BECEIVED 

m - 2 2010 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . ^ ^ ^ =, , ^ HO'^K^ T 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOlJ^T^'cHnhMU U^w J . ^ 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of 

DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. 

FAA Docket No. 2010EA110008 j^*^ ' ; ~ 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) ^ ^ ^^ ^ 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law 

Hearing Location: New York, NY 

Hearing dates: TBD 

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

I 

COMES NOW, Diamond Air Charter, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, 

and hereby files its Answer to the Amended Complaint filed on July 26,2010, pursuant 

to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. §13.209). In support thereof. Diamond 

Air Charter, Inc., states the following: 

ANSWER 

II 

1. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. admits the allegations contained in paragraph 

1 of the Complaint. 

2. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 

of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof 
3. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 

of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof 

4. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 

of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof 

5. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies the allegations contained in paragraph 

5 of the Complaint. 

6. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies the allegations contained in paragraph 

6 of the Complaint. 

7. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies the allegations contained in paragraph 

7 of the Complaint. 

Ill 

a. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. 

§119.5(k). 

IV 

1. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

§46301(a)(l) or 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(5), it is liable for a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

2. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. denies that under the facts and circumstances 

of this case, a civil penalty of $1,100 is appropriate. 

Any matter not specifically admitted by DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. shall be 

deemed denied. 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. relies upon the affmnative defense of 

reasonable reliance, 

2. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the violation; (2) the extent and gravity of the 

violation; (3) the respondent's degree of culpability; (4) the respondent's history of 

prior violations, if any; (5) the respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the 

effect on the entity's ability to stay in business; and (7) other matters as justice 

may require. See 49 U.S.C. §46301(e)(2); See also Folsom's Air Service, Inc., 

FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6,2008), p. 11. 

3. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to determine 

whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 

4. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider 

the Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to 

absorb the sanction. 

5. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflect the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the violations. See Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-

11 (November 6, 2008), p. 12; Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 

(January 28,2008). 

6. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. does not have the financial ability to pay the 

proposed civil penalty. 

7. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability of 

DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. to continue doing business. 
8. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation of its Federal 

Aviation Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Watkins v. 

NTSB, 178 F.3d 959,961 (8th Cir. 1999). 

9. The FAA's interpretation of its aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. 

See Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans States 

Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 

U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. 

10. The FAA's application of its Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary 

to the regulation's plain language. See Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 

728 (8th Cir. 2003), quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415,430, 108 S. Ct. 

1306,99 L. Ed. 2d 515 (1988). See also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 

F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 

11. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. asserts that the Complainant has failed to state 

a claim upon which the relief requested may be granted. 

12. DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial 

basis in law and fact to continue prosecution of this matter against it. 
Dated this 26th day of July 2010. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

GREGORY S. WINTON, ESQ. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax:(301)294-2525 

Greg@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an 

original and one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed 

to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room 924A 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and first class mail a copy of the 

foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202 366-2142 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

Zachary M. Herman, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Coimsel, AEA-7 

FAA Eastern Region 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718 553-3258 

FAX: 718 533-5699 

Dated this 26th day of July 2010. 

Respectfiilly submitted. 

GREGORY S. WINTON, ESQ. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Greg@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent