U . S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATION

- '''-^^-t : ' • 'MMTlOi\i^ . OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . '••'• ' ^'t P 3 0 p ^ Q I N TH E MATTERO F AIRAMBULANC E B Y AIRTREK , INC .

Responden t FAA DOCKE T NO . 2009EA03003 7 (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA

- 

# RECEIVE D ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E SE P 1' 9 201 1 NO T YE T ASSIGNE D UCADl&i ^ - ^ ^



# HEARIN G DOCKE T Hearin g Date : NO T YE T ASSIGNE D Hearin g Location : NO T YE T ASIGNE D RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RAN D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S COME S NOW , AIRAMBULANC E B Y AIRTRE K (hereinafte r

"AI R AMBULANCE") , b y an dthroug h undersigne dcounsel , pursuan t t o Rul e 20 9 o f

th e Rule s o f Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . §13.209) , an dhereb y files th e followin g Answe r an dAffirmativ e Defense s to th e Complainant' s Complian t date dSeptembe r

2 , 2011 . ANSWE R 1 . AIRAMBULANC E admit s tha t i t i s th e registere downe r

o f Cessn aCitatio n Mode l 55 0 aircraft , identificatio n numbe r N744AT , an ddenie s th e remainde r o f th e allegation s containe di

n paragrap h numbe r

1 o f th e Complaint . 2 . AI RAMBULANC E denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

2 o f th e Complaint . 3 . AIRAMBULANC E admit s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

3 o f th e Complaint .4 . AI RAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficient

to for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

4 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 5 . AIRAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s to th e tnit h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragraph s numbere d5(a)-(d ) o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s same an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof. 6 . Al RAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e or informatio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h or falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

6 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 7 . AI RAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficient

to for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

7 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denies sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof . 8 . AIRAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e or informatio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegafion s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

8 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof . 9 . AI RAMBULANC E denies th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

9 o f th e Complaint . 10 . AI RAMBULANC E admit s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 0 o f th e Complaint . 11 . AIRAMBULANC E admit s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 1 o f th e Complaint . 12 . AIRAMBULANC E denies th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r 1 2 o f th e Complaint .13 . AI RAMBULANC E denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 3 o f th e Complaint . 14 . AIRAMBULANC E denies th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 4 o f th e Complaint . 15 . AIRAMBULANC E denies th e allegafion s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 5 o f th e Complaint . 16 . AIRAMBULANC E admit s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 6 o f th e Complaint , 17 . AI RAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s to th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 7 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof . 18 . AIRAMBULANC E denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 8 o f th e Complaint . 19 . AIRAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e or informatio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

1 9 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof. 20 . AIRAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e or informafio n sufficient

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

2 0 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denies sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof . Furthermore , th e allegatio n consist s o f

alegal conclusio n whic h i s respectfijll y deferre dt o th e Honorabl e Administrativ e Law Judg e and/o r Administrato r

o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n to decide , i f

necessary .21 . AIRAMBULANC E lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficient

to for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut h o r falsit y o f the.allegation s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

2 1 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denies sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof . 22 . AI RAMBULANC E denie s th e allegafion s containe di n paragrap h numbe r

2 2 o f th e Complaint . 23 . AI RAMBULANC E denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragraph s numbere d23(a)-(e ) o f th e Complaint , I I a . AI RAMBULANC E denies tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §9l.403(b) . b . AI RAMBULANC E denies tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.403(c) . c . AIRAMBULANC E denies tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §9l.403(d) . d . AIRAMBULANC E denies tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.7(a) . I V 1 . AI RAMBULANC E denie s tha t pursuan t to 4 9 U.S.C . §4630 1 (a)(1 ) i t i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalt y no t t o excee d$25,00 0 fo

r eac h o f th e violafion s alleged , or , tha t pursuan t to 4 9 U.S.C . §4630 1 (a)(5) , i

t i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalt

y no t t o excee d$11,00 0 fo

r eac h o f th e violation s alleged . 2 . AI RAMBULANC E denies tha t unde r th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f this case , acivi l penalt y o f $38,500.0 0 i s appropriate . An y matte r no t specificall y admitte db

y AI RAMBULANC E shal l b e deeme ddenied . AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S I . AIRAMBULANC E wa s no t th e operato r

o f th e aircraf

t i n quesfion .2 . AIRAMBULANC E wa s not th e entit y tha t performe dth e aircraf

t maintenanc e i

n quesfion . 3 . AI RAMBULANC E wa s no t th e entity tha

t altere dth e aircraf

t i n question . 4 . AI RAMBULANC E relie s upo n th e affirmativ e defens e o f reasonabl e reliance . 5 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalty amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dto conside r

(I ) th e natur e an dcircumstance s o f th e violation ; (2 ) th e exten t an dgravity o f

th e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s history o f prio r violations , if any ; (5 ) th e respondent' s ability to pa y th e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec t o n th e entity' s ability to sta

y i n business ; an d(7 ) othe r

matter s a s justic e ma

y require . Se e 4 9 U.S.C . §4630\{e){2) ; Se e als o Folsom' s Ai r Service , Inc. . FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , p . 11 . 6 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o determin e whethe r th e violatio n wa s inadverten t o r deliberate . 7 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalty amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o conside r

th e Respondent' s size , particularl y i n determinin g th e allege doffender' s ability t o absor b th e sancfion . 8 . Th e propose dcivi l penalty fail s to reflec t th e totality o f

th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violations . Se e Folsom' s Air Service , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , p . 12 ; Easter n Ai r

Center , Inc. , FAA Orde r No . 2008- 3 (January 28 , 2008) . 9 . Findin g mulfipl e violation s fo r th e sam e offens e woul dconsfitut e "'pilin g on ' [that ] shoul db e avoide dexcep t

unde r th e mos t egregiou s circumstances. " I n th e Matte r o f Car/- , FA A Orde r No . 1998- 2 a

t 11-1 2 (Marc h 12 , 1998) .10 . AI RAMBULANC E doe s no t hav e th e financial ability to pa y th e propose dcivi l penalty . 11 . Th e propose dcivi l penalty woul dhav e adetrimenta l effec t o n th e ability o f

AI R AMBULANC E t o continu e doin g business . 12 . Th e Federal Aviafio n Administration' s (FAA's ) interpretatio n o f it s Federal Aviafio n Regulation s i

n this cas e i s arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e o f

discretion , o r

otherwis e no t

i n accordanc e wit

h law . Se e 5 U.S.C . § 706(2 ) (A) ; IVatkin s v. NTSB , 17 8 F.3 d959 , 96 1 (8t h Cir . 1999) . 13 . Th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f it s aviatio n regulation s i s unconstitutionall y vague . Se e Thoma s v. Hinson , 7 4 F.3 d888 , 88 9 (8t h Cir . 1996) ; se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . v. FAA , 43 9 F.3 d863 , 864-86 5 (8t h Cir . 2006) ; Heat h v . SEC , 200 9 U.S . App . LEXI S 2412 8 a t 53-55 . 14 . Th e FAA' s applicatio n o f it s Federal Aviatio n Regulation s i n thi s cas e i s contrary to th e regulation' s plai n language . Se e Advant aUSA , Inc . v . Chao , 35 0 F.3 d726 , 72 8 (8t h Cir . 2003) , quotin g Gardebringv . Jenkins , 48 5 U.S . 415 , 430 , 10 8 S . Ct . 1306 , 9 9 L . Ed . 2 d 51 5 (1988) . Se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . v . FAA , 43 9 F.3 d863 , 864-86 5 (8t h Cir . 2006) . 15 . AI RAMBULANC E assert s tha t th e Complainan t

ha s faile dto stat e aclai mupo n whic h th e relie f requeste dma

y b e granted . 16 . AIRAMBULANC E assert s tha t th e Complainan t

lack s substantia l basi s i

n la w an dfact t o continu e prosecutio n o f thi s matte r

agains t it .Dated : Septembe r 14,201 1 Respec t mitted . GRE(K2(RW . \\^TON , ESQ . They^iatioi i Law Fir

m On e ResearchXourt , Suite 45 0 tockvilte,M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Responden tCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat e serve db y regular U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , a n origina l an don e (1 ) cop y o f

th e foregoin g Answe r

an dAffirmativ e Defense s addresse dto : Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Buildin g Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Roo m201 4 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 I hereb y certif

y that I hav e this dat e sent

vi afacsimil e an dfirst

clas s mai l acop y o f

th e foregoin g Answer an dAffirmativ e Defense s addresse dto : Stephe n W . Brice , Esq . FA A Eastern Region , AEA- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : 71 8 553-326 8 Fax:71 8 533-569 9 Dated : Septembe r

14,20 1 Respec t bmitted . GREGOR Y S.M^^TON , ESQ . TheXviafio n La

w Fir m Oo t Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 fockville, M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Responden t