04/29/201 0 1G:1 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S gjOOI/Ol O DFPTOFTR/^NSPORWK)N DOCini S U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 1 0 A . ;:2 1 OFFIC E O F HEARING S r, ^'-i\fr'r %

WASHINGTON . D.C . • '' . • , / ' C l i V %Z U AP R 2 3 201 0 I n th e Matte ro f Helicopter s Flite , Inc . FA ADocke t No . CP09EA001 5 AGENCY' S REPL YBRIE F COME S NO W th e Agency , b yan d throug h it s designate d representative , th e Regiona l Counse l fo rth e Easter n Regio n an d hi s dul y designate d agents , an d submits , i n accordanc e wit h 1 4 CF R § 13.233(e) , it s brie fi n repl yt o th e appea l brie ftha t wa s file d b yHelicopter s Fllt e (Appellant ) o n Marc h 23 , 201 0 o rthereabouts . PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y Th e Agenc yissue d a Notic e o fPropose d Civi l Penalt yo n Januar y29 , 2009 , an d the n a Fina l Notic e o f Propose d Civi l Penalt yo n Apri l 28 , 2009 . O n Jun e 11 , 2009 , Appellan t requeste d a hearing . A t abou t tha t time , Appellan t starte d t o b e represente d b yChristophe rT . Powell , Jr. , Esq . O n Jun e 30 , 2009 , th e Agenc yfile d it s Complaint , whic h wa s subsequentl y amende d o n Septembe r23 , 200 9 an d agai n o n Januar y7 , 2010 . I n th e Secon d Amende d Complaint , date d Januar y7 , 2010 , th e followin g wa s04/29/201 0 16:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S Ig002/01 0
alleged : (1 ) A t al l time s relevan t herein , Helicopters Flite , Inc. , wa s th e holde rof Ai rCarrie rCertificat e No , 09HA . (2 ) Durin g th e entire perio d fro m Februar y12 , 200 8 t o Septembe r15 , 200 8 o rthereabouts , th e onl yaircraf t liste d i n th e operation s specification s of Helicopter s Flite , Inc. , a s bein g authorize d fo rai r carrie roperation s wa s a Bel l 40 7 helicopter , identificatio n numbe r N407Z (hereinafte r"th e N40 7 aircraft") . (3 ) Durin g th e entir e perio d fro m Februar y12 , 200 8 t o Septembe r15 , 200 8 o rthereabouts , Helicopters Flite , Inc. , di d not have exclusiv e us e o f th e N407 Z aircraft . (4 ) I t wa s not unti l Septembe r15 , 200 8 o rthereabout s tha t th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n discovered , throug h it s ow n inspection , tha t Helicopters Flite , Inc. , di d not have exclusiv e us e o fa t least on e aircraft unde rits operation s specifications . B yvirtu e of th e above allegations , th e Agenc ycharge d Appellan t wit h violatin g 1 4 CF R Sectio n (Federa l Aviatio n Regulatio n [FAR] ) §135.25(b) , whic h states , inte ralia , tha t eac h certificat e holde rmust have th e exclusiv e us e ofat least on e aircraft tha t meet s th e requirement s fo rat least on e kin d ofoperatio n authorize d I n th e certificat e holder' s operation s specifications . I n th e Secon d Amende d Complaint , th e Agenc yrequeste d th e Administrativ e La wJudg e I n th e proceedin g (ALJ ) t o ente ra n orde rassessin g Appellan t a civi l penalt yof $11,000
. I n Its answe rt o th e Secon d Amende d Complaint , Appellan t admitte d t o Paragraph s (1 ) an d (2 ) of sai d Complaint . I n th e ALJ' s Prehearin g Orde rEstablishin g Procedure s serve d o n Jul y28 , 2009 , th e hearin g wa s schedule d fo rDecembe r22 , 200 9 an d th e pariiie s wer e04/29/201 0 1G:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 0003/01 0

ordere d t o exchang e witnes s list s an d propose d exhibit s byDecembe r8 , 2009 . I n th e ALJ' s Orde rPostponin g Hearin g serve d o n Augus t 14 , 2009 , th e hearin g wa s postpone d t o Januar y26 , 2010 , an d th e deadlin e fo rexchang e o fwitnes s list s an d propose d exhibit s wa s extende d t o Januar y12 , 2010 . O n Januar y19 , 2010 , th e Agency , base d o n Appellant' s failur e t o dat e t o provid e a witnes s o r exhibi t lis t o rcopie s of propose d exhibits , file d a motio n I n limin e t o exclud e Appellan t fro m callin g witnesse s o rofferin g exhibit s at th e hearing . O n Januar y 20 , 2010 , Mr . Powel l file d a motio n t o withdrawa s counse l fo rApplicant . Prio rt o th e Januar

y26 , 201 0 hearing , th e AL J di d no t rul e o n eithe rth e motio n i n limin e o rmotio n t o withdra wa s counsel . A t th e beginnin g o f th e hearin g o n Januar y26 , 2010 , th e ALJ allowe d Mr . Powel l t o withdra wa s counsel . Transcrip t (TR ) 4-5 . Appellan t wa s the n represente d b

yits president , Floyd Hoffma n (hereinafte r"Mr . Hoffman") . T R 10 - 11 . Mr . Hoffma n requeste d a postponemen t ofth e hearing , bu t th e AL J denie d hi s request . T R 8-9 . Thi s wa s th e firs t request fo ra postponemen t b yeithe r part ysinc e th e hearin g wa s reschedule d t o Januar y26 , 2010 . Th e Agenc y renewe d it s motio n i n limin e t o exclud e Appellan t fro m callin g an ywitnesse s o r offerin g an yexhibits , an d th e ALJ grante d th e motion , rulin g tha t "th e responden t wil l not b e entitle d t o pu t o n a cas e i n chief. " T R 11-12 . A t th e hearing , tw o wrtnesse s testifie d o n behal fo fth e Agency , Aviatio n SafetyInspectors (ASI ) Eugen e McCo yan d Fran k

Alotta , Jr . Nin e agenc y exhibit s were accepte d int o evidence : excerpt s fro m Appellant' s operation s

liiMBtaMiiili M04/29/201 0 16:1 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @004/01 0
specification s (A- 1 an d A-2) ; Inspecto rStatement , date d Septembe r3 , 200 8 (A3) ; record reflectin g sal e of N407 Z i n Ma y200 8 (A-4) ; record s reflectin g sal e of N407Z i n Februar

y200 8 (A-5) ; Leas e Agreemen t betwee n Ai rChoppe ran d Appellan t (A-6) , Lette rof Investigatio n (A-7) ; lette rfro m Mr . Hoffma n t o AS I Alott a (A-8) ; an d excerpt s fro m FA AOrde r2150.3 B (A-9) , Followin g th e hearing , o n Februar y4 , 2010 , th e AL J foun d i n th e Agency' s favo ro n al l count s an d issue d a n initia l decisio n assessin g a n $11,00 0 civi l penalty . I n determinin g th e amoun t of civi l penalty , th e AL J too k int o consideratio n th e sanctio n guideline s i n FA A Orde r2150.3 8 (Exhibi t A-9 ) an d hi s findin g tha t Mr . Hoffman , o n behal fof Appellant , "knowingl yan d deliberatel ytrie d t o mislea d th e loca l FSDO , an d th e agenc ya s a whole , abou t th e provenanc e of hi s asserte d exclusiv e right t o th e us e an d possessio n of N407Z. " Initia l Decision , p . 8 .04/29/201 0 1G:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DMS 0005/01 0

ISSUE S (1 ) Whethe rth e ALJ' s decisio n not t o gran t Appellant' s request fo ra postponemen t o f th e hearin g wa s i n accordanc e wit h th e law ? (2 ) Whethe rth e ALJ' s decisio n t o gran t th e Agency' s motio n i n limin e wa s i n accordanc e wit h th e law ? (3) Whethe rth e ALJ' s assessmen t ofa n $11.00 0 civi l penalt ywa s i n accordanc e wit h th e lav/?

ARGUMEN T (1 ) Th e ALJ' s decisio n not t o gran t Appellant' s reques t fo ra postponemen t o fth e hearin q wa s i n accordanc e wit h th e law . There i s n o disput e tha t th e ALJ , o n August 14 , 2009 , se t a reasonabl e date , time , an d plac e fo rth e hearing , an d gave th e partie s adequat e notic e thereof , as require d by1 4 CF R 13.55 , whe n h e schedule d th e hearin g fo rJanuar y26 , 201 0 i n Allentown , PA . Despit e th e advanc e notic e o fmore tha n fiv e months , Appellan t waite d unti l th e dat e of th e hearin g t o reques t th e postponemen t ofth e hearing , when , a s th e ALJ pointe d out , "there were assemble d FA Awitnesse s an d counsel , a s wel l a s th e reporte ran d administrativ e lawjudge , severa l o fwho m ha d com e great distance s t o Allentown , a locatio n chose n t o sui t Mr , Hoffman' s convenience. " Initia l Decision , p . 9 . It' s tru e tha t Mr . Powel l di d no t move t o withdra wa s counse l unti l Januar y20 , 2010 , si xdays before th e hearing , bu t eve n the n Appellan t di d no t move fo ra postponemen t o fth e hearing . A s pointe d ou t b y th e ALJ , "th e discharg e of a n attorne yo n th e eve ofth e hearin g i s a n often attempte d gambi t o n th e par t o f partie s wh o wan t t o protrac t th e proceedin g as lon g04/29/201 0 1G:1 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* OM S 0006/01 0

as possible, " an d give n th e ALJ' s lac k ofauthorityt o den ya motio n t o withdrawa s counsel , th e "remed yfo rth e dilator ytacti co fdischargin g a n attorne ywithi n day s of th e schedule d star

t o f a hearin g i s simpl yt o require th e hearin g t o g o forward an d th e Responden t t o b e represente d bya designate d representative. " Initia l Decision , p . 9 . O n appeal , Appellan t argue s that b ydenyin g th e reques t t o postpon e th e hearing , th e AL J effectivel ydenie d i t of th e right t o effectiv e assistanc e o fcounsel . Aconstitutiona l right t o effectiv e assistanc e ofcounse l i n civi l case s ma yaris e fro m th e Du e Proces s Claus e of th e Fift h Amendment , "bu t th e onl ycontex t i n whic h court s hav e recognize d a constitutiona l right t o effectiv e assistanc e of counse l i n civi l litigatio n i s i n immigratio n cases . Nelso n v . Boeing . 44 6 F . 3 d 1118 , 112 0 (10 * Cir . 2006) . Se e als o Ponce-Leiva v . Ashcroft . 33 1 F . 3 d 369 , 381-8 2 (3'^ Cir . 2003 ) (becaus e attorneys i n immigratio n proceeding s are hel d t o a constitutionall yimpose d minimu m leve l ofproficiency , "[ajliens , like crimina l defendant s an d unlik e partie s i n norma l civi l disputes , ma yobtai n relie f fro m th e ineffectiv e assistanc e of counsel") ; Meii a Rodrigue z v . Reno , 178 F . 3 d 1139 , 1146 (11* ^ Cir . 1999 ) (alien s have a right t o effectiv e assistanc e o fcounse l unde rth e Du e Proces s Claus e becaus e deportatio n proceeding s Implicat e a n alien' s interest) . Thus , Appellan t di d not have a constitutiona l right t o effectiv e assistanc e o f counsel , an d th e ALJ' s declinin g Appellant' s request t o postpon e th e hearin g wa s not a violatio n of Appellant' s constitutiona l rights.04/29/201 0 16:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DMS 0007/01 0
(2 ) Th e ALJ' s decisio n grantin g th e Agency' s motio n i n //m/'n e wa s i n accordanc e wit h th e law . Unde rth e ALJ' s Orde rPostponin g Hearin g sen/e d o n Augus t 14 , 2009 , th e partie s wer e require d t o exchang e witnes s list s an d propose d exhibit s byJanuar y 12 , 2010 , Appellan t no t onl yfaile d t o submi t an ya witnes s lis t o rcopie s o fexhibit s (o ra lis t thereof) , bu t neve rrequeste d a n extensio n o ftim e fo rthes e submissions . Allowin g Appellan t t o produc e evidenc e a t th e hearin g woul d hav e bee n prejudicia l t o th e Agenc

yi n tha t i t woul d hav e enable d Appellan t t o conduct , i n th e ALJ' s words , a "tria l b

yambush. " T R 12 . I t i s als o note d tha t b yth e tim e th e deadlin e fo r submittin g th e witnes s an d exhibi t lis t ha d alread ylapse d (i.e. , Januar y12 , 2010) , Appellan t wa s stil l represente d bycounsel , wh o di d no t eve n attemp t t o withdra w a s counse l unti l Januar y20 , 2010 . An d absen t a constitutiona l right t o effectiv e assistanc e o f counsel , Appellan t i s boun d b yth e act s an d omission s o fth e attorne y chose n t o represen t it . Se e Pionee rInv . Serv . Co . v . Brunswic k Assoc;.- . Ltd . PshiE , 50 7 U.S . 380 , 39 6 (1993) . (3)TH E ALJ' s DECISIO N T O ASSES S A$11.00 0 CIVI L PENALT YWA S APPROPRIATE . Th e maximu m civi l penalt yfo ra singl e violatio n b ysmal l busines s unde r4 9 US C §4630 1 (a ) (5 ) (A) i s $11,000
. As note d i n th e Initia l Decision , th e Agency , throug h its testimony , characterize d Appellan t a s a smal l busines s ai r carrier . T R 139 ; Initia l Decision , p . 8 . Thus , th e sanctio n rang e unde rFA AOrde r 2150.3 8 call s fo reithe ra minimu m civi l penalty($550-32,199) , moderat e ($2,200 -04/29/201 0 16:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0008/01 0 $4,399) , o rmaximu m ($4,400-$11,000)
. Exhibi t A-9 , p . B^ . I n assessin g a civi l penalty , eac h daytheoreticall yca n b e counte d a s a separat e violation . I n th e Matte rof Stebbin s Aviation . FA ADocket No . CPOOSW001 4 (2004) . Th e violatio n continue d fro m Februar y12 , 200 8 t o Septembe r15 , 2008 , o rabou t 21 6 days , an d thu s Appellan t theoreticall ycoul d hav e bee n assesse d a civi l penalt yofa t leas t $118,80 0 bystatut e ($55 0 time s 21 6 days) . I n effect , th e FA A- a s wel l a s th e AL J - gave Appellan t th e benefi t of th e doubt i n calculatin g a singl e maximu m civi l penalty . A s note d b yth e ALJ , ther e wer e aggravatin g circumstance s justifyin g th e maximu m civi l penalty , includin g th e fact tha t Mr . Hoffma n knowingl y an d deliberatel ytrie d t o mislea d th e FSD O wit h respec t t o th e statu s o fth e N40 7 aircraft . Initia l Decision , p . 8 . Thus , th e assessmen t ofa n $11,00 0 civi l penalt y wa s appropriate .

O n appeal . Appellan t argue s tha t a n $11,00 0 civi l penalt yi s excessiv e fo ra smal l business . However , th e Agency , whe n promulgatin g it s sanctio n guideline s i n FA

AOrde r2150.30 , alread ytoo k th e siz e o fa busines s int o consideratio n an d determine d tha t a smal l busines s ca n b e subjec t t o a maximu m civi l penalt

yof $11.000 , a s allowe d b ystatute . Th e agency' s choic e o fa sanctio n i s no t t o b e overturne d unles s i t i s unwarrante d i n lawo rwithou t justificatio n of fact . N L Industries , Inc. , v . DOT , 90 1 F . 2 d 141 , 144 (D.C . Cir . 1990) . Thus , th e ALJ' s deferenc e t o th e FA AOrde r2150.3 8 sanctio n guideline s an d th e FAA' s applicatio n of thes e guideline s t o determin e th e sanctio n i n thi s cas e wa s appropriate .04/29/201 0 16:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0009/01 0

CONCLUSIO N Th e ALJ' s denia l of th e postponemen t o fth e hearing , grantin g of th e Agency' s motio n i n limin e an d assessmen t ofa n $11,00 0 civi l penaltywere appropriate . Notwithstandin g th e above , th e Agencywoul d submi t tha t reman d o f th e cas e fo ra re-hearing , t o giv e Appellan t th e opportunityfo r furthe rpreparatio n of th e cas e (wit h ou rwithou t counsel , at its discretion) , woul d b e appropriate . Respectfull ysubmitted , Alfre d R . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l By : Zachary/M . Berma n Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y1143 4 PH : (718)553-325 8 FAX : (718)995-569 9 Date : 

# ^hf r04/29/201 0 16:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0010/01 0

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif

ytha t th e foregoin g Agency' s Repl yt o Appea l Brie f bee n sen t vi a Federa l Expres s mai l o n thi s dat e t o th e following : Floyd Hoffma n Presiden t Helicopters Flite , Inc . 19 0 Decke rLan e Weatherly , PA1825 5
Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an d on e copy) 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington . D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu rWrigh t Buildin g - Roo m 201 4
Date : AP

R 2 2 201 0 L i ^ Hook s 'aralega l Specialis t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e ofRegiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y1143 4

1 0