!d. atp. 2. 3 FAA Order2l50.3B, Ch.7. para_ 4.j. 4 Complaimnt's Calculation ofthe Proposed Civil Penalty atp.l.

## 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

## 2022671293 p 

## 5/14 4 

### investigative report (EIR) is without merit. On January 26, 2017, this court determined that Respondent was not entitled to the redacted intonnation in the EIRbecause those provisions are protected under the work productprivilege.5 

### Specifically, this court stated that "because an FAA investigator's work is preliminary to a regulatory legal enforcement action and subjectto review and modification (or abandonment), it qualifies as protected under an attorney 'work product' privilege."6 

### As a result, Complainant withheld privikge information from its calculation ofthe proposed civil penalty and disclosed the facts, data, and opinions utilized by the Agency to support the allegations in the Complaint. This

**ultim<~tely** 

### led to Complaint's calculation ofthe proposed civil penalty being shorter in length than the redacted portions ofElR. But, despite being shorter in lent,>ih, Complaint's calculation of the proposed civil penalty nevertheless complies with Judge Sullivan's Order and clearly articulates the facts and circumstances considered by the Agency. Consequently, Respondent's assertion that Complaimmt's calculation oftheproposed<.Oivil penalty is incomplete is erroneous and shouldnotbe givenmuch weight. Lastly, Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it has suflered any prejudice or harm. Since its substitution of counsel, Complainant has timely responded to all of Respondent's motions and requests for information. Specifically, Complainant has provided Respondent with the following information: (l) a redacted copy ofthe E!R; (2) a modified copy ofthe redacted EIR with a privilege log; (3) all of the items M 

### proof utilized by the Agency to support the allegations against Respondent; (4) responses to all discovery intenogatories, request tor admissions, and request for productions; and (5) a detailed calculation of the proposed civil penalty. Respondent has been provided sufficient infonnation to adequately and fairly defend its 5Judge J.E. Sullivan's Order Granting in Partand Denying in Part the R.espondent 1SMotion to

**c,)mpd~** served Jan. 26, 20l7 at p. 9. 6!d.

### 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 6/14 5 case. The only information Complainant has not disclosed to Respondent 1s privileged in[ormation. CONCLUSION 

### For the foregoing reasons, Complainant respectfully requests the Judge deny Respondent's Motionfor PreclusionofEvidence. Rcspedfully submitted, NaomiTsuda AssistantCbiefCounsel for Enforcement



# ~------=:__..> FatimahStokley EnforcementDivision, WesternTeam P.O. Uox 92007 Los Angeles, CA90009-2007 Email: fatimah.stokley@faa.gov Telephone: (3\0) 725-7112 Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 Date: February 10,2017

## 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

## 2022671293
DocketNo. FAA-2015-3307 CaseNo.2015WP910090 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE p 

## 7/14 6

I hereby cettify that 

### on this date l have sent by Facsimile and U.S. First Class Mall, the COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE, addressed as 

### follows: JLLdge 

### J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, S.E. East 

### Rldg., Room Ell-3I

### 0 Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 Federal AviationAdministration Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite2Wl

### 000 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, 

### D.C. 20591 Fax: 202-267-1293 Mark J. 

### Conlin 421 W. Riverside Ave., 

### Suite 911 

### Spokane,WA 99201 Fax: 509-623-1650 Also 

### by Email: mc<mlin@aviation-law.com AntoniaGarcia, Mgmt. and Program Analyst EnforcementDivision National Enforcement Prob'Tilltl WestemTeam Federal AviationAdministration Lawndale, California Dated: Februaty 

### 10,2017

### 2017-02-10 09:31

In the Matterof: 

### AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICEOFHEARiNGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. DocketN,,: FAA-2015-3307 FELTS FIELD AVlATlON ) ) ) ) ) CaseNo: 2015WP910090 Respondent 

# ___) JudgeJ.E. Sullivan 

### COMPLAINANT'S CALCULATION OFTHE PROPOSED CIVILPENALTY p 

### 8/14

Complainant, by and through cOLmsel, provides the following calculation ofthe proposed civil penaltypursuant

### to Judge Sullivan's Orderon December 15,2016. During the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) investigation of Case No. 20 15WP910090, 

### the FAA discovered that Felts Field Aviation (Felts Field) failed 

### to comply withthe requirements of 14 C.F.R. Part 120 and 49 C.F.R. Part 40 for its drug and alcohol testing progrant. Specifically, Felts f'ield hired Richard Webber -a pilot- in 2008, but failed to add Mr. Webberto its random dmg and alcohol testing pool until April 6, 2015. Mr. Webberwas nut Included in tl1e random selection pool during selections made in July 2013, October 2013, January 2014, April 2014, July 2014, October 2014, and January 201 5. Priorto adding Ricl1ard Webber to its random drug and alcohol testing pool, Felts Field allowed Mr. Webber to perform over 60part l35 flights. According to FAA Order 2150.38, Appendix B, fig. B-5-b(!), a mode1·atc to maximum civil penalty is recommended for failing to include a safety-sensitive employee in FAA mandated drug and alcohol testing programs. A pilot is a safety-sensitive employee. Under the f-AA's classifications of operators, Felts Field is considered a Group IV operator; and the sanction range for a moderate civil penalty is $2,200 to $4,399 and a maximum civil penalty is $4,400 

### to $11,000. FAA Order 2150.38, Appendix B, p. B-3- BA. In this case, Felts Field Pagel of7 Anachment 1

### 2017-02-10 09:32 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 9/14 !ailed to include Richard Webber in its drug and alcohol progrem for

**ye~rs** and allowed Mr. Webber to operate over 60 part 135 flights 

### on its behalf. Failing

### to subject aflight crew member to rarrdom drug arrd alcohol testing for years could lead to the performance of safety-sensitive work in an impaired state. Felts Field's failure to include Richard Webber in its random drug and alcohol testing program for such an extended period oftime and allowing Mr. Webber to operate part 135 flights on its behalf were cureless acts that posed 

### a substantial threat to air safety. As a result, such acts are considered aggravating !actors. 

### See !d. at Ch. 7, para. 4, Consequently, the FAA assessed a maximum civil penalty of$11,000 for this case. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a maximum civil penalty is consistent with the FAA's guidancein FAA Order2150.38. Respectfully submitted, Naomi Tsuda AssistantChiefCounselfor Enforcement



# ~£S? Fatitnah Stokley Enforcement Division, WesternTeam P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA90009-2007 Email: fatimah.stokley@faa.gov Telephone: (310) 725-7112 Facsin>ile: (310) 725-6816

2 Page 2of7 Anachmen1 l

### 2017-02-10 09:32 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Caoe 

### No. 2015WP910090 CEKT!FlCATE OF SERVICE p 

### 10/14

I hereby cettify that on this date l have sent 

### by U.S. First

**C:l~ss** Mall and facsimile, the COMPLAINANT'S CALCULATION OF THE PROPOSED C!VJL PENALTY, addressed as follows: Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Oftlce ofHearings, M-20 US. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, S.E Eastl3ldg., Room El1-310 Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 Federal AviationAdministration Hearing DocketClerk,AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Fax: 202-267-1293 MarkJ. Conlin 421 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 911 Spokane, WA 9920l Fax: 509-623-1650



# 1}Q..~-lf~ Debbie Reed Management Program Analyst Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Lawndale, California Dated: January !7,2017

Page) of7 Attachment 1

## 2017-02-10 09:32

To: Phone: ···-·-·-·· 

### Fax:_ From: Title: " Date: --···- ''" Pages w/cover: 

## AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

## 2022671293 p 

## 11/14 Federal Aviation Administration 

## " ?:...J o" ::,"" 1/Y/vr;.., :;1.¢2-

### '3r.C,

**--;?~** ...

**~.,,** h. ; 6C3-2

**~** 2-12 '0, . A k_ 6r., {M,. 5 (Jq- I',), L /[,-5? , I "

..,..... 

# r#..**~** 

### Jivk./4 ;=.o-4 tr/h!Y"H 1-1 7-11 Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 PO Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Telephone: (310) 725-7100 Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 Email: Facsimile Description of item being transmitted', 

## k

**!3e/~w** D Peryour Request D For Review D Please Comment D For Coordination

**~** Hord Copyto Followvia US MAIL NOTESICOMMENTS:

The information contained in this facsimile message is intended for the use ofthe designated addressee only, The Information transmnted may be subject to the attorney"client privilege or may be protected underthe Privacy Act Ifyou are not the designated addressee and you receive this documentthrough inadvertent error, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited, IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING (310) 725- 7100 AND DESTROY THE ORIGINAL OF THIS COMMUNICATION. Thank You.
Page 4 of7 

### f:"'ltt. U,S, Dcpar1)118rll ctl Transpor1ea11on ,.; Attac!Hnem 1

### 2017-02-10 09:32 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 12/14 

# Transinission 

# Log AWP? - tregal Office Tuesday,
**2017~01-17** 14:47 3107256816 Pocte Time 'l'ype Job # Length Speed FaX Name/Number Pg,s Status 2017-01-17 14,46 SCAN 00047 Oo39 2$$00 915096231650 4 OK -- V.34 AB31

I



### ~- **ir"1,~..+.** J4ut1

**..!ill~,_··_···---i** 

## """' 'I-!.'urn'1 i



# D,a,"'~' **----'-~**'-'/'..'-..!

# [:!_'1.~--­ Jf 0 Peryou( Request o ForCoordinatiOn

**NOT~S/COMMENTS:** 

# iq. Fncsimile DesetrpMn Cfilem berng (rar1smlttW:

**c:;l'~** /l!f/111-'U .. !)(HamCopy to J:'ol!owvia US MAIL

Th(! inforrnatian con(alned In IM:l f<)Ci!iimile message

**i~ ln~eo!Jed**  for lf'e use of

**lh~to** designeted addres.see only The m!ormatior\ transmitted rn8y tie sUbj8Ct to

**th~** q.ttorney·t:llel'\

**privlleg~** cr may be protected Ul'lderthe Privacy Act. If you 1'\re not the deslgnatfl.c:J M<lrf'l\j::;oe: and you

**rece~ve thr~**  dOCvMMt through

**in<~Ovenent** error, d'ny further raview,
**&;~3e.min~tlon,** dJstributlon or C<'lfl)'l1'1!1 ol\Ns COOII"!ltmicalion

**i~** !'.1rictly proh1bi!ad. IF YOU RECEIVE. 'tHIS COMMUNICA'I'ICN IN !iiRROR, PLEASE NOTIFY TfiE SE:NDE:R IMMEDIATH'!' BY
**T~L.E:PHONING** {316) 71Q- 7100 AND OCSIROYTHE 0Ri411NAI. OF T/I(G COMMUNICATiON. 7tr<onk YOU.
Page 5 of7 Attachment 1

### 2017-02-10 09:32 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 13/14 

# Fax failed
AWP7 - Legal Office Tuesday, 2017-0l-17 14:50 31072568l6 bate Time Type Job # Length Spe€d FaX Name/Number l?gs Status 20l7-01-17 14,49 SCAN 00046 0 9120236667536 0 NO ANSWER

Pages_Vflcover. 0 Pt!f)'Ou( Requegt o ForCoordination NOf!":S/COMMF.NTS: Facsimile Federal Aviation Administration

**De~r,ilpl•OI"l** Of l\€l!'flbe•ngtranqmitteO:

**s~~** t'1el?tv CJ r'or

**~eYi\'lW** D PleaseCommen\ 9( Hard Copy lo F'oi)QWvia U$ MAIL

TM

**~nlorrn~Jtion** contillned 1n lhiS raeslnf1le message is

**in(~nr,1etl** for \he use ofthe designated

**~Odressee** only. The 1nformstlon

**transmit!~** rnay be

**~UbJP.r.l** tl'l1M
**t~ttorncy-ni!MI.** privilegP.- or mR-y hQ prolec!ed Uflder\M Privacy Act Ifyou 01re f\Ct tt\e

**cle~I9MIOd** addressee ana you receiVe lh1s document lhrotJg}) it'ladver1ent error, any f1.1r\her review,

**dissemin~tlon,** o'rsu1buuorrO( C<:!pying atthis cornml.mlcatll'>n '1S S\iio\1y pmhiOited. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN

**t~~OR,** PLE:ASE NOTIFYTHE SENDI:R IMMCDIATELY BY
**T~LJ;.PiiONING** (310) 725- 7100 ANr'l

**Df;~IROY** THE ORIGINAL OF H!IG **COMM\JNICATIO~.** Than!( You.
Page6 of7 Attachment J

## 2017-02-10 09:32 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

## 2022671293 p 

## 14/14 

# Transmission Log AWP7 - Legal Office Tuesday, 2017-01-17 13:44 3107256816 Date Time Type Job tt Lengt.h Speed Fax Name/Number Pgs StatuD 2017-01-17 13:43 SCAN 00042 Oo31 26400

**202215712~3** 4 OK -- V.34 AB3l

0 ForCOOfdineficr. NOTeSJCOMMENYS: 

### 12-.g·. Facsimile 

## I Federal Aviation Administration

**[)~¥.riptiol'l** of -rtem being iwnsrniltf;lj' 

### ____ 5...._ 8,/,vu !)\: H2rd Copyto Followvia US MAIL

ThE! infom1ation containedi{l !his fac9imile mE!sss.ge is inter.ded lor Ihe 1,1se o.lthe clesignsted a!ldresSf!f!; Oflly. The information transmitted may be subJeCt to the

**~l;!orney·clie.n1** privilegeor may be protected unr:ler the Privacy Act If you

**~fC** not the dcsigrmtcd addresses and you receive lhi:s

**docum~nllhrough** inadverlent error, any further review,

**<lls~emln~Uon, .:Jistri~l.lliol'\**  or copying ofthis commul"'ir.:'lt'll"ll'l I!: !:.Tiic:!ly proMli\CCl, JF Y0\.1 R5Cf:W6THIS COMMUNICATION IN

**~RR-CR, PLEA.~~**  NC1"lF'Y

**IH~** SE!NDE;R lMMEDIAiS:LY BYIEL!:':PHDNING (:110) 72Q· 7100 AND OESTROYTHE OR!GINAL OF THIS COMMUNICAT!Or-.1. ThGnl< You.
Page 7of7 Allachmcnt l

### 2017-02-10 09:31 AWP7 - Legal Office 3107256816 >> 

### 2022671293 p 

### 1/14

To: The Honorable JESullivan, ALJ Company: US. DOT, Offioe ofHearings, M-20 Phone: Fax. 202-366-7536 

### From: FAA, Enforcement Division-Western Team

Title: Complainants Opposition to Respondent's Motion For Predusion ofEvidence, Inthe matterof Felill FieldAviation, Docket No. FAA-2015-3307, FAACase No. 2015WP91000J Date: 2/10/2017 Pages wlcover 14 cc: MarkJ. Colin, Counsel forthe Respondent. Facsimile 509-623-1650 FAA, Hearing DocketClerk, Facsimile 202-267-1293 

### Federal Aviation Administration EnforcernentDJv\sfon-

**W~m Te;;~.m**  Po Box92007 LosAngeles, CA 90009-2007 T310-725-7112 F310-725-6816 E Fatiman.Stokley@faa.gov Facsimile



# 0 U.S. Oepartmecn1 ofTranspanat'ion