U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS R E' c E I v ED 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ~~ · · 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WOOLPERT, LLC 

FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0211 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Han. JE. Sullivan 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

JUL 3 0 20!5 

HEARING DOCKFT 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, 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 and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint served on June 9, 2015. 

ANSWER 

I. 

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

II. 

1. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegatic.ns contained in section II, paragraph number 1 

of the Complaint. 

2. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 

of the Complaint. 

3. Wool pert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3, 

including subsections (a) through (f), of the Complaint. 
4. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4 

of the Complaint. 

5. Wool pert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 

of the Complaint. 

6. Woolpert, LLC denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6 

of the Complaint. 

By reason of the foregoing, Woolpert, LLC denies that it violated the following sections 

of the 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 it violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(2). 

IV. [sic] 

1. Woolpert, LLC denies that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5), it is subject to a 

civil penalty in an amount of up to $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 

2. Woolpert, LLC denies that, under the facts and circumstances of this 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 relief requested may be granted. 

2. Woolpert, LLC relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. See 

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

2 
3. 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 

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. 

4. 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). 

5. 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). 

6. 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. 

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 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). 

3 
8. 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. 

9. Wool pert, LLC does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil 

penalty. 

10. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability of 

Woolpert, LLC to continue doing business. 

11. 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). 

12. Woolpert asserts that the Complainant lacks 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 

1997 Aunapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Aunapolis, 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 --------------~wmimtoTim~w~n~·gmh~I~B~umilding Snite2W~~------------------------------------------

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 

AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL 

HON. J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

ONE COPY VIA 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 Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Counsel for Respondent