- • l ( / 

### 3 2C' 3 

# D DOC'^E T Ir-' ' OrP I OM R;;o>=On!/tJJP

i DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE RO F EMPIR E AIRWAY S Responden t FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DMSNO . FAA-2010-019 1 HONORABL E ISAA C D . BENKI N ADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDG E Hearin g Date : Jun e 29 , 201 0 Hearin g Location : Islip , N Y AMENDE D ANSWE RAN D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S COME S NOW , EMPIR E AIRWAYS , b y an dthroug hundersigne dcounsel , pursuan t t o Rul e 21 4 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . §13.214) , an dhereb y Amend s it s Answe r an d Affirmativ e Defense s file di n thi s matte r o n Marc h12 , 2009 , a s follows : ANSWE R 1 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h1 o f th e Complaint . 2 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h2 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof. 3 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h3 o f th e Complaint . 4 . EMPIREAIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h4 o f th e Complaint .5 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S lacks knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h5 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 6 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S lacks knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsit y o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h6 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereof. 7 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S lacks knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsity o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h7 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denies sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 8 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsity o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h8 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 9 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trutho r falsity o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h9 o f th e Complain t

an dtherefore , denie s sam e an ddemand s stric t proo f thereo f 10 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien t

t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e trut ho r falsity o f th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h1 0 o f th e Complain t

an d therefore , denie s sam e an ddemands stric t proo f thereo f 11 . EMPIREAIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h1 1 o f th e Complaint . 12 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h1 2 o f th e Complaint . 13 . EMPIRE AIRWAY S denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h1 3 o f th e Complaint . 14 . EMPIREAIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §43.13(a) . 15 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §43.13(b) .16 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.405(a) . 17 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.407(a)(1) . 18 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.407(a)(2) . 19 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S denie s tha t i t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.7(a) . 20 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S denie s tha t pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(l ) i t i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalty not

t o excee d$25,00 0 fo r

eac ho f th e violation s alleged , or , pursuan t t o o r 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(5) , it

i s liabl e for

acivi l penalty no t

t o excee d$11,00 0 for

eac ho f th e violation s alleged . 21 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S denie s tha t unde r th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s case , acivi l penalty o f

$20,000.0 0 i s appropriate . 22 . An y matte r

no t specificall y admitte db y EMPIR E AIRWAY S shal l b e deeme ddenied .

AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S 1 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S relie s upo n th e affiraiativ e defens e o f reasonabl e reliance . 2 . EMPIR EAIRWAY S i s not th e entity tha t

operate dth e flight

i n question . 3 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S i s not th e entity tha t

performe dth e aircraf

t maintenanc e i n question . 4 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o conside r

(1 ) th e natur e an dcircumstance s o f th e violation ; (2 ) th e exten t an dgravit y o f

th e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s histor y o f prio r violations , i f any ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit y t o pay th e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec t o n th e entity' s ability t o stay i n business ; an d(7 ) othe r matter s a s justic e may require . Se e 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(e)(2) ; Se e als o Folsom' s Ai r Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , p . 11 .5 . In determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o determin e whethe r th e violatio n wa s inadverten t o r deliberate . 6 . In determinin g th e civi l penalty amount , th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o conside r

th e Respondent' s size , particularl y i n determinin g th e allege doffender' s ability t o absor b th e sanction . 7 . Th e propose dcivi l penalty fail s t o reflec t th e totality o f

th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violations . Se e Folsom' s Ai r Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (November 6 , 2008) , p . 12 ; Easter n Ai r Center , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008- 3 (January 28 , 2008) . 8 . Findin g multipl e violation s for th e sam e offens e woul dconstitut e '"pilin g on ' [that ] shoul db e avoide dexcep t unde r th e mos t egregiou s circumstances. " I n th e Matte r o f Carr , FA A Orde r

No . 1998- 2 at

11-1 2 (Marc h12 , 1998) . 9 . EMPIREAIRWAY S doe s no t hav e th e financial ability t o pa y th e propose dcivi l penalty . 10 . Th e propose dcivi l penalty woul dhav e adetrimenta l effec t o n th e ability o f

EMPIR E AIRWAY S t o continu e doin g business . 11 . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s (FAA's ) interpretatio n o f it s Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s i n thi s cas e i s arbitrary , capricious , an abus e o f discretion , o r

otherwis e no t

i n accordanc e withlaw . Se e 5 U.S.C . § 706(2 ) (A) ; Watkin s v. NTSB , 17 8 F.3 d959,96 1 (8thCir . 1999) . 12 . Th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f it s aviatio n regulation s i s unconstitutionall y vague . Se e Thoma s v . Hinson , 7 4 F.3 d888 , 88 9 (8thCir . 1996) ; se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . V . FAA , 43 9 F.3 d863 , 864-86 5 (8thCir . 2006) ; Heat hv . SEC , 200 9 U.S . App . LEXI S 2412 8 at 53-55 .13 . Th e FAA' s applicatio n o f it s Federal Aviatio n Regulation s i n thi s cas e i s contrary t o th e regulation' s plai n language . SeeAdvant aUSA , Inc . v . Chao , 35 0 F.3 d726 , 72 8 (8t hCir . 2003) , quotin g Gardebrin g v . Jenkins , 48 5 U.S . 415 , 430 , 10 8 S . Ct . 1306 , 9 9 L . Ed . 2 d 51 5 (1988) . Se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . v. FAA , 43 9 F.3 d863 , 864-86 5 (8t hCir . 2006) . 14 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S assert s tha t th e Complainan t

ha s faile dt o stat e aclai mupo n whic h th e relie f requeste dmay b e granted . 15 . EMPIR E AIRWAY S assert s tha t th e Complainan t

lacks substantia l basi s i n la w an dfac t t o continu e prosecutio n o f thi s matte r

agains t it . Date dthi s 2n dda y o f

Jun e 2010 . GREGq^;^ . WINTON , ESQ .

TheA.viatK) n La w Firm On e Researc hCourt , Suit e 45 0 Rockville,M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Responden tI I CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat e serve db y regular U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , an origina l an don e (1 ) cop y o f

th e foregoin g Amende dAffirmativ e Defense s addresse dto : Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building-Suit e 2W100 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Roo m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1 I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat e sen t

vi afacsimil e an dfirst

clas s mai l acop y o f

th e foregoin g Amende dAffirmativ e Defense s addresse dto :

Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U . S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave. , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : 20 2 366-321 2 Fax : 20 2 366-753 6

r ' Zachary M . Berman , Esq . FA A Easter n Region , AEA- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : 71 8 553-325 8 Fax:71 8 533-569 9 >n d Date dthi s 2" " day o f

Jun e 2010 . I 1 Respectfu l

GREGORYS . WINTON , ESQ . TheA.vi5tlo n La w Fir m O mResearc hCourt , Suit e 45 0 Rockville,M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Responden t