U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JET MIDWEST TECHNIK, INC. 

FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0637 

FAA CASE NO. 2014CE050039 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Han. Richard C. Goodwin 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: Kansas City, MO 

RECFI\lED 

JUN 2 9 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Jet Midwest Technik, Inc. (hereinafter "JMTI"), by and 

through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.209) 

and hereby files the following Answer to the Administrator's Complaint, served on Aprill4, 

ANSWER 

I. 

Section I of the Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. 

II. 

1. JMTI admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1 of the 

Complaint. 

1 On May 11, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay Proceeding extending the time to 

Answer until July 9, 2015 (Exhibit A attached hereto). 
2. JMTI admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 of the 

Complaint. 

3. JMTI admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 of the 

Complaint. 

4(a). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity ofthe allegations contained section II, paragraph number 4(a) of the Complaint. 

4(b ). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4(b) of the Complaint. 

5. JMTI admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 of the 

Complaint. 

6. JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6 of the Complaint. 

7. JMTI denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 of 

the Complaint. 

8. JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

III. 

1(a). Respondent has moved for dismissal of the allegations contained in section III, 

paragraph number 1 (a) of the Complaint pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.218(£)(5). 

2 
l(b). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section III, paragraph 1 (b) of the Complaint and therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

l(c). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section III, paragraph 1 (c) of the Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. 

l(d). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section III, paragraph 1 (c) of the Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. 

I (e). JMTI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations contained in section III, paragraph 1 (e) of the Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. 

2. JMTI denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a) and (d), it is subject to a civil 

penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

3. JMTI denies that under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of 

$50,000 is appropriate. 

Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Respondent relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. See 

Administrator v. Blum, NTSB Order No. EA-5371 (February 29, 2008). 

2. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider the 

Nature of the Violation; Whether the Violation was Inadvertent or Not Deliberate; Certificate 

Holder's Level of Experience; Attitude of the Violator; Degree of Hazard; Action Taken by 

3 
Employer or Other Authority; Use of a Certificate; Violation or Incident History; Decisional 

Law; Ability to Absorb Sanction; Consistency of Sanction; Whether the Violation was Reported 

Voluntarily; or Corrective Action. See FAA Order 2150.3B Ch. 7. See also Folsom's Air Service, 

Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 

3. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflect the totality of the circumstances surrounding 

the violations. See Folsom's Air Service. Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 

12; Eastern Air Center. Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). 

4. Finding multiple violations for the same offense constitutes "'piling on' [that] should 

be avoided except under the most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA Order 

No. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 

5. The FAA's interpretation of its aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. See 

Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 

439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. 

6. The FAA's application of its Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary to 

the regulation's plain language. See Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 

2003), quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415,430, 108 S. Ct. 1306, 99 L. Ed. 2d 515 

(1988). See also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 

7. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider the 

Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the 

sanction. 

8. JMTI does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

9. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability of JMTI to 

continue doing business. 

4 
10. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation of its Federal Aviation 

Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Watkins v. NTSB, 178 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 

1999). 

11. JMTI asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to continue 

prosecution of this matter against it. 

Dated: June 23, 2015 

5 

Gr,ory . w· on, Esq. 

T~Aviation Law Firm ~--·/ 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Counsel for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one 

copy of the foregoing Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building~Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

And further, that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing via facsimile and U.S. mail, 

postage pre-paid, to the following: 

ONE COPY VIA FACSIMILE NO. 202-366-7536 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

(Richard.Goowin@dot.gov) 

ONE COPY VIA FACSIMILE NO. 816-329-3771 

Mark G. Camacho, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Central Region, ACE-7 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

Tel: 816-329-3765 

Fax: 816-329-3771 

Counsel for Complainant 

Dated: June 23, 2015 

6 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Counsel for Respondent