02/07/201 1 15:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• > DM S 12001/00 9 

### ^•:PARTMEN

T OF i":,':]SP0RW10 N IJNTTE D STATE S OF AMERIC A / • : f OprR,^TiONS DEPARIMEN T O F TRAKSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVfATION ADMINISTRATIO N ; -r n . - j p > 14(

3 WASHINGTON,B.C . - -'• ' . . ."..: : V In th e Matter

o f DIAMOND AI RCHARIER , INC . FAA Docke t

No . 20 1 OEA

l 1000 8 (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Hearin g Location : Ne w York , N Y Hearin g dates : TB D 

# t^\b^hwt> i ^oMa o

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RT O AGENCY' S MOTIO N T O LIMI T HEARIN G T O ISSU E O F SANCTIO N COME S NOW , Diamon dAi r Charter , Inc . (hereinafter

^'DiamondAir") , Responden t

herein , b y an dthroug h undersigne dcounsel , pursiian t 1 0 Rul e 13.218(d ) o f th e Procedura

l Rule s (1 4 C.F.R . Pa n 13) , an dhereb y an.swers th e Agency' s Motio n t o Limi t Hearin g t o Issu e o f Sanctions . A s mor e full

y discusse dherein , genuin e issue s o f material fac t

remai n i n disput e an dtherefore , th e Agency' s motio n shoul db e denied . Th e onl y issu e to b e determine db y th e la w judg e i s whether ther e i s aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . §1119.5(k) , whic h state s tha t "n o perso n ma

y advertis e o r

otherwis e ofler

1 0 perfor ma n operatio n subjec t t o thi s part

unles s that

perso n i s audiorizc db

y th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) t o conduc t tha t operation. " (Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 119,5(k) , emphasi s added) . However , genuin e issue s o f material fact

remai n i n disput e concernin g the "operation " that

Diamon dAi r

wa s authorize dto conduc t b y th e FAA , a s wel l a s th e "operation " that

Diamon dAi r

allegedl y advertise dor

otherwis e offere dt

o perform .I 02/07/201 1 15;4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* OM S 12002/00 9

A s .such , summar

y dispositio n i s no t

appropriat e an dth e Agency' s motio n mus t b e denied . I

n suppor t thereof . Responden t

state s th e following ; PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y On Jul y 28 . 2010 . th e Complainant , FAA , filedaSecon dAmende dComplain t i n thi s matter , iillegin g asingl e violatio n o f 1 4 C.F. R§119.5(k). ' Specifically , th e Agenc y allege dtha

t Diamon dAi r

advertise do r

otherwis e offere dt o perfom i a n operation , subjec t t o Pai't 11 9 o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s (FARs) , whe n i t wa s no t authorize db

y th e FA A t o conduc t tha t operation . O n Augus t

3 , 2010 , Responden t

file da n Answer to th e Secon dAmende dComplaint . Respondeat

denie dparagraph s 2- 5 for lack o f knowledg e o r

informatio n sufficient t o for mabelie f a s t o the trut h or falsit y o f th e iUlegations : denie dparagraph s 6- 8 o f th e Complaint , andraise dtwelv e (12 ) affirmativ e defenses , on e o f whic h wa s reasonabl e reliance . ISSTJ E PRESENTE D Whethe r aGenuin e Issu e o f

Materia l Fac t

Exist s Concernin g Whethe r Diamon dAi r

Charte r Advertise do r

Otherwis e Offere dt o Fcrfor m» n Operatio n Subjec t

t o Par t 11* > Whe n i t

Wa s No t Authorise db y Th e FA

A to Conduc t Suc h Operation ? Contrar y t o th e FAA' s presen t

argument , genuin e issue s o f material fac t

exist s a s to whether

DiamondAir

advertise dor

otherwis e offeredto perfor ma n operatio n fo

r which i t wa s no i authorize db

y the 1"AA

. Specifically , a

t al l time s relevan t

herein ,

' 1 4 C.F.R . §119.5(k) state s the following : N o perso n may adverti.s e o

r otherwis e offe

r to perfor ma n t)peratio n subjec t

t o tlii s part unles s tha

t perso n i s authorize db

y th e 1-edera

l Aviatio n Administratio n t o conduet tha t operation .•A 02/07/201 1 15:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0003/00 9

DiiimondAi

r wa s authorize db

y th e l/\ A t

o conduc t fligh t operation s subjec t

to 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 119 , fo r compensatio n o

r hir e i n accordanc e wiih 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 135 . Furlhemiore , accordin g t o Anthon y Debany . advertisin g agen t to r th e company , a t no tim e di dDiamon dAi r

advenis e or

otherwis e offe

r t o perfor ma n operatio n subjec t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 119 , whe n it

wa s no t authorize dby th e FA

A t o conduc t

tlia t operation . (Se e Exhibi t

1 attache dhereto andincorporate db y reference) . I n fact , a t all time s relevan t

heroin . Diamon dAi r

wa s ih e holder

o f Ai r Carrier Certitlcal e No . D9CA27611 . (Amende dComplain t a t paragrap h 1) . ITn

e Ai r Carrie r Ccnificai e issue db

y th e FAA , authorize dDiamon dAir to advertis e or

oihei-wis e offe

r t o perfor moperation s subjec t

to Par t 11 9 o f the Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s (i.e. , air charier flights pursuan t

t o Pai l 135) . Thus , agenuin e is.su

e o f materia l fac t exist s a s t o whethe r

Diamon dAi r

advertise d o r oihei-wis e oifcrc dt o peifor ma n operatio n subjec t

to Par t 11 9 o f th e J'cdcral Aviatio n Regulaiion s when i

t wa s no t authorize dby th e FAA t

o conduc t that operation . MATERIA L FACT S I

N DISPUT E 1 . Who di dDiamon dAi r

allegedl y advertis e or

offe r t o conduc t

operaiion(s ) for withou t authorit y b y th e FAA t

o perfor msuc h operation(s) ? 2 . Wha t operation(s ) wa s Diamon dAir authorize db

y th e FA A t o perform ? 3 . Wha t opcration(s ) wa s Diamon dAi r no t authorize dby ihe FAA t o perform ? 4 . Wha t operation(s ) didDiamon dAi r allegedl y advertise dor

oiler , fo r whic h it allegedl y di dno t

hav e authorit

y b y th e FA

A t o perform ? 5 . Where di dDiamon dAi r allegedl y advertis e or

offe r t o conduc t

operation s for whic h i i di dnot

hav e authorit

y by th e FAA t

o perform ?02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 121004/00 9

6 . Whe n di dDiamon dAi

r allegedly advertis e o r

offe r to conduc t

operation s fo

r whic h it di dno t hav e authorit

y b y th e FAA to perform ? 7 . Ho w di dDiamon dAir allegedl y advertis e o r

offe r t o conduc t

operation s fo r whic h i i di dno t

hav e authorit

y b y th e FAA t o perform ? Th e Agency' s presen t

motio n seekin g t o limi t

th e hearin g t o sanctio n i s completel y silen t

wit h regardt o th e above-reference dgenuin e issue s o f materia l fact , whic h clearl y remai n i

n disput e i

n thi s case . A s such , genuin e issue s o f material faci remai n i n disput e a s to whether

Diamon dAir

violate d1 4 C.F.R . §119.5(k) . Therefore , suinmai 7 dispositio n i s no t appropriai e under

th e circuinsiauce s an d the Agency' s motio n mus t b e denied . LEGA L STANDAR D Pursuaii t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) , apart y ma y make amotio n fo

r decision , regardin g al l o r

an y part o f th e proceedings , a

t an y tim e before th e administrativ e la w judg e ha s issue da

n initial decisio n i n th e proceedings . Th e administrativ e law judg e shal l grant aparty' s motio n fo

r decisio n i f

th e pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interrogatories , admissions , matter s that th e zidministrativ c la

w judg e ha s officially noticed , or

evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w that there i s n o genuin e issu e o f material fact

an dtha t th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatter o f law . I t i s axiomati c iha

t amotio n fo

r decisio n i n an FAA civi l penalt y cas e i s t o b e decide dunder

th e sam e rule s tha

t appl y to amotio n fo

r summar y judgment

under Rul e 5 6 o f th e Federal Rule s o f

Civi l Procedure . I n aca.se , suc h a s thi s one . where th e burde n o f proo f shift s t o th e nonmovin g party , th e standardfo r decidin g amotio n fo

r summar y02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l005/00 9

judgmen t wa s set ou t b y th e Suprem e Cour

t i n th e cas e o f

Celote x Corp . v. Cairett , 47 7 0.3-317,322-23(1986) : I n ou r view , th e plai n languag e o f Rul e 56(c ) mandate s th e entr y o f summar y judgment , afte

r adequat e tim e fo

r discovery an dupo n motion , agains t apart y wh o fail s to make ashowin g sufficient t o establis h th e existenc e o f

a n elemen t

essential t o tha

t party' s case , an do n whic h that part y wil l hav e th e burde n o f

proo f at trial . I n suc h asituation , ther e ca n b e n( j "genuin e issu e a s t o an y materia l fact, " sinc e acomplet e failure o f proo f concernin g a

n essential elemen t

o f th e nonmovin g pany'.s ; cas e necessaril y render s al l other fact s immaterial . Se e Celole x Corp . v . Calrell , Al l U.S . 317 , 322-2 3 (1986) . O n amotio n fo

r summar y decision , al l evidenc e an dinference s ar e t o b e viewe d i n th e ligh t

mos t favorabl e t o th e nonmovin g party ; however , anonmovin g part y ma y no t res t upo n mer e denials , allegation s i n pleading s o r lawyers ' arguments , bu t

mus t com e forwar dwit h evidenc e sufficient

t o rais e on e o r

more genuin e issue s fo

r trial . See , e.g. , Ciiize mStat e Bank

o f Bi ^ Lake v

. Tran.'samenc aCo. , 81 5 F . Supp . 30 9 (D . Minn . 1993) . Th e FAA' s cas e lack s an y basi s i n la w o r fact . Specifically , th e onl y reporte d case s involvin g a

n allegatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . §119.5(k) involv e aircraf t operator s wh o hav e advertise do r

otherwis e offere dt o perlbrmai r cairic r operation s subjec t

t o Pari 119 , whe n ihe y di dno t

hol dan y suc h authorit y fro mth e FAA . Se e I n ih e Maile r

o f Islan d.ii r Relicoplcr s Intcrmitonal . Lid . FA A Docke t No . CP08SO0013 : DM S No . FAA-2008

- 069 3 (2010 ) (Responden t lacke dany authorit

y fro mth e FA

A t o conduc t

charte r operation s fo

r hire) ; se e als o I

n the Matte r

o f Joh n Iluiio n Corporatio n ct/'h/ aTor aFligh t Adventure Cluh , I'AA Docke t No . CPO8WP0013 ; DM S No . FAA-2008-078 0 (2010 ) (Responden t

offere dbrochure s an

dsponsore dawe b site whic h constitute dadvertisin g an doffer s t

o perfor moperation s fo

r whic h Responden t

lacke dauthority fro

mth e FAA) .02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 21006/00 9

However , i

n th e presen t

case . Diamon dAi r

wa s full y authorize db y tli e FAA l o conduc t th e lligh L operation(s ) i

n questio n (i.e. , fligh

t operation s for

compensatio n o r

hii e pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . Pa n 135) . Thus , there i s n o legal o r factual basi s t o th e Agency' s clai man dtherefore , it s motio n shoul db e denied . WHEREFORE , sinc e Diamon dAi r Chaiter , Inc . ha s provide da n affidavi t fro m it s advertisin g Agent , Anthon y Debany , whic h specificall y stale s that at n o tim e di d Dianion dAi r

advcrii.s e or

otherwis e offe

r t o perfor ma n operatio n subjec t

l o 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 119 , when i

t wa s no t authorize db

y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n t o conduc t that operation , agenuin e issu e o f material fact

remain s in disput e an dth e Agency' s Motio n t o Limi t

Hearin g t o Issu e o f

Sanctio n mus t

b e denied . A s such . Responden t

respectftill y request s aful l hearin g o n th e merits , includin g it s affirmativ e defenses . Dated : Januar

y 13 , 201 1 Respectfu l sji^Aiitted , ORH^OR Y S . WiNTON , ESQ . Tht/AviationTE::a

w Firm Op e Researc h Court , Suite 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Cn-eg@AviationLawHxpcris.co m Counse l fo r

Responden t02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l007/00 9



# EXHIBI T 1Pi A - DM S 21008/00 9 02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

X;NirE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMENT

T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N WASfflNGTORD.C . l ath e Matter

of DIAMOND AIRCHARTER , INC . FAA Docke t

No . 2O10EA110O0 8 (Civi l Penalt

y Pntceeding ) Th e Houoiabl e Ronni e A . Yoda r Chie f Administiativ e Law Hearin g Locadon : NewYoi4( , N Y Hearin g dates : TB D AFFIDAVI T O F ANTHON Y DEBAN Y I vaak e di e followin g statement s t o th e bes t o f m y knowledg e an dande r

th e pesahie s o f

peijuiy : 1 . M y nam e i s Anthon y Dd^any , an da t al l time s lekvan t

t o th e above-captione d matter . I wa s th e Advenlam g Agen t fo r Dianon dAir

Charts , Inc . 2 . A t al l time s relevan t

t o ^ above-capuooe dmatter . Diamon dAi r Chwter , Inc . wa s authonae db y th e Federal Aviatio n Adnnnistraiio n t o conduc t fli^ c opeiation s subjec t t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 119 , for campensaiiO

D o r hii e i n accocdanc e with 1 4 CJ'.R . Part 135 . 3 . A t n o tim e di dDianion dAi r

Charte r advertis e o r

otherwis e offe

r t o peifon n an operatio n subje at o 1 4 C f.R . Pa n 119 , whe n i t wa s no t authorize db y th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n t o condu atha t opoation . 4 . I a mconqjetent

t o testif y a s t o th e matter s state dherein . Respectfully submitted .

Anthon y Deban y02/07/201 1 15:4 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A DM S §1009/00 9

CERTIFICAT E OF SERVIC E T hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat e serve db y regula r U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , a n origina l an don e (1 ) cop y o f th e foregoin g Answe r

t o Agency' s Motio n t o Limi t Heartin g t o Issu e o f

Sanctio n addresse dto : Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Building-Suit e 2W100 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 liidependenc e Avenue , S.W . Roo m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1 I hereb y certif

y tha t T hav e thi s dat e sen t

vi afacsimil e an dfirs t

clas s mai l acop y o f

th e foregoin g Answer

t o Agency' s Motio n t

o Limi t Heartin g to Issu e o f

Sanctio n addresse d to : Honorabl e Ronni e A . Voder ,

Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e U . S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w .Jerse

y Ave. , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 20 2 366-214 2 FAX : 20 2 366-753 6 Zachar y M . Bennan , Complainan t s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AEA- 7 F A A Eastern Regio n 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 71 8 553-325 8 FAX : 71 8 533-569 9 Dated : .Januar

y 13,201 1 Respe ' mitled . S . WINTON , ESQ . ! Aviatio n La w Firm l e Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 Rockvillc , M D 2085 0 Tel ; (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Respondent