U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

# RE'

# cEI 

# vED WASHINGTON, D.C.**~~** · ·

IN THE MATTER OF

WOOLPERT, LLC FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0211 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Han. JE. Sullivan Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: NOT YETASSIGNED 

## JUL 3020!5 

## HEARING DOCKFT

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuantto Rule 209 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F:R. § 13.209) and hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint served on June 9, 2015. ANSWER I. Section I ofthe Complaint does not contain any allegatiOns requiring a response. II. 1. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegatic.ns contained in section II, paragraph number 1 ofthe Complaint. 2. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint. 3. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3, including subsections (a) through (f), ofthe Complaint.4. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4 ofthe Complaint. 5. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint. 6. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaint. By reason ofthe foregoing, Woolpert, LLC denies that it violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations:

a. Woolpert, LLC denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.7(a). b. Woolpert, LLC denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.407(a)(1).

c. Woolpert, LLC denies that itviolated 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(2). IV. [sic] 1. Woolpert, LLC denies that, pursuantto 49 U.S.C. 

### §46301(a)(5), it is subject to a civil penalty in an amount ofup to $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 2. Woolpert, LLC denies that, under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil**----------~p~e~na~l~ty~o~fc.$~7',o~o~o~is~a=p=p~ro~p=r~ia~re~.--------------------------------------------------------** Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Woolpert, LLC asserts that the Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which the reliefrequested may be granted. 2. Woolpert, LLC relies uponthe affirmative defense ofreasonable reliance. See Administrator v. Blum, NTSB OrderNo. EA-5371 (February 29, 2008).

23. Indetermining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider the Nature ofthe Violation; Whether the Violation was Inadvertent orNot Deliberate; Certificate Holder's Level ofExperience; Attitude ofthe Violator; Degree ofHazard; Action Takenby Employer or Other Authority; Use ofa Certificate; Violation or Incident History; Decisional Law; Ability to Absorb Sanction; Consistency ofSanction; Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily; or Corrective Action. See FAA Order 2150.3B Ch. 7. See also Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 4. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflectthe totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. See Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 12; EasternAir Center, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). 5. Finding multiple violations for the same offense constitutes "'piling on' [that] shouldbe avoided except under the most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA OrderNo. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 6. The FAA's interpretation ofits aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. See Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans StatesAirlines, Inc. v.

AA, 439 F.3Ulf6T,ll04-8""6)(8tileif:-2006); Heath v. SEc;L009LJ:S-:-A:pp. I:EXIS-24128 at 53- 55. 7. The FAA's application ofits Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary to the regulation's plain language. SeeAdvanta 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 StatesAirlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006).

38. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainanthas failed to consider the Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the sanction. 9. Wool pert, LLC does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty.10. The proposed civil penalty wouldhave a detrimental effect onthe ability of Woolpert, LLC to continue doing business. 11. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, 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). 12. Woolpert asserts thatthe Complainantlacks substantial basis in law and fact to continue prosecution ofthis matter against it. Dated: July 8, 2015

4 Grego , Esq. The J\Niation Law Firm 1997Aunapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Aunapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer andAffirmative Defenses addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430**--------------~wmimtoTim~w~n~·gmh~I~B~umilding Snite2W~~------------------------------------------**  Washington, DC 20591 And further, that I have this date served a copy ofthe foregoing via facsimile and U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: ONE COPYVIA FACSIMILE NO. 202-366-7536 AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL HON. J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 ONE COPYVIA FACSIMILE NO. 718-995-5699 AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL Daniel Kohlmeyer Attorney Federal Aviation Administration I Aviation Plaza**-----------+Jmmrrnai:ca;-NY-tt4-3-4~------------------------------** ---f----------------------- Te1: (718) 553-3266 Fax: (718) 995-5699 Counsel for Complainant Dated: July 8, 2015



### 5 Grego

_S. Wi to sq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for Respondent