U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0848 

Case No. 2012EA050008 

RECEIVED 

APR 1 7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

AGENCY'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCY'S 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, replies to Respondent's 

response to the Agency's motion for decision as follows: 

(1) Respondent, Endless Mountains Air, Inc., effectively admits that it received 

the Complaint, although it is claimed that the representative of the company 

"had not actually noticed it or read it." 

(2) Respondent also effectively admits that it failed to file its answer in a timely 

manner. 

(3) The only purported "good cause" claimed by Respondent in defense is that it 

did not retain counsel and its non-attorney representative "was unaware that 

under Rule 209(a) of the Rules of Practice, [it] was required to file a written 

response to the FAA complaint. .. nowhere on any previous letters or 

documentation received ... have I seen any reference made to these rules." 
(4) In fact, however, in the Complaint, page 4 (attached to the Motion for 

Decision), it is stated "the Rules of Practice provide that Respondent must 

file a written answer to this Complaint, or a written motion to dismiss if 

appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date shown on the Certificate of 

Service. A general denial is deemed a failure to file an answer. (Section 

13.209e)." 

(5) Had Respondent's representative bothered to read the Complaint, he would 

have been aware of this rule. 

( 6) Even if Respondent was not aware of this rule because its representative did 

not read the Complaint, it is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is no excuse. 

(7) The Department has long held that "procedural rules must be enforced in a 

non-arbitrary manner to ensure the integrity of the civil penalty process, even 

where this results in severe consequences." In re Jimmy Lee Harkins, 

CP93AL0214 (1994). See also In the matter of Panalpina, CP06S00029 

(2006). 

WHEREFORE, the FAA, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Motion 

2 
for Decision be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Jolmson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By Zachary ~~ ~ennan 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Reply to Respondent's Response to 

Motion for Decision has been sent via first class mail and via fax to: 

William J. Dobitsch, Jr. 

Endless Mountains Air 

Seamans Airport 

727 Windsock Lane 

Factoryville, P A 18419 

FAX: 570-945-5953 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Reply to Respondent's Response to 

Motion for Decision has been sent via first class mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Date: APR 1 0 2014 ------- is ooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

4