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 WilburWright Building, Suite 2Wl00 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Re: Answer ofLearjct 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 ofthe 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 1004/22/2014 15:09:27 (Eastern)

Inthe Matter of: LearjetInc. From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.
FAADocket No. FAA-2014-0113 (Civil PenaltyAction) FAA CaseNo. 2012CE430011 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin ANSWER Respondent LemjetInc. ("Learjet") pursuantto Rule 209 ofthe Rules ofPractice inFAA Civil Penalty Actions ("Rules ofPractice"), 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.209, byits counsel, PillsburyWinthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, herebyfiles its Answer to the FAA's Complaint, dated March, 24, 2014. In support ofits Answer, Lem.jet states the following: I. 1. On March 6, 2014, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penaltythat the FAAproposedto assess a civil penaltyin 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 ofFederal AviationAdministration (FAA) Production Certificate Number 329CE, authorizing the production ofairplanes and related parts. RESPONSE: Admitted. 2. OnAugust4, 2011, Learjet applied to the FAA's-WichitaMIDO (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 andthat the aircraft hadbeen inspected, was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness certificate requested; and b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement ofConformity, withno deviations listed. RESPONSE: Admitted.

501317282_l.DOCX04/2212014 15:09:48 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007

3. Incident to tl1e above application, theFAA conducted an airworthiness inspection whereby:
a. The FAA documented 13 unsatisfactory conditions with S/N 408; b. Lcarjet was unableto show compliance to the FAA approved type design for 10 ofthe 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 inpari. Lem.jet admits that the FAA documented 13 unsatisfactory conditions, but denies that 13 unsatisfactory conditions existed. Learjet denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph 3, 4. Byletter dated August 18,2011, the FAA informed Learjet ofthe 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. Lemjct denies that 13 unsatisfactory conditions or six additional quality system issues existed, 5. Inresponse to the above noted letter, Lemjetproposed corrective actions to their methods documents, engineering and procedures to address the 19 issues noted inparagraph 4 above. RESPONSE: Learjet's written proposals to theFAA speak for themselves, and Lemjet denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. 6. By letter dated June 20, 2012, the FAA informed Lcarjet that theproposed corrective actions noted in paragraph 5 above were conditionally accepted, pending the FAA's on-site verification ofimplementation and effectiveness. RESPONSE: The FAA's June 20, 2012letter speal<s for itself 7. Between September 12, 2011 through December 15, 2011, Learjetapplied 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· ofthe 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 1004/22/2014 15:10:13 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007

RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part, Lemjet admits the allegations ofparagraph 7(a) and that it did not list any deviations. Learjet denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph 7. 8. The FAA conducted airworthiness inspections pursuant to the five ainvorthiness ceriificate applications noted inparagraph 7 above, resulting in:


### a The discovery of55 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 ofall five airworthiness certificates. RESPONSE: Admitted inpmi and denied in pmi. Learjet admits that the FAA denied all five airwmihiness certificates, but denies theremaining allegations ofparagraph 8. 9. Byletter dated Janum·y 27, 2012, tl1e FAAinfonned Lemjet of47 out ofthe 55 unsatisfactory conditions noted in paragraph 8(a) above as they related to three ofthe five aircraft noted inparagraph 7 above. RESPONSE: TheFAA's Jmmary 27, 2012letter speaks for itself. Learjet denies that 47 unsatisfactory conditions existed. 10. Inresponse to the above letter and multiple follow up cmmnunieations withthe FAA, Lealjet proposed conective actions to address the unsatisfactory conditions noted inparagraph 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-siteverification ofimplementation and effectiveness. RESPONSE: Admitted. 12. Between May I, 2012 and September 25, 2012, the FAA conducted multiple Learjet onsite airworthiness inspections for the verification ofimplementation and effectiveness ofthe conditionally accepted proposed cotrective actions noted in paragraphs 6 and 11 above. RESPONSE: Admitted.

3 501317282_l.DOCX04/2212014 15:10:38 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007



### 13. As aresult inspections noted in paragraph 12 above, the FAA determined Learjet's proposed conective actions noted inparagraphs 5 and I0 above were ineffective. RESPONSE: 

### Admitted inpart and denied in part. Lemjet admits thatthe FAA determined that Lemjet's proposed conective actions noted in paragraphs 5 and 10 were ineffective, but denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph 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 notin a condition for safe operation. RESPONSE: 

### Admitted inpmi. Lemjet admits that the FAA denied Lemjet's application for airworthiness csrtificate fat SIN 445, but denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph 14. 15. Based onthe on-site inspections noted inparagraph 12 above and the seventh denied airwortl1iness certificate**v.~thin** 

### a single year as noted inparagraphs 3, 8 and 14 above, the FAA withdrew its conditional acceptm1ces, as noted inparagraphs 6 m1d 11 above and notified Learjet ofthis determinationbyktter dated September 26, 2012. RESPONSE: 

### Admitted in part and denied inpart. 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 ofthis dctcnnination. Lemjet denies theremaining allegations ofparagraph 15. 16. Notwithstanding tl1e repeated and explicit FAA feedback regm·ding Lsarjet's nonconfon11ing aircraftbeingpresented for airworthiness inspections as noted above, on September 27, 2012, Learjetpresented 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 certificatereqnested; and b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement ofConfmmity, witl1 no deviations listed. RESPONSE: 

### Admitted inpart and denied inpart. Learjet admits that it presented atl 

### airworthiness csrtificate applicationfor SIN 447, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16.

4**50l3l7282~!.DOCX** Page 7 oF 1004/22/2014 15:11:04 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 Page 8 of 10

17. Byletter dated October 4, 2012, the FAA denied the airworthiness certificate for S/N 477, 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 inpmi and denied in pati. Learjet admits that the FAA denied the airworthiness certificate for S/N 477, but denies the remaining allegations inparagraph 17. 18. Based onthe multipleunsatisfactory conditions noted above and the eight rejected airworthiness certificates as noted inparagraphs 3, 8, 14 m1d 17 above, Lemjet's quality system is being operated outside ofits FAA appTOved procedures and regulatory requirements. RESPONSE: Denied. III. 1. Byreason ofthe foregoing facts m1d circumstm1ces, Lemjet violated the following sections ofthe Federal AviationRegulations (Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations):
a. 21.146(b) which provides that the holder ofa production certificate must maintain the quality system in compliance with the data and procedures approved for the production certificate. b. 21.146 (c) whichprovides that theholder ofa production certificate must ensure that each completed product or article for which aproduction certificate has been issued, including primat'y category aircraft assembled under a production ce1iificateby another person from a kitprovided bythe holder ofthe production certificate, presented for airworthiness certification or approval conforms to its approved design andis in a condition for safe operation; RESPONSE: Denied. 2. Pursuantto Title49 U.S.C. 46301, Lcmjet is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. RESPONSE: Denied. 3. Under the facts and circumstmces ofthis case, a civil penalty of$247,500 is appropriate. RESPONSE: Denied.

5 50l317282_l.DOCX0412212014 15:11:28 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007

IV. Affim1ative Defenses
• For its first aftinnative defense, Learjct asserts that Complainanthas failed to state a claim upon whichreliefcan be granted.
• Forits second affirmative defense, Learjet asserts th.at tl1e proposed civil penaltyis excessive and not appropriate here in view ofprecedent and FAA enforcement guidance.
• Forits third affirmative defense, Learjet asserts that the Complainant's prosecution ofthis case will not further serve tl1e Complainant's compliance and enforcement objectives and the public interest and, therefore, is notin compliancewith FAA Order 2150.3A, Compliance and EnforcementManual. V. Location for Hearing Learjetrequests that thehearingbe schedule in Wichita.
VI. Requested Relief Page 9 of 10

WHEREFORE, Learjet, by cotmsel, submits that ithas fully answere(tthe 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 URYWINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN 2300 N Street, l\TW Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 (202) 663-800004/22/2014 15:11:44 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythat on April 22, 2014, I sent one copy ofthe foregoing Answerbyfacsimile and one copybyU.S. First Class mail, Return ReceiptRequested to the following Tecipients: David KessleT, Complainant's Cotmsel Federal Aviation Administration 90 1Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 FAX: 816-329-3771 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTranspmtation 1200New 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 copythereofbyU.S. First Class mail, RetumReceipt 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 WilburWright Building, Suite 2Wl000

Dated this 

### 22"d day ofApril, 2014.

501317282_l.DOCX 7 

### ·zzo INTHROP SHAW 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 (202) 663-8000 Page 10 oF 1004/22/2014 15:08:31 (Eastern) From: Pillsbury Winthrop- 202.663.8007 

# Emailto 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 inthis message (including attachments) is not intended orwrittento be used, and itcannotbe used, for the purpose ofavoidingtaxpenalties orfor the purpose ofpromoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters. Additionally, the contents ofthis message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use ofthe individual or entityto whichthey are addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. Ifyou are notthe intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthis message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the original sender orthe 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. Thankyou.

===========================================================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 NEWYORK 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. Ifyou 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 ofany of the Information**cont~lnect** In this transmission Is strictly PROHIBITED. Ifyou 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 CauRizzo Email: rebecca.rizzo@pillsburylaw.com User No: 54632 Comments: Re: Answer ofLearjet, Inc. FAA CaseNo. 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

Ifyou have not properly received this fax, please call (202) 663w8000. Thank you. Operator: Time Sent: Batch !D: Page 2 of 10