11/24/2010 11:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l001/005 

U.S. DRPARIMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HtARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF 

:nANSPORTATION 

•; ";;KuTOPEflATIOMS 

m m '?u A ti: 28 

IN Tim MATTER OK 

FLIGHTSTAR AIRCRAFT SJFRVICES, INC, 

FAA Docket No. 2008-01.-05-00^2 

(Civil Penttlty Action) 

OMSNo. I'AA'XXX-XXXX 

Judge Not Assigned 

Hcmng Location: Not assigned 

Hearing Dace: Not assigned 

^6(0" folk 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. 

COMES NOW. FIJGHTSTAR AIRCRAFT SIvRVlCES, INC. (hereijiafter 

"FLIGIITST AR"), hy ftiid throxigh undersigned counsel pursuant to Rule 209 of the Riil«s of 

Pmctjcr (14 CF.R. §13.209), and hereby illes its Answer to th« Complaim filed by Ihe Federal 

Aviation Administration dated October 26. 20) 0. 

On October rt. 2010, FLTGHTSTAR submitted a wrinen request for a hearing pursuant TC 

14 CF.R. §13.1(1. 

r. 

1. FTJGHTSTAR admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. FLlGHTSTAR admits the ailcga.tion.'s cDntained in paragraph 2 of the Complaini. 

3. FLIGHTS'I AR admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 ol Ihe Complaint. 

4. 1'LIGHTSTAR dem'rs the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of tlie Complaint. 
•y DMS 21002/005 

11/24/2010 11:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

3. FLIGHTS!' AR lacJcs knowledge or informntion sufficient to form a belief as to the tnith or 

falsity of the allcgaiinns contained in parajjiaph 5 of tiic Complaint and therefore, denies 

same and demands strict proof thereof. 

6. FLlGHTSTAR deniosj the allecations contained in peragraph 6 of the Complaim. 

U. 

11. FLlGHTSTAR denies that it violated 14 CF.R, §43.13(a). 

b. FLlGHTSTAR denies that it violated 14 CF.R. §145.205(a). 

FLlGHTSTAR denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46.301. it is subject to a civil penedty not 

to exceed $1,100 for each of the violations alleged. 

FLlGHTSTAR denies that under thr. facts and circumsttmces of this ca,sc. fi civil penalty of 

$2,200.00 is flppopriatc. 

Any matter not specifically admitted by FLIGHT.STAR shall be deemed denied, 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSRS 

1. ID determining the civil penaJiy amount, the Complainant ha.'^ f?iTlcd lo consider (1) the 

npture and circumstancea of the violation; (2) the extent and gravity of the violation; (3) the 

Tcspnndait'.s degree of culpability; (4) the respondent's history of prior vinlarioDs, if any; 

(5) the respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the eflect on the entity's Jibihty to 

stay in bu.'sines.s; and (7) other matters a.") justice mny require. See 49 U.S.C. §46301(c)(2); 

See also Fobom'i-Air Se:rvfce, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 

2. In derermining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant haa f&\M +o determine whether 

the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 
* DMS 121003/005 

11/24/2010 11:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

3. Tn dctcrmiTiing the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider thr 

Respondent's sire, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to aK^rb ihc 

s-anction. 

4. The proposed civil penalty fails lo reflect the totality of the ciitum stances surrounding the 

violations. Sec Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6,2008), p. 

12: Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 (January 2?, 2008). 

5. FLlGHTSTAR does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

6. The proposed civil pcnajry would have a detrimental effwt on the ability of FLlGHTSTAR 

to continue doing businc.?.?. 

7. FLlGHTSTAR relies upon the, affirmative defense of rea.Honable reliance. 

8. The Federal Aviation Administration's (b'AA's) interpretation of it,<! FisHeral 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); Warktna v. NTSU, 178 F..3d 959. 9fi1 (8th 

Cir. 1999). 

9. The FAA's interpretation of its aviation reftulation.? is uncon.^titiitionally vague. See 

7"^»mai V. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans States Airlinen, Inc. v. 

FAA, 439 F.3d $63, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 

ai '53-55. 

10. ITio FAA'S application of its Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary to the 

regulation's plain language. ^ecAdvanta USA, Inc. v. Chan, 350 F,3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 

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

(198R). See also Tram States Airlitu'.s. Inc. v. F><^, 439 r.3d 863,864-86.5 (8th Cir, 2006). 
. QMS 21004/005 

11/24/2010 ir.n FAX 2024935142 FAA 

11. Respondcn) a.'ssens that the Complainant has failed lo state a claim upon which l]->e relief 

requested may be granied. 

12. Respondent asserts that the Complainant lacks substontial basis in law and fact to continue 

pro.secuiion of this matter aE-'mst it. 

Dated: November 17, 2010 

Respcctiiilly I 

Suite 450 

Rockvillr. MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Greg@AvifiionT .;iw£xpefts.com 

Counsel tor Respondent 
11/24/201 0 11:1 1 FAX 202493514 2 FAA + DMS @l005/005 

CF.RIIFTCATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby ccirrify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, sn urlglnal and 

one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer addrcs.-?cd )"• 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. A<;KV430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Indcpcndonre Avenue, S,W. 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C, 20591 

And, fiirthcr, that 1 have this date served vi?i fscsiinile andreRidar U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a 

copy of the foregoing Answer addressed to: 

GlrrmL. Brown 

Senior Altomey 

Federal Aviarion Administration 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

2300 Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines. IL 60018 

Tel; 847-294-7063 

Fax; 847-294-7498 

Dated: November 17. 2010 

TNTON, ESQ. 

, Law Firm 

One Research Coun 

Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525