04/22/2014 15:09:14 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

~1lsour~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Llr 

2300 N S1reGt, NW 1 Washington, DC 2003-/-ll22 I tel202.663.8000 , fax 202.663,8007 

April22, 2014 

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL AND FACSIMILE 

Hearing Docket 

federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 00 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Answer of Learjct Inc. 

fAA Case No. 2012CE430011 

To Hearing Docket Clerk: 

Rebecca Carr Rizzo 

tcl202.663.9!43 

rcbecca.rizzo@pillsburylaw.coJTl 

Enclosed herein please find the original ood one copy of the Answer to the Complaint 

served on April22, 2014, in ihe above-referenced )1l'Oceeding. 

r Rizzo 

cc: avid Kessler 

'D1e Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

www.pillsburylew.com 404462850v" 

Page 3 of 10 
04/22/2014 15:09:27 (Eastern) 

In the Matter of: 

Learj et Inc. 

From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0113 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

ANSWER 

Respondent Lemjet Inc. ("Learjet") pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions ("Rules of Practice"), 14 C.F .R. § 13.209, by its counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop 

Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby files its Answer to the FAA's Complaint, dated March, 24, 2014. In 

support of its Answer, Lem.jet states the following: 

I. 

1. On March 6, 2014, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $247,500. On March 

17, 2014, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

II. 

1. Learjet Inc. (Lem.jet) is, m.1d at all times mentioned below was, the holder of Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Production Certificate Number 329CE, authorizing the 

production of airplanes and related parts. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

2. On August 4, 2011, Learjet applied to the FAA's-Wichita MIDO (FAA) for issuance of 

m.1 airworthiness certificate for serial number (SIN) 408, presenting: 

Page 4 of 10 

a. FAA form 8130-6, stating all airworthiness directives (AD) were complied 

with and that the aircraft had been inspected, was airworthy and eligible 

for the airworthiness certificate requested; and 

b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement of Conformity, with no deviations listed. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

501317282_l.DOCX 
04/2212014 15:09:48 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

3. Incident to tl1e above application, the FAA conducted an airworthiness inspection 

whereby: 

a. The FAA documented 13 unsatisfactory conditions with S/N 408; 

b. Lcarjet was unable to show compliance to the FAA approved type design 

for 10 of the 13 unsatisfactory conditions; 

c. S/N 408 did not confom1 to its approved design and was not in a condition 

for safe operation; and 

d. S/N 408 was denied an airw01ihiness certificate, 

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in pari. Lem.jet admits that the FAA documented 13 

unsatisfactory conditions, but denies that 13 unsatisfactory conditions existed. Learjet denies the 

remaining allegations of paragraph 3, 

4. By letter dated August 18,2011, the FAA informed Learjet of the 13 unsatisfactory 

conditions noted above and six additional qtmlity system issues identified during the 

airwotihiness inspection. 

RESPONSE: The FAA's August 18, 20111etter speaks for itself. Lemj ct denies that 13 

unsatisfactory conditions or six additional quality system issues existed, 

5. In response to the above noted letter, Lemjet proposed corrective actions to their methods 

documents, engineering and procedures to address the 19 issues noted in paragraph 4 above. 

RESPONSE: Learjet's written proposals to the FAA speak for themselves, and Lemjet denies 

any characterization inconsistent therewith. 

6. By letter dated June 20, 2012, the FAA informed Lcarjet that the proposed corrective 

actions noted in paragraph 5 above were conditionally accepted, pending the FAA's on-site 

verification of implementation and effectiveness. 

RESPONSE: The FAA's June 20, 2012letter speal<s for itself 

7. Between September 12, 2011 through December 15, 2011, Learjet applied for five 

additional ahworthiness certificates for SINs 396, 403, 427, 432, and 409, whereby Lcarjet: 

5013172&2_l.DOCX 

a. Submitted FAA form 8130-6 for fom· of the aircraft (omitting SIN 403), 

stating all ADs were complied with ar1d that the aircraft had been 

inspected, was airworihy and eligible for the airworthiness ceriificate 

requested; and 

b. Failed to list any deviations. 

2 

Page 5 of 10 
04/22/2014 15:10:13 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part, Lemjet admits the allegations of paragraph 

7(a) and that it did not list any deviations. Learjet denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 

7. 

8. The FAA conducted airworthiness inspections pursuant to the five ainvorthiness 

ceriificate applications noted in paragraph 7 above, resulting in: 

a The discovery of 55 unsatisfactory conditions; 

b. The dete:t1nination that all five aircraft did not confonn to their approved 

design m1d were not in a condition for safe operation; and 

c. The denial of all five airworthiness certificates. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in pmi and denied in pmi. Learjet admits that the FAA denied all five 

airwmihiness certificates, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8. 

9. By letter dated Janum·y 27, 2012, tl1e FAA infonned Lemjet of 47 out of the 55 

unsatisfactory conditions noted in paragraph 8(a) above as they related to three of the five 

aircraft noted in paragraph 7 above. 

RESPONSE: The FAA's Jmmary 27, 2012letter speaks for itself. Learjet denies that 47 

unsatisfactory conditions existed. 

10. In response to the above letter and multiple follow up cmmnunieations with the FAA, 

Lealjet proposed conective actions to address the unsatisfactory conditions noted in paragraph 9 

above. 

RESPONSE: Learjet's written proposals to the FAA speak for themselves, m1d Lemjet denies 

any chm·acterization inconsistent therewith, 

Page 6 oF 10 

11. T11e FAA conditionally accepted Loarjet's proposed corrective actions noted in paragraph 

10 above, pending the FAA's on-site verification of implementation and effectiveness. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

12. Between May I, 2012 and September 25, 2012, the FAA conducted multiple Learjet onsite airworthiness inspections for the verification of implementation and effectiveness of the 

conditionally accepted proposed cotrective actions noted in paragraphs 6 and 11 above. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

3 

501317282_l.DOCX 
04/2212014 15:10:38 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

13. As a result inspections noted in paragraph 12 above, the FAA determined Learjet' s 

proposed conective actions noted in paragraphs 5 and I 0 above were ineffective. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part. Lemjet admits that the FAA determined that 

Lemjet' s proposed conective actions noted in paragraphs 5 and 10 were ineffective, but denies 

the remaining allegations of paragraph 13. 

14. On September 25, 2012, the FAA denied another Lcarjet application for a11 airworthiness 

certificate for SIN 445, based on: 

a. Mnltiple unsatisfactory conditions; and 

b. SIN 445 did not conform to its approved design and was not in a condition 

for safe operation. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in pmi. Lemjet admits that the FAA denied Lemjet's application for 

airworthiness csrtificate fat SIN 445, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14. 

15. Based on the on-site inspections noted in paragraph 12 above and the seventh denied 

airwortl1iness certificate v.~thin a single year as noted in paragraphs 3, 8 and 14 above, the FAA 

withdrew its conditional acceptm1ces, as noted in paragraphs 6 m1d 11 above and notified Learjet 

ofthis determination by ktter dated September 26, 2012. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part. TI1e FAA's September 26, 2012lettcr speaks 

for itself. Learjet admits that the FAA withdrew its conditional acceptances, as noted in 

paragraphs 6 m1d 11, m1d notified Learjet of this dctcnnination. Lemjet denies the remaining 

allegations of paragraph 15. 

16. Notwithstanding tl1e repeated and explicit FAA feedback regm·ding Lsarjet's 

nonconfon11ing aircraft being presented for airworthiness inspections as noted above, on 

September 27, 2012, Learjet presented an airworthiness certificate application for SIN 447, 

including: 

a. FAA form 8130-6, stating all ADs were complied with and that the 

aircraft had been inspected, was airwo1ihy and eligible for the 

airworthiness certificate reqnested; and 

b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement of Confmmity, witl1 no deviations listed. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part. Learjet admits that it presented atl 

airworthiness csrtificate application for SIN 447, but denies the remaining allegations of 

paragraph 16. 

4 50l3l7282~!.DOCX 

Page 7 oF 10 
04/22/2014 15:11:04 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 Page 8 of 10 

17. By letter dated October 4, 2012, the FAA denied the airworthiness certificate for S/N 

4 77, noting: 

a. Eight unsatisfactory conditions; and 

b. SiN 477 did not confom1 to its approved design and was not in a condition 

for safe operation. 

RESPONSE: Admitted in pmi and denied in pati. Learjet admits that the FAA denied the 

airworthiness certificate for S/N 477, but denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17. 

18. Based on the multiple unsatisfactory conditions noted above and the eight rejected 

airworthiness certificates as noted in paragraphs 3, 8, 14 m1d 17 above, Lemjet's quality system 

is being operated outside of its FAA appTOved procedures and regulatory requirements. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts m1d circumstm1ces, Lemjet violated the following 

sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. 21.146(b) which provides that the holder of a production certificate must 

maintain the quality system in compliance with the data and procedures 

approved for the production certificate. 

b. 21.146 (c) which provides that the holder of a production certificate must 

ensure that each completed product or article for which a production 

certificate has been issued, including primat'y category aircraft assembled 

under a production ce1iificate by another person from a kit provided by the 

holder of the production certificate, presented for airworthiness 

certification or approval conforms to its approved design and is in a 

condition for safe operation; 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

2. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Lcmjet is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$25,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

3. Under the facts and circumstmces of this case, a civil penalty of $247,500 is appropriate. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

5 

50l317282_l.DOCX 
0412212014 15:11:28 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

IV. Affim1ative Defenses 

• For its first aftinnative defense, Learjct asserts that Complainant has failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

• For its second affirmative defense, Learjet asserts th.at tl1e proposed civil penalty is 

excessive and not appropriate here in view of precedent and FAA enforcement guidance. 

• For its third affirmative defense, Learj et asserts that the Complainant's prosecution of this 

case will not further serve tl1e Complainant's compliance and enforcement objectives and 

the public interest and, therefore, is not in compliance with FAA Order 2150.3A, 

Compliance and Enforcement Manual. 

V. Location for Hearing 

Learjet requests that the hearing be schedule in Wichita. 

VI. Requested Relief 

Page 9 of 10 

WHEREFORE, Learjet, by cotmsel, submits that it has fully answere(t the Complaint and 

respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge issue an Order dismissing the Complaint. 

:/ . 

Dated: April22, 2014 

6 

501317282_LDOCX 

By: ,..-::;:.7f-. 

~·~~~--J-I,Vl-2..----.c!,:~=="-­

Kenne 1 P. Quirm 

PILLS URY WINTHROP SHAW 

PITTMAN 

23 00 N Street, l\TW 

Washington, D. C. 2003 7-1122 

(202) 663-8000 
04/22/2014 15:11:44 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 22, 2014, I sent one copy of the foregoing Answer by facsimile and 

one copy by U.S. First Class mail, Return Receipt Requested to the following Tecipients: 

David KessleT, Complainant's Cotmsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

90 1 Locust, Room 5 06 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTranspmtation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I fi.nther certifY that on April22, 2014, I sent the OTiginal Answer and one copy thereof by U.S. 

First Class mail, Retum Receipt Requested and one copy by facsimile to the following Tecipient: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 

Dated this 22"d day of April, 2014. 

501317282_l.DOCX 

7 

·zzo 

INTHROP SHAW 

2300 N Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 

(202) 663-8000 

Page 10 oF 10 
04/22/2014 15:08:31 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

Email to Fax Deliverv 

To: 12024935142 

From: joyce.nakka@pillsburylaw.com 

Date: April 22, 2014 19:07:55 GMT 

Subj: Letter and Answer of Learjet, Inc., FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 

Pages: 10 

Joyce Nakka I Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

Legal Secretary 

2300 N Street, NW I Washington, DC 20037-1122 

t 202.663.9438 1 c 301.821.6607 

joyce.nakka@pillsburylaw.com I pillsburylaw.com 

Page 1 oF 10 

In compliance with IRS and other applicable tax practice standards, any advice in this message (including attachments) 

is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties or for the purpose 

of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters. 

Additionally, the contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the 

individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and 

exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 

distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 

error, please notify the original sender or the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Help Desk at Tel: 800-477-0770, 

Option l, immediately by telephone or by retum E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from 

your computer. Thank you. 

=========================================================== 
04/22/2014 15:08:58 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

~ 1llsour~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

2300 N Street, NW I Washington, DC 20037-1122 I te1 202.663.8000 I fax 202.663.8007 

FACSIMILE 

ABU DHABI 

HOUSTO~ 

I_QNDON 

LOS AI~GELES 

NASHVILLE 

NEW YORK 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRIIMENTO 

SAN DIEGO 

SAN DIEGO-NORTH COUNTY 

SAN FRIINCISCO 

SHANGHAI 

SILICON VALLEY 

TOKYO 

WASHINGTON DC 

Confidentiality Note: 

The documents accompanying 

this facsimile transmission may 

contain conf\dentiallnformat!on 

which Is legally privileged. The 

lnforma!lon Is Intended only for 

the use of the lndlvldual or entity 

named above. If you are not the 

Intended recipient, or the person 

responsible for delivering It to the 

intended recipient, you are 

hereby notified that any 

disclosure, copying, distribution 

or use of any of the Information 

cont~lnect In this transmission Is 

strictly PROHIBITED. If you 

have received this transmission 

in error, please Immediately 

notify us by telephone and mall 

the original transmission to us. 

Thank you. 

V0NW.pillsburylsw.oom 

Date: April 22, 2014 

To: Heating Docket Clerk 

Company FAA 

Confirm: 

From: Rebecca Cau Rizzo 

Email: rebecca.rizzo@pillsburylaw.com 

User No: 54632 

Comments: 

Re: Answer of Learjet, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 

Total Pages (Including cover): 9 

Must Be Sent By: 

Fax No: 

Phone No: 

Confirmed By: 

Phone No: 

Fax No: 

CIM No: 

202-493-5142 

202.663.9143 

202.663.8007 

If you have not properly received this fax, please call (202) 663w8000. Thank you. 

Operator: Time Sent: Batch !D: 

Page 2 of 10