To: Pag., 2 of 7 

0 

5l 

2 

'5 

a.{/}::1': 

...J -~ 

....J iU'g 

0 ~ ro d ... n :I:roro u"-> 

<nlllw r z r--&,..; 

0 ~ ro 0::: _:x: g 

><-o> 

O~m 

u.;:ro o-' 

:r; 

0 

0 

"' M 

2014--05-1:2 17:4-1:03 EDT Fox Rothschllel LLP From: H<Onsen, Theresa IVL 

MARK J. CONNOT (10010) 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

2 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500 

Las Vegas, NV 89!69 

3 Telephone: 702.262.6899 

Facsimile: 702.597.5503 

4 mconnot@foxrothschild.com 

S Atwrneys for Respondent 

GREAT WESTERN AIR, LLC 

6 

7 

8 

9 

U.S. IJEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

In the Matter of 

GREAT WESTERN AIR, LLC, 

FAA Case No. : 20!3WP9101239 

DMS No. : FAA-2014-0114 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Richard C. Goodwin 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

GREAT WESTERN AIR, LLC by and through FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP, its' 

attorneys, hereby answers the FAA Complaint, as follows: 

I 

19 

20 

Answering Section I of the FAA's Complaint, Respondent admits each and every 

allegation contained therein, except that part which states that Respondent submitted its request 

21 for hearing on April3, 2013. The request for hearing was submitted on April3, 2014. 

23 1. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 1 of the FAA's Complaint, Respondent 

24 admits that it is the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. N2UA274L but states that the remainder 

25 of the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, 

26 and do not require an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

27 

28 

Pagel of6 
T<>" Page 3 of' 7 2014-05-12 17:41 '03 EDT Fox Rothschild LLF' FrotTl: Hansen, There.,.., !VI. 

2. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 2 of the FAA's Complaint, Respondent 

2 stateR that the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact bm rather are conclusions 

3 of law, and do not require an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

4 3. Answe1ing Section IJ, sub-paragraph 3a, Respondent admits that Mr. Campbell 

5 was hired by Great Westem on November 19, 2012, but states that the remainder of the 

6 allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do 

7 not require an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. As to sub-paragraphs 3b through 3e, 

8 Respondent admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraphs 3f(l) 

9 through (9), Respondent admits that Mr. Campbell was present on flights operated by Great 

10 Western on the dates set forth in those allegations, but states that the remainder of the allegations 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

in this paragraph are not allegations of ltlCt but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require 

an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

4. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 4a, Respondent admits that Mr. Ford was 

hired by Great Westem on March l, 2013, but states that the remainder of the aliegations in this 

paragraph are not allegations of fact b.ut rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. As to sub-paragraphs 4b through 4d, Respondent 

admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraph 4e(l) through (8), 

18 Respondent admits that Mr. Ford was present on flights operated by Great Westem on the dates 

19 set fmih in those allegations, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph are 

20 not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an admission or 

21 denial, but are otherwise denied. 

22 5. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 5a, Respondent admits that Mr. Blake was 

23 hired by Great Western on March 1, 2013, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this 

24 paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

25 admission or denial, but arc otherwise denied. As to sub-paragraphs Sb through Sd, Respondent 

26 admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraphs 5e(l) through (6), 

27 Respondent admits that Mr. Blake was present on flights operated by Great Western on the dates 

28 set fo1ih in those allegations, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph are 

Page 2 of6 
To: P.,.ge 4- of 7 2014--05-12 17:4-1:03 E:O"DT 

not allegations of fact but rather lu-e e-ondusions of lmN, and do nOt require an admission or 

2 denial, but are othe1wise denied. 

3 6. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 6a, Respondent admits that Ms. Rindon was 

4 hired by Great Western on April 16, 2013, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this 

5 paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

6 admission or denial, but are otherwise .. denied. As to sub-paragraphs 6b through c, Respondent 

7 admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraphs 6d(l) through (4), 

8 Respondent admits that Ms. Rindon was present on J:1ights opemted by Great Western on the 

9 dates set f01ih in those allegations, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this 

10 paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

11 

l2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

7. Answering Section ll, s'1b-paragraph 7 a, Respondent admits that Mr. Walker was 

hired by Great Western on June 27, 2013, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this 

paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. As to sub-paragraphs 7b through 7c, Respondent 

admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraph 7d, Respondent admits 

that Mr. Walker was present on a ilight operated by Great Western on July 1, 2013, but states 

18 that the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are 

19 conclusions oflaw, and do not require an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

20 8. Answering Section 11, sub-paragraph Sa through 8c of the FAA's Complaint, 

21 Respondent admits each and every allegation contained therein. 

22 9. Answering Section ll, sub-paragraph 9 (a through b) of the FAA's Complaint, 

23 Respondent denies the allegations contained therein. 

24 10. Answering Section II, sub-paragraph 1 Oa, Respondent admits that Mr. Duvai! was 

25 hired by Great Western on July I, 2013, but states that the remainder of the allegations in this 

26 paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are conclusions of law, and do not require an 

27 admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. As to sub-paragraphs 1 Ob through 1 Od, 

28 Respondent admits each and every allegation contained therein. As to sub-paragraph I Oe, 

Page 3 of 6 
To; F'"lge 5 of 7 .:2014-05-12 17:41:03 EDT Fo"' RothschOid LLP From: Hansen, Theres"' IV! . 

Respondent states that the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of tact but rather are 

2 conclus.ions of law, and do not require ~n admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

3 Ill. 

4 l. Answering Section III, sub-paragraph la through 1 of the FAA's Complaint, 

5 Respondent states that the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are 

6 conclusions of law, and do not require an admission or denial, but are otherwise denied. 

7 2. Answering Section lll, sub-para!o,'Taph 2 of the FAA's Complaint, Respondent 

8 Respondent states that the allegations in this paragraph are not allegations of fact but rather are 

9 conclusions of law, and do not require an admission or denial, but are oll1erwise denied. 

10 3. Answering Section lll, Sllb-paragraph 3, of the FAA's Complaint, Respondent 

II denies each and every allegation contained therein. 

12 AFJ!lRMATIVEDEFENSES 

13 FIRST AF.FIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

14 Respondent has operated for several years and has always been in compliance with FAA 

15 requirements. 

16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

17 Respondent retained a drug testing company to perform required random drug testing. 

18 That company assured Respondent that a program was in place that was compliant with all FAA 

19 requirements. Consequently, all perso11I1el and management at Respondent operated under the 

20 assumption that a program tor random drug testing was in place. Moreover, pilots hired by 

21 Respondent are verified as drug-free through a pre-employment screening p1ior to pilots 

22 pertorming any safety sensitive functions. Further, even during the subject timeframe, some 

23 employees of Respondent continued to .be called in for random drug testing. 

24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

25 As a consequence of all of the above, Respondent logically and reasonably believed it 

26 was operating in accordance with all FAA requirements. 

27 Ill 

28 II I 

Page 4 of6 
2014--05-1 Z 17:41:03 EDT 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

2 As soon as Respondent became aware that there was an issue with the drug testing 

3 company it retained, Resp(mdent took immediate steps to resolve the situation. 

4 FIFTH AFI<'IRMATIVE DEFENSE 

5 The total taxable income for Respondent in 2012 was $46,176. The proposed penalty of 

6 $35,925 goes far beyond any reasonable penalty to deter the alleged conduct and rather may 

7 result in a crippling blow to Respondent. 

8 SIXTH A.FFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE 

9 Any penalty would violate due process and be an undue burden on Respondent. 

10 

]] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows: 

l. That the FAA take nothing by virtue of its Complaint and that the same be 

dismissed with prejudice; and 

2. For such other and further reliefas may be deemed just and proper. 

Dated this \~ day of May, 2014. 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

jfg~~-·-··· MARK 1. CONNOT(10010) 

3800 .. H.oward Hughes Parkway, Suite 500 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

Telephone: 702.262.6899 

Facsimile: 702.597.5503 

Attorneys for Respondent 

GREAT WESTERN AIR, LLC 

Page 5 of6 
To Page 7 of 7 

.1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

0 11 0 

"' 

~· 12 "m "-(/)"' 

...J ~ ..... 

_J~~ 13 0"'~ :::!'1-op 

()Q.> 

"'~" 14 <n"'" :z:"'"' 1-"' - 0 gq~ IS 0:: J: ~ 

><-o> 

o~, u. ~ 16 J:: 

0 17 0 

"' M 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2014-0$-1 2 17:41 :03 EDT Fox Rothschllcl LLP From; Hansen, Theres"' M. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT has been served via 

facsimile and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 

1200 NcwJcrseyAve, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Telephone: (202) 366-5121 (Staff Assistant) 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Administrative Law Judge 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

Dana Stephenson 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave, S.W . 

Renton, W A 98057 

Telephone: (425) 227-2161 

Facsimile: ( 425) 227 -I 007 

Complainant's Counsel 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2Wl 000 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

Dated this/~# day of May; 2014. 

Page 6 of6