U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N OFFIC E O F HEARINGS FEDERA L AVIATIO

N ADMINISTRATIO

N DE C 2 9 280 9 

# RECEIVE D FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , HEARIN G DOCKE T Complainant , vs . FA A Docke t No . , ^ -v^t

U 

### Judg e Cf^HS^^^' ^ Executiv e Offic

e o f th e Stat e of Texa s c^ . < C)i ^ Respondent . (( ^ °^ ^ RESPONDENT' S ORIGINA L ANSWE R AN D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S Respondent , the TEXA S ARM Y NATIONA

L GUARD , b

y counsel , files thi s it s Origina l Answe r an d Affirmativ

e Defense s pursuan

t to Rul e 209 (1 4 C.F.R . § 13.209 ) ofth e Rule s o f Practic e an

d shows : A . Admission s & Denial s 1 . Responden

t denie s th e allegation s o f thi s paragraph . Responden t denie s it s designation a s th e "Executiv e Offic e ofth e Stat

e o f Texas" . Suc

h astat e agenc y doe s no t exist . Respondent' s nam e i s th e "Texa s Arm

y Nationa l Guard. " Th

e Complainan

t agency . Federa

l Aviation Administration (FAA) , fo r whateve r reasons , refuse s to us e th e prope

r designation , althoug

h thi s designation ha s bee

n brough t t o it s attention a

t leas t twice . Responden

t should b e identified a s "Texa s Nationa l Guard " o r "Texa s Guard" , rathe

r tha n simpl y "Texas. " Responden

t admit s th e remainde r o f the paragraph . II . 2 . Responden

t admit s th e allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 3 . Responden

t admit s th e allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 4 . Responden

t admit s the allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 5 . Responden

t admit s the allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 6 . Responden

t admits the allegation s o f

thi s paragraph .7 . Responden t admits th e allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 8 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s o f

thi s paragraph , 9 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . 10 . Responden

t admits the allegation s o

f thi s paragraph . 11 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . 12 . Responden

t admit s th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . 13 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph , 14 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 15 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s o

f thi s paragraph . 16 . Responden

t admits the allegation s of

thi s paragraph , 17 . Responden

t admits the allegation s o f

thi s paragraph . 18 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . 19 . Responden

t admit s th e allegation s o

f thi s paragraph . 20 . Responden

t admits th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . 21 . Responden

t admit s th e allegation s of

thi s paragraph . III . 22 . Thi s paragrap

h i s astatemen

t of la w tha t Responden

t need not respond to .

Crowley/FAA/Respondent' s Origina l Answe r an d Affirmativ e Defense s Pag e 2 o f 523 . Responden t denie s tha

t th e proposed civi l penalt

y of $30,000.0 0 i s appropriate . Responden

t presente d detailed documentation o f it s correctiv e action s to th e FA A o n June 10,2009 . The FA

A did no t question o r otherwis e expres s dissatisfaction wit h thi s respons e unti l Novembe r 17 , 2009 , whe

n i t stated i n correspondenc e tha

t "the material s wer

e insufficien

t to mee t th e relevan

t trainin g requirements. " Th e FAA' s Fina l Notic e o f Proposed Civi l Penalty , dated Octobe r 14 , 2009 , di d no t

rais e an y concern s abou

t th e Guard' s correctiv e action ; i t simpl y state s th e propose d "amoun t include s consideratio n o f

an y correctiv e actio n implemented a s aresult of thes e allegations. " Th

e FA A ha s not applied an

y objectiv e criteri ai

n determining th e proposed penalty , especiall

y i n th e are ao f

remedia l effort s take n b y th e Guard . BECAUS E th e inciden

t mad e th e subjec

t o f thi s complain

t wa s afirst

tim e incident , an d becaus e significan

t remedia l action ha s bee

n taken , th e Texa s Guar

d request s tha

t the Administrativ e La

w Judg e asses s apenalt

y reflecting th e on

e tim e natur e ofth e incident , an

d th e Guard' s effort

s a t remediation , an

d impos e apenalt

y o f significantl

y les s tha

n $30,000.00 . B . Affirmative Defense s 24 . Th e penalt y th e FA A woul d impos e i s arbitrar

y an d capriciou s an

d a n abus e o f discretion . Th

e FA A ha s not addresse d the fac

t tha t th e inciden

t befor e thi s Administrativ e La

w Judg e wa s afirst

tim e inciden t an d tha t th e Guar d procedure s hav e bee n changed . Complain

t state s correctiv e actio n wa s give n effec t whil e the FA A correspondenc e o f

Novembe r 17,200 9 state s i

t ha s not . Clearl

y th e FA A ha s no t applied an y objective standard s i

n determining th e amoun

t ofth e civi l penalt

y to b e imposed . 25 . Responden

t would show tha

t i t ha s sough t to reach asettlemen

t wit h th e FA A sinc e th e beginning o f

thes e proceedings . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13 . lb(n ) permit s suc h settlement s b

y th e FAA . Resolving thi s matte r shoul d not requir e forma l administrativ e adjudication , an d i f th e agenc y would negotiat

e wit h th e Guar d i n goo d fait h i t wil l not . It s decisio n no t to d o s o i s arbitrary , capriciou s an d a n abus e to discretion .

Crowley/FAA/Respondent' s Original Answe r an d Affirmativ e Defense s Pag e 3 o f 5WHEREFORE , becaus e the inciden t mad e the subject

o f thi s complain

t wa s afirst tim e incident , an

d becaus e significan

t remedia l actio n regardin g the Guar d shipping procedure s ha s bee

n implemented , th e Texa s Guar d request s tha

t th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e tak e thes e factor

s o f negotiation s int

o account , an

d asses s acivi l penalt

y significantl

y les s tha n $30,000.00 . Respectfull y submitted , GRE G ABBOT

T Attorne y Genera l of Texa s KEN T C . SULLIVA

N Firs t Assistan t Attorne y Genera l DAVI D S . MORALES Deput y Attorne y Genera l fo r Civi l Litigatio n BARBAR A B.DEAN E Chief/AdministratiVo^a

w Ddviai <

, ^ [CHAE L C . CROSB Y Assistan t Attorney/Genera

l Stat e Ba r No . 05170300 OFFIC E OF TH

E ATTORNE

Y GENERA

L O F TEXA S Environmenta

l Protectio n an

d Administrativ e La w Division P.O . Bo x 12548 , Capito l Station Austin , Texa s 78711-254 8 Phone : (512)475-420 8 Fax : (512)474-106 2

Crowley/FAA/Respondent' s Original Answer an d Affirmativ e Defense s Pag e 4 o f 5CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I certif y tha t atru e an d correc t cop y ofth e abov

e an d foregoin g instrumen

t ha s bee n served o n thi s the.2-! ^ da

y o f Decembe r 200 9 o n th e followin

g counse l o f record : Hearin g Docke

t Cler k FAA , AGC-430 , Suit

e 2W100 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S

W Washington , DC 2059 1 Gerald A , Ellis , Attorne

y U.S . Departmen

t of Transportatio n Office ofth e Regiona

l Counsel , Souther

n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Box 2063 6 Atlanta , Georgi a3032

0 Attorne y fo r Complainan

t

:HAE L C . CROWLE Y Assistan t Attorne y General

Crowley/FAA/Rcspondent ' s Origina l Answe r an d Affirmativ e Defense s Pag e 5 o f 5