# BECEIVE D m- 2 

### 201

0 UNITE D STATES O

F AMERICA . ^ ^ ^ =, , ^ HO'^K^ T DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATIOlJ^T^'cHnhM U U^w J . ^ FEDERA L AVIATIO

N ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte

r o f DIAMON D AI RCHARTER , INC . FA A Docke t No . 2010EA11000 8 j^*^ ' ; ~ (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) ^ ^ ^^ ^ The Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chief Administrativ e La

w Hearin g Location : New York , N Y Hearing dates : TB D ANSWERT O AMENDE

D COMPLAIN T AN D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S

I COME S NOW , DiamondAir Charter , Inc. , b y andthroug h undersigne dcounsel , an d hereby files it s Answe

r to th e AmendedComplain t filedon Jul y 26,2010 , pursuan t t o Rule 20 9 of

th e Rule s of

Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . §13.209) . I n suppor t thereof . Diamon d Ai r Charter , Inc. , state s th e following : ANSWER I I 1 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . admit s th e allegation s containe di n paragraph 1 o f th e Complaint . 2 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . lack s knowledg e o r informatio n sufficien

t to for mabelie f a s to th e trut

h o r falsit y of th e allegation s containe di n paragrap h 2 of th e Complain

t an d therefore , denie s sam

e anddemand s stric t

proo f thereo f3 . DIAMON D AI RCHARTER , INC . lack s knowledg e or informatio n sufficien

t t o for mabelie f a s to th e trut

h or falsit y of th e allegation s containe di n paragraph 3 o f th e Complain

t an d therefore , denie s sam

e an ddemand s stric t

proo f thereo f 4 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . lack s knowledg e or informatio n sufficien

t t o for mabelie f a s t o th e trut

h o r falsit y of th e allegation s containe din paragraph 4 o f th e Complain

t an d therefore , denie s sam

e an ddemand s stric t

proo f thereo f 5 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s th e allegation s containe di n paragraph 5 of th e Complaint . 6 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s the allegation s containe di n paragraph 6 o f th e Complaint . 7 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s th e allegation s containe din paragrap h 7 o f th e Complaint . Il l a . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s tha t it violate d1 4 C.F.R . §119.5(k) . I V 1 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s tha t pursuant t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(l ) or

4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(5) , i t i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalt

y no t t o exceed $11,00 0 fo

r each o f th e violation s alleged . 2 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . denie s tha t unde r the fact s an

dcircumstance s of thi s case , acivi l penalt

y o f $1,100 i s appropriate . An y matte r no t specifically admitte dby DIAMON D AI RCHARTER , INC . shall b e deemed denied .AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S 1 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . relie s upo n th e affmnativ e defens e o f reasonabl e reliance , 2 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan

t ha s failedt o conside

r (1 ) th e natur

e and circumstance s o f

th e violation ; (2 ) th e extent andgravit y of th e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s histor y o f prior violations , i f

any ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit y to pa y th e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec t o n th e entity' s abilit

y t o sta y in business ; an

d(7 ) othe r matter s a s justic e ma y require . Se e 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(e)(2) ; See als o Folsom' s Air Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe

r 6,2008) , p . 11 . 3 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan

t ha s failedt o determin e whethe r th e violatio n wa s inadverten t or deliberate . 4 . I n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount , th e Complainan

t ha s failedto conside

r th e Respondent' s size , particularly in determinin g th e allege doffender' s abilit y to absor b th e sanction . 5 . The propose d civi l penalt y fail s t o reflect th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violations . Se e Folsom' s Ai

r Service , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008

- 1 1 (Novembe

r 6 , 2008) , p . 12 ; Easter

n Ai r Center , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008- 3 (Januar y 28,2008) . 6 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . doe s not hav e th e financial abilit

y t o pa y th e propose d civi l penalty . 7 . Th e propose d civi l penalt

y woul dhav e adetrimenta

l effec t o n th e abilit

y of DIAMON D AI RCHARTER , INC . to continu e doin g business .8 . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s (FAA's ) interpretatio n o f it s Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s i n thi s cas e i s arbitrary , capricious , a n abus e of discretion , o r otherwis e no t

i n accordanc e wit

h law . Se e 5 U.S.C . § 706(2 ) (A) ; Watkins v. NTSB , 17 8 F.3 d 959,96 1 (8t h Cir . 1999) . 9 . The FAA' s interpretatio n of it s aviatio n regulation s i s unconstitutionally vague . See Thomas v . Hinson , 7 4 F.3 d888 , 88 9 (8t h Cir . 1996) ; se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . v . FAA , 43 9 F.3 d863 , 864-86 5 (8t h Cir . 2006) ; Heat

h v. SEC , 200 9 U.S . App . LEXI S 2412 8 a

t 53-55 . 10 . Th e FAA' s applicatio n of

it s Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s i n thi s cas e i s contrar y to th e regulation' s plai n language . See Advant aUSA , Inc . v . Chao , 35 0 F.3 d 726 , 72 8 (8t h Cir . 2003) , quotin g Gardebrin g v . Jenkins , 48 5 U.S . 415,430 , 10 8 S . Ct . 1306,9 9 L . Ed . 2d 51 5 (1988) . Se e als o Tran s State s Airlines , Inc . v . FAA, 43 9 F.3 d 863 , 864-86 5 (8t

h Cir . 2006) . 11 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . assert s tha t th e Complainan

t ha s failedt

o stat e aclaimupo n which th e relie f requeste dma

y b e granted . 12 . DIAMON

D AI RCHARTER , INC . assert s tha t th e Complainan

t lack s substantia

l basi s in la w and fac t t o continu e prosecutio n o f thi s matte r agains t it .Dated thi s 26t h da y o f July 2010 . Respectfiill y submitted , GREGOR Y S . WINTON , ESQ . Th e Aviatio n La

w Fir m On e Research Court , Suit

e 45 0 Rockville , M

D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counsel fo r

Responden

tCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

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

an d Affirmativ e Defense s addresse d to : Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building-Suit e 2W100 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Roo m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1 I hereb y certif

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

viafacsimil e an d first

clas s mai l acop y o f

th e foregoin g Answe r

an d Affirmativ e Defense s addresse d Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U . S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mEl2-32 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 . Herman , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Coimsel , AEA- 7 FA A Easter n 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 Date d thi s 26t h da y o f

Jul y 2010 . Respectfiill y submitted .

GREGOR Y S . WINTON , ESQ . Th e Aviatio n La w Fir m On e Researc h Court, Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax : (301 ) 294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Counse l fo r

Responden t