UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTAT I FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C 

# y S E i W E , B - 1 201 0 AWPORT/ENVIRONMEKTA L LAW . AGc-eo n HELIOPS , LLC ,

Complainant ,

NORWOO D MEMOEQA L AIRPOR T an d NORWOO D AIRPOR T COMMISSION ,

Respondents . Docke t No . 16-09-1 0

RESPONDENTS ' REBUTTA L T O COMPLAINANT' S REPL Y

L INTRODUCTIO N Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(f

) an dth e January 15,201 0 lette r fromth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , Airport s La w Branch , th e Respondents , th e Norwoo dMemoria l Airport ("Norwoo dAirport" ) an dNorwoo dAirport Commissio n ("Airport

Commission") , hereb y provid e aRebutta l t o th e Complainant , Heliops , LLC' s ("Heliops") , Reply . (Collectively , NorwoodAirpor t an dth e Airport Commissio n ar e referre dt o a s "Respondents") . A s state dbelow , Heliops ' Complain t i s untimel y becaus e Heliop s faile dt o invok e th e 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

1 3 informal complain t

procedures . I n addition , th e factua l argument s i n Heliops ' Repl y ar e unsupporte db y document s and/o r verification . Nevertheless , th e Airport Commissio n ha s uniforml y an dproperl y applie dth e applicabl e Norwoo dAirport Minimim i Standard s ("Minimu mStandards" ) an dGenera l Regulation s for Norwood Memoria l Airport

("Genera l Regulations" ) t o Heliops ' Part-9 1 commercia l operations , an dHeliop s lacks standin g t o challeng e th e applicatio n o f th e Minimu mStandard s t o Part-13 5 commercia l operations . I n addition , Heliop s mischaracterize s th e underlyin gMarc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t an dapplicabl e securit y requirements . I n th e interest s o f econom y an defficiency , th e Respondent s refer t o an dincorporat e herei n th e argument s containe di n thei r

previousl y filedAnswer , Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dAffirmativ e Defenses . I L ARGUMEN T A , 1 4 C.F.R . Procedure s A s astartin g point , 1 4 C.F.R, , § 13.1(a) , state s tha t "[a]n y perso n wh o know s o f a violatio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amended,.. . th e Airpor t an dAirwa y Developmen t

Ac t o f 1970 , th e Airport

an dAirwa y Improvemen t ac t o f 1982 , th e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Ac t o f 198 2 a s amende db y th e Airpor t an dAirwa y Safet

y an d Capacity Expansio n Ac t

o f 1987 , o r an y rule , regulation , o r

orde r issue dthereunder , shoul dreport

i t t o appropriat e personne l o f an y FA A regiona l o r

district office. " (Emphasi s added) . FA A personne l evaluat e suc h report s i n orde r t o determin e whethe r additiona l investigatio n o r enforcemen t

i s warranted . 1 4 C.F.R. , § 13.1(b) . I t doe s no t appear tha t Heliop s mad e apreliminar y repor t t o th e FA A Regiona l Offic e for th e Ne w Englan dRegio n a s contemplate db y 1 4 C.F.R. , § 13.1(a)(1) , however . Becaus e i t

bypasse dsuc h informal resolutio n an dinstea dfiled a1 4 C.F.R . Part 1 6 Complain t

with FA A Headquarters , Heliop s ha s faile dt o exhaus t it s administrativ e remedies . I n addition , 1 4 C.F.R. , § 16.2 3 require dHeliops ' Repl y t o "b e accompanie db y supportin g documentation " upo n whic h i t relies . Yet , Heliops ' Repl y consist s o f seve n (7 ) page s o f

argument , withou t

an y supportin g documentatio n o r verification . Therefore ,th e FA A shoul ddismis s Heliops ' factua l argument s a s baseles s an ddevoi do f prope r support . RHeliops ' Operation s I n it s Repl y Brief

, Heliop s argue s at

length abou t

aperceive dlac k

o f uniformity involvin g Part-13 5 commercia l operators . However , Heliop s doe s not conten dtha t

i t i s a Part-13 5 commercia l operator . Rather , Heliop s ha s hel ditsel f ou t t o th e Airpor t Commissio n a s aPart-9 1 commercia l operato r a t al l relevan t

times . (Answe r

Ex . K. ) Becaus e Heliop s i s onl y aPart-9 1 commercia l operator , Heliops ' argument s involvin g th e provision s i n th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s applicabl e t o Part-13 5 operator s amoun t

t o comparin g apple s t o oranges , an dconstitut e aredherring . Additionally , Heliop s lacks standin g t o challeng e th e Minimu mStandard s applie dt o Part-13 5 commercia l operators , give n tha t i t doe s not conduc t suc h service s a t

Norwoo d Airport . I t i s axiomati c that

Part-9 1 an dPart-13 5 operation s presen t differen t type s o f issue s for regulator y authoritie s and , consequently , ar e subjec t t o separat e federal an d loca l requirements . (Se e Answe r Ex . B a t 4 , 5 , 7. ) Therefore , th e onl y issu e befor e th e FA A i s th e applicatio n o f th e Minimu mStandard s an dth e Genera l Regulation s t o Heliop s a s aPart-9 1 commercia l operator , specificall y th e offic e spac e an d hangar/commercia l tie-dow n requirements . Moreover , Heliops ' argument s concernin g th e natur e an dexten t o f it s operation s at Norwoo dAirpor t

ar e conflictin g an dinconsistent . Heliop s use s th e ter m"episodic " t o describ e it s us e o f

Norwoo dAirport , bu t

the n contradict s thi s labe l b y concedin g tha t i t "ha duse dthi s ram p are aman v time s befor e wit h permissio n o f th e FB O s o i t

wa s notuncommo n t o d o so. " (Repl y a t 2 , 6 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e ter m"episodic " i s als o inconsistent

wit h Heliops ' ow n admissio n tha t i t ha s bee n flying int o an dout o f Norwood Airpor t fo r five (5 ) years . (Answe r

Ex . F. ) Heliop s conducte dtwent y (20 ) flight operation s out

o f Norwoo dAirport

durin g 200 8 alone . (Complain t at 3. ) Ther e i s n o uppe r restrictio n o n th e tota l numbe r o f commercia l operation s tha t Heliop s may conduc t ou t o f Norwoo dAirport

durin g an y give n year , particularl y give n it s prin t an dInterne t advertisement s listin g Norwoo dAirport a s apoin t

o f origi n o r destination . (Answe r

Ex . D. ) Instead , Heliop s i s onl y constraine do n it s usag e o f NorwoodAirpor t

base dupo n custome r demand . Heliops ' usag e o f Norwoo dAirport

canno t b e viewe di n avacuu mo r o n th e basi s o f

isolate dincidents , bu t

instea da s par t

o f a n ongoin g satellit e o r

shado w bas e o f operations . Accordingly , Heliop s canno t hol ditsel f

ou t a s an "episodic " use r

o f Norwoo dAirpor t

for commercia l operations . Th e Airpor t

Commissio n i s merel y requirin g Heliop s t o adher e t o th e applicabl e provision s i n th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regrolation s applicabl e t o Heliops ' Part-9 1 commercia l operations . Thi s approac h i s consisten t wit h FA A Advisor y Circular (AC ) 150/5190-7 , Minimu mStandard s for Commercia l Aeronautica l Operations , whic h state s a s follows : "Th e airport sponsor' s purpos e i n imposin g standard s i s t o ensur e a safe , efficien t

an dadequat e leve l o f

operatio n an dservice s i s offere dt o th e public. " FA A A C 150/5190- 7 at

3 . I n turn , th e Airport

Commissio n adopte dMinimu mStandard s for variou s type s o f

commercia l operator s basedupo n th e typ e o f commercia l activity , whic h i t ha s applie duniforml y t o Heliop s an dothe r similarl y situate dcommercia l operators . A s discusse di n mor e detai l i n th e Respondents ' Answer , th e busines s presenc e requirement s wer e create di n orde r

t o creat e accountability , reliabilit y an dtrustworthines s o n th e parto f

commercia l operator s an dt o reduc e uncertaintie s b y th e flying public , all i n ligh t o f th e Airport

Commission' s pas t

experienc e (includin g incident s with sightseein g tornoperators ) wit h suc h operation s a t NorwoodAirport . (Answe r at 21. ) Heliop s want s t o creat e a n exceptio n t o th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s basedupo n it s purporte dfrequency o f us e o f Norwoo dAirport , ye t

n o suc h exceptio n exist s i n th e Minimu mStandard s a s adopte db y th e Airport Commission . Rather , Heliop s conduct s commercia l activitie s int o an dou t o f Norwoo dAirport , t o wit , sightseeing , aeria l photograph y an dsurveying , an dth e Airport Commissio n ha s applie d th e operativ e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s accordingly . I t i s reasonabl e t o expec t Heliop s t o compl y wit h al l applicabl e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s becaus e i t

i s usin g Norwoo dAirport for commercia l (i.e . revenue-producing ) activities . Indeed , th e Airport Commissio n considered , an dultimatel y denied , Heliops ' reques t for awaive r fromth e offic e spac e an dhangar/commercia l tie-dow n requirements . Th e Airport

Commissio n canno t

b e faulte dfor

creatin g aleve l playin g fieldfor al l commercia l operator s performin g aspecifi c typ e o f commercia l activity , an dfo r th e consistency i n it s applicatio n o f th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulations . Heliop s als o contest s th e "Specia l Note " for "transien t

operators " appearin g i n Par t II I (Fligh t

Instruction , Aircraf

t Rental , Sale s an dSightseein g Flights ) o f th e Minimu mStandards . Specifically , thi s "Specia l Note " state s tha t "[t]ransien t

commercia l flight operator s ar e no t

authorize dt o us e th e airport a s abas e o f

operation s t o pic k

u p student s o r

clients ; t o advertis e and/o r us e th e airport

a s apoin t

o f origi n o r destinatio n vsathou t first obtainin g fro mth e NA C [i.e . th e Airpor t Commission ] acommercia l permit. " (Answe r

Ex . B at 6. ) State dotherwise , no t al l fransient

commercia l operator sar e require dt o obtai n commercia l permits , jus t thos e tha t

us e NorwoodAirpor t

a s abas e o f operation s for

pickin g u p student s o r

clients , advertis e Norwoo dAirport a s apoin t

o f origi n o r destination , o r

us e Norwoo dAirport

a s apoin t

o f origi n o r destination . Commercia l permi t

holder s mus t

compl y with al l o f

th e applicabl e Minimu mStandards . (Answe r Ex . C at 12. ) Th e Airpor t

Commissio n dispute s that Heliop s i s afransient

commercia l flight operato r an dinstea dcontend s tha t Heliop s use s Norwoo dAirpor t a s ashado w bas e o f operation s base dupo n th e frequenc y an dexten t o f it s commercia l activitie s a t Norwood Airport , an dit s advertisements , a s describe dsupra . I n fact , Heliop s eve n represente dt o th e Airport

Commissio n tha t

i t intende dt o us e NorwoodAirport a s asatellit e bas e o f operations . (Answe r

Ex . F. ) Thus , Heliop s canno t cloa k itsel f unde r th e "fransient " label . Assuming , for

th e sak e o f

argumen t

only , tha t

Heliop s i s afransient

commercia l operator , Heliop s ha s not complie dwith th e foregoin g "Specia l Note " becaus e i t neve r obtaine dacommercia l permi t fromth e Airport

Commission . I n tha t

regard , Heliop s ha s use dNorwoo dAirpor t

t o pic k u p and/o r

dro p of f client s an dha s use dNorwoo dAirport a s apoin t o f origi n o r destination , a s eve n reflecte db y th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t reference di n th e Respondents ' Answe r an dHeliops ' ovr arepresentations . (Complain t at 3 ; Answe r

Ex . F. ) Heliop s ha s eve n advertise dt o th e genera l publi c tha t i t flies int o an d ou t o f Norwoo dAirpor t

for it s commercia l operations . (Answe r Ex . D. ) Thes e ar e precisel y th e type s o f

activitie s tha t

frigger th e commercia l permi t

requiremen t

for fransient commercia l operator s unde r th e "Specia l Note. "I n summary , Heliop s canno t contes t th e Minimu mStandard s applie dt o Part-13 5 commercia l operators , whe n it s ow n commercia l activitie s at Norwoo dAirpor t

ar e limite dt o Part-9 1 commercia l activities . Heliop s canno t selectivel y describ e th e exten t an dfrequency o f

it s operation s i n amanne r s o a s t o evad e complianc e with th e Minimu m Standard s an dGenera l Regulations . Rather , give n th e natur e o f it s commercia l activities , Heliop s i s subjec t

t o th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s tha t th e Airport Commissio n ha s attempte dt o uniforml y an dconsistentl y apply , includin g th e offic e space , hangar/commercia l tie-down, an dcommercia l permi t requirements . C Security Requirement s Finally , Heliop s dispute s th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t and , curiously , suggest s that complianc e wit h securit y guideline s i s voluntar y an dlimite dt o th e Treinsportatio n Security Administration . Thi s argumen t overlook s th e fac t

tha t Norwoo dAirport

i s subjec t t o th e concurren t

jurisdictio n o f

th e Aeronautic s Divisio n o f th e Massachusett s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an dit s predecessor , th e former Massachusett s Aeronautic s Commissio n ("MAC") . Se e Mass . Gen . Law s ch . 6C , § 60 ; Mass . Gen . Law s ch . 90 , § § 35-52 . I n respons e t o th e terroris t attack s o n Septembe r

11 , 2001 , MA C Security Directiv e A D - 001 acreate dminimu msecurity standards , includin g arequiremen t that airport sponsor s tak e all necessar y action s t o preven t unauthorize dacces s o f

persons int o imauthorize darea s o n airpor t propert y an dalis t

o f variou s action s tha t

an airport

sponso r mus t take , withou t

exception . (Answe r

Ex . M at 2-3. ) Fo r

example , airport

sponsor s wer e require dt o instal l acces s contro l device s o n fenc e gate s leadin g int o th e aircraf t operatin g are a("AOA" ) an dt o requir e th e us e o f identificatio n badge s for thos e person sseekin g t o acces s o r mov e withi n th e AOA . (I da t 3 ; Answe r

Ex . N. ) I n addition , MA C Security Directiv e A D - 001 adirecte dal l publi c us e airport s t o develo p an dimplemen t a security plan . (Answe r

Ex . M at 5. ) Norwoo dAirport

i s subjec t t o MA C Security Directiv e A D - 001 aan dth e MAC

approve dth e Airport

Commission' s security pla n ("Securit y Plan") . Th e Airport Commission' s security badg e holders , commerciall y permitte dbusinesses , an dlessee s (includin g FlightLeve l Aviation ) mus t compl y with th e Security Plan , an dit s correspondin g securit y procedures . (Se e id ^ at 2 ) (statin g that

reasonabl e measure s t o monito r an dprotec t

airpor t user s an dpropert y may includ e "[r]equirin g tenant s t o develo p thei r

ow n securit y pla n an dt o compl y with th e sponsor' s airpor t security plan") . Th e Airpor t

Commissio n an dit s staf

f mus t enforc e th e Security Pla n a s necessary , an dt o allo w Norwoo dAirport

users t o violat e th e Security Pla n woul ddefeat it s effectivenes s an dcreat e unnecessar y an dunacceptabl e risk s t o th e genera l public . Th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t imderscore s th e nee dfor al l person s o n Norwoo d Airport t o compl y with applicabl e securit y requirements , includin g th e Security Plan . Th e referenc e t o "afte r

hours " i n th e Respondents ' Answe r refer s t o th e fac t

tha t FlightLeve l i s no t

staffe ddurin g th e lat e evenin g an dovernigh t hours . Yet , th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t

occurre do n FlightLevel' s leasehold . Contrary t o Heliops ' suggestion , al l individual s withi n th e AO A mus t hav e a security badg e o r

b e escorte db y abadg e holder . Heliop s trie s t o provid e a n alternativ e explanatio n abou t

th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 incident , but th e reality i s tha t

Heliop s droppe dof

f individual s insid e th e securit y fence , ye t thes e individual s di dno t hav e asecurity badg e an dwer e not

i n th e presenc e o f

aprope r escort . (Answe r

Exs . E , F , G. ) I n addition .othe r

individual s tha t

Heliop s droppe dof

f create dasecurity concern i n th e Norwoo d Airport parkin g lo t

aroun dth e sam e time . (Answe r Exs . E , F , G. ) Heliop s make s n o suggestio n tha t

an y o f th e individual s involve di n th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t (includin g th e Heliop s pilo t

an dth e Safet

y Man ) eithe r

ha dasecurity badg e o r

wer e i n th e presenc e o f a n escort a t al l time s whil e withi n th e fence , a s require db y MA C Securit y Directiv e A D - 00 1 aan dth e Security . Ther e i s n o excus e o r

justificatio n for

th e failur e o f

Heliop s t o compl y wit h th e applicabl e securit y requirement s for NorwoodAirport , includin g th e Securit y Plan . I f Heliop s ha dth e require dcommercia l permit , i t i s likel y tha t

th e inciden t

coul dhav e bee n avoide dbecaus e Heliop s woul dhav e ha da n incentiv e t o adher e t o th e Securit y Plan , o r els e ris k th e revocatio n o f

it s commercia l permit . I n addition , Heliop s personne l woul d b e eligibl e for

thei r ow n security badge(s) , rathe r tha n b e limite dt o aprope r escort b y a security badg e holder , i f

Heliop s ha dacommercia l permit . B y complyin g with th e busines s presenc e requirements , Heliop s woul dhav e bee n abl e t o supervise , stan d accountabl e for , an dpreven t th e events tha t

too k place . I n summeiry , Heliop s mischaracterize s th e applicabl e securit y requirement s for NorwoodAirport . I n an y event , th e Marc h 24 , 200 9 inciden t highlight s th e significanc e o f complianc e wit h th e Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulations , particularl y give n thei r interrelatio n wit h securit y requirements . III . CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , an dthos e state di n it s prio r Answer , Motio n t o Dismis s an dAffirmativ e Defenses , th e Respondent s respectfull y reques t tha t th e FAA : (1 ) dismis s Heliop s constitutiona l clai ma s exceedin g th e scop e o f revie w unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Part

16 ;an d(2 ) determin e tha t th e Respondents ' conduc t i s reasonable , justifie dan dconsisten t with applicabl e law , regulations , FA A gran t assurances , an dth e so-calle ddorman t Commerc e Claus e o f

th e Unite dState s Constitution . Dated : January^ , 201 0 Respectfiill y submitted . Th e Respondents , B y Thei r Att^eys , 

# ^7 f Michae l C . Lehane , BBO #29252 0 mlehane@mhtl.co m Brando n H . Moss , BBO #65746 1 bmossfS),mhtl.co m Murphy , Hesse , Toome y & Lehane , LL P 30 0 Crow n Colon y Drive , Suit e 41 0 Quincy , MA 0216 9 (617)479-500 0

1 0CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I , Brando n H . Moss , hereb y certif y that I hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g Respondents ' Rebutta l t o th e Complainant' s Repl y o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s an dviath e followin g methods : Vi aFacsimil e t o (617 ) 951-212 5 an dVi aFirs t Clas s Mail : Attorney s for

th e Complainant , Heliops , LL C Kevi n C . Cain , Esquir e Timoth y M . Pomarole , Esquir e Peabod y & Arnol dLL P Federa l Reserv e Plaz a 60 0 Atlanti c Avenu e Boston , M A 02210-226 1 Vi aFacsimile t o (202 ) 267-519 4 an d(202 ) 267-576 9 an d Vi aFirs t Clas s Mai l (Execute dOrigina l an dThre e (3 ) Copies) : Offic e o f Chie f Counse l FA A Part 1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S W Roo m#92 5 Washington , D C 2059 1

Dat e Brando n H . Mos s

534484V 1 \ \