04/05/201 1 16:3 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0001/00 6

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of ; SUN QUES T EXECUTIV E AI RCHARTER , INC . FA A Order

No . 2011- 1 Docke t No . CP08WP000 4 FDM S No . FAA-2008-023 8 Served : January 5 , 201 1 RESPONDENT' S REPL Y BRIE F Thi s brie f i s i n respons e t o th e Administrator' s Orde r date dJanuar

y 5 , 2011 , enablin g abrie f

i n repl y t o th e Complainant' s openin g brie f on th e issu e of*.. . other

commercial flying... " B y thi s repl y brief , Responden t

deal s solel y wit h th e issue s raise di n complainant' s brie f

Throughou t

it s argument s Complainan t appear s t o b e usin g th e term s "othe r commercial flying" an d"publi c aircraft " in its brie f interchangeably . B y doin g so , i t

ha g don e amasterfu l jo b i n mixin g apple s an doranges .

SUMMARY OFTHI S BRIE F Complainant' s argument s fail fo r th e followin g reasons ; 1 . Muc h o f

th e authority that

form s th e basi s fo

r Complainant' s brie f wa s create dlon g afte

r th e complain t

i n th e instan t

cas e and , o f course , lon g afte

r th e allege dacts , error s or omission s o n th e pzur

t of Responden t

too k place . Some , bu t

no t all , o f tlies e ar e a s follows : • - -

- n t r 1 >

• ' fX J fV > ' •

• ~ . . , 1 i --'~:'2,S 3 k-'oT-^ ' rri-^;rT i <i^^; ^ ;-^:r^ o (_ ^ -.- 1 ! C O04/05/201 1 1G:3 0 FA X 202483514 2 FA A+ OM S 0002/00 6

(a. ) Th e legislativ e history up t o an dunti l th e date s o f th e allege dviolatio n b y Responden t clearl y support Respondent' s positio n andth e decisio n o f th e Administrativ e Law Judge , Th e 199 1 statutor y definitio n o f

publi c aircraf

t an d th e 200 1 chang e di dno t

alter th e ke y definitio n o f

th e F-A.A.' s rol e i n th e Aviatio n Act , namel y tha t tli e authority o f

th e F.A.A . regardin g airplane s extend s onl y l o flying machine s ". . . other than publi c aircraft... " 49US C 40102 .

Th e statutor

y chang e wa s only fo

r further amplificatio n an dclarificatio n a s t o militar y aircraf t regardin g th e rule s applicabl e a s l o th e Arme dService s or for otherwis e us e o f aircraf t by th e Departmen t

o f Defens e fo

r national interest . (b ) Th e Agency' s attemp t t o bootstrap it s argumen t b y a Notic e o f Propose dRul e Makin g date dSeptembe r 14,2010 , canno t b e use da s apredicat e fo

r acts , error s o r

omission s o f thi s responden t

whic hallegedl y too k

plac e man y year s before dia t date , Respondent' s argumen t boil s dow n t o a

n administrativ e attemp t

t o create a

n e x pos t facto law .04/05/201 1 1G:3 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 2)003/00 6

(c ) Th e sam e thin g i s tru e regardin g statutory amendment s effectiv e Januar y 28 , 2008 . Th e complain t agains t thi s responden t

deal s withallegedl y imprope r trackin g o f

fights durin g th e year

2005 , thre e year s befor

e th e stamt e Tva

s amended. ' 2 . TTi e complainan t

no w argue s tha t

".. . ther e i s n o evidenc e that Mr . Smith' s flights for

th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t wer e publi c aircraf

t operations... " Th e cynicis mo f tha t argumen t help s manifes t jus t ho w speciou s th e complainant' s positio n reall y is . Firs t o f all , th e entir e case , fro

mth e Firs t

Notic e o f Propose d Violatio n throug h th e stipulation s o f facts , an dunti l th e submissio n o f complainant' s brie f

wer e al l based , withou t

question , tha t

th e flight s fo

r th e L.A.P.D . wer e publi c aircraf t operations . I t

mus t b e recalle dtha t

thi s cas e wa s submitte dt o th e Administrativ e Law Judg e o n th e basi s o f stipulate dfacts . I f

th e fact s wer e other

tha n stipulate d(an do f

cours e the y wer e not ) tha

t issu e shoul dhav e bee n raise da t leas t by th e tim e o f

th e stipulation , mad e abou t

Jun e 9,2009 . Th e stipulatio n include dth e following :

' Moreover , th e redefinitio n o f publi c aircraf

t doe s no t chang e th e situatio n in thi s case . A s applicabl e t o lh) 3 case , th e redefinitio n merel y require s tha t th e aircraf

t b e use db

y th e publi c agenc y for

a t leas t 9 0 continuou s day s for

tiie publi c aircraf

t exceptio n t o b e applicable .04/05/201 1 16:3 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A- > DM S 12004/006

" . . . 25 . Legal determinatio n wil l hav e t o b e mad e a s t o whethe r th e helicopte r

i n questio n wa s a"publi c aircraft " withi n th e meanin g o f

49US C 4010 2 (4])(C) . .. " Th e cas e wa s tie dpursuan t t o an din accordanc e withth e stipulate dfacts . N o evidenc e wa s produce dan dther e wa s n o suggestio n tha t th e L.A.P-D

- flight s wer e anythin g other tha n flight s i n publi c aircraft . Interestingly , b y aparit y o f reasonin g (o r

lac k o f reasoning ) th e recor dfail s t o disclos e an y possibl e basi s fo

r th e flights b y Mr . Smit

hfor th e L.A.P.D . t o hav e been commercial flights. Thct- e i s n o evidenc e tha t h e receive dany compensatio n or benefit s at

all . Afte r all , ther e i s suc ha thin g a s voluntee r

publi c service . Volunteer fire department s ar e common . Likewis e voluntee r helicopte r

flights fo r humanitaria n purpose s exis t Fo r example , hadMr . Smit

huse dhi s of

f duty tim e fromSun Ques t for th e purpos e o f

aidin g victim s o f

earthquakes , hurricane s or th e like , woul dthat , o f

necessity , hav e been commercial flying withi n th e meanin g o f th e trackin g requirement s applicabl e t o Sun Quesf ? Fo r al l that appears , suc h flights coul db e made fo r th e Re dCros s or , nowadays , fo r Japanes e Relie f04/05/201 1 16:3 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S gjOOS/OO G

CONCLUSIO N Contrary t o th e government' s artfu l wordin g i n it s brief , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e di dno t "create " ane w interpretatio n o f an existin g rule . Instead , i t i s th e F.A.A. , by administrativ e fiat , attemptin g t o chang e th e statute . Thi s cas e wa s decide dfavorabl y t o responden t becaus e o f

th e statutory exclusio n o f th e F.A.A.' s jurisdictio n ove r al l aircraf t involve di n publi c flying no t jus t militar y flying. Late r

amplification s o f

th e statut e t o quas i military flying doe s no t chang e th e statut e or

t o thi s case . Th e statut e mean s what i t say s an dthere i s n o cas e that ha s hel dotherwise . Dated : Apri l 5 , 201 1 Respectfull y submitted ,

>^^^ ^ ARTHU RWASSERMA N Attorne y fo

r Responden t04/05/201 1 16:3 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @]00G/00 e

Certificate of

Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s date I bot

hfaxe dan dmaile dby Certifie dMai l th e original o f

th e attache ddocumen t

(FJESPONDENT' S REPL Y BRIEF ) i n th e Matter o f Sun Ques t

Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc. , Docke t

N o CP08'WP0004 an d2 copies , addresse dto : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 In dependenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : HearingDocke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wrigh t Building , Suite 2WI00 0 Facsimile : (202)493-514 2 And , I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f that documen t

wa s sen t b y facsimil e an d certifie dUnite dState s Mail , postage-prepaid , to : Peter J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l for

Enforcenient , AGC-30 0 C/ O Josep h A . Com e Counse l fo

r complainan t Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 800 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Dated : Apri l 5,201 1