UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of : SUN QUES T EXECUTIV E AI RCHARTER . INC . FA A Orde r

No . 2011- 1 Docke t No . CP08WP000 4 ^ ^2 ] - ^ 2 : - FDM S No . FAA-2008-023 8 •::: f ^^i" ^ Served : January 5,201 1 ^ ^^- '

. 3 o?/-^ P RESPONDENT' S REPL Y BRIE FZ ' Thi s brie f i s i n respons e t o th e Administrator' s Orde r date dJanuary 5 , 2011 , enablin g abrie f

in repl y t o th e Complainant' s openin g brie f o n th e issu e of".. . othe r

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

deal s solel y withth 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 commercia l flying" an d"publi c aircraft " i n it s brie f interchangeably . B y doin g so , i t

ha s don e amasterfia

l jo b i n mixin g apple s an doranges . SUMMAR Y O FTHI S BRIE F Complainant' s argument s fai l fo r th e followin g reasons : 1 . Muc h o f

th e authority tha t

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 o r omission s o n th e part

o f Responden t

too k place . Some , bu t

no t all , o f thes e ar e a s follows : •^•Wl ^ r2sc » j'.':-%- ^;;'-itt C

i. T 

### Ai' Ri ' i m 

## HAR5M G DOCKE l

T(a. ) Th e legislativ e history u p 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 an dth e decisio n o f th e Administrativ e La w Judge . Th e 199 1 statutory definitio n o f publi c aircraf

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

alte r th e ke y defmitio n o f

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

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

Th e statutory chang e wa s onl y for further amplificatio n an dclarificatio n a s t o military aircraf t regardin g th e rule s applicabl e a s t o th e Arme dService s o r for otherwis e us e o f aircraf t b y th e Departmen t

o f Defens e fo

r nationa l 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 h allegedl y too k

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

n administrativ e attemp t

t o creat e an e x pos t

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

deal s withallegedl y imprope r trackin g o f

fight s durin g th e yea r

2005 , thre e year s before th e statut e wa s amended. ^ 2 . Th e complainan t

no w argue s that".. . ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t Mr . Smith' s flights fo

r 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 really is . Firs t o f all , th e entir e case , fi:omth 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 for 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 othe r

than stipulate d(an do f

cours e the y wer e not ) tha t

issu e shoul dhav e been raise da t leas t b y 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, the redefinition of publi c aircraf

t doe s no t change th e situation i

n thi s case . A s applicable t

o thi s case , th

e redefinition merel

y require s tha

t the aircraf t be use db y the publi c agency fo

r a t least 90 continuou s day s fo

r the publi c aircraf

t exception t o be applicable .".. . 25 , Lega l 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 (4I)(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 that th e L.A.P.D . flights wer e anythin g othe r than flights i n publi c aircraft . Interestingly , b y aparity o f reasonin g (o r

lac k o f reasoning ) th e recor dfail s t o disclos e any possibl e basi s for th e flights b y Mr . Smit

hfo r th e L.A.P.D . t o hav e been commercia l flights. Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t h e receive dan y compensatio n or benefit s a

t all . After

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

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

flights for

himianitaria n purpose s exist . Fo r example , ha dMr . Smit

huse dhi s of

f duty tim e fi*omSun Ques t fo r th e purpos e o f

aidin g victim s o f

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

necessity , hav e bee n commercia l flying withi n th e meanin g o f th e trackin g requirement s applicabl e t o Su n Quest ? Fo r al l tha t appears , suc h flights coul db e mad e for th e Re dCross or , nowadays , fo r Japanes e Relie f

### CONCLUSIO N Contrar y t o th e government' s artfii l wordin g i

n it s brief , the Administrativ e La

w Judg e di dnot

"create " ane

w interpretatio n of

a n existing rule . Instead , it i s th e F.A.A. , b

y 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

the statutor

y exclusion of the F.A.A.' s jurisdictio n ove r all aircraf t involve din publi c flying not jus t militar y flying. Later

amplification s o f

the statute t o quas i militar

y flying doe s not chang e th e statute o r

to thi s case . The statut

e mean s wha

t i t say s andther

e i s n o cas e tha t ha s hel dotherwise . Dated : April 5 , 201 1 Respectfiill y submitted . ARTHU RWASSERMA

N Attorne y fo r RespondentCertificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I bothfaxe dan dmaile db y Certifie dMai l th e original o f

th e attache ddocumen t

(RESPONDENT' S REPL Y BRIEF ) i n th e Matte r o f Su n Ques t

Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc. , Docke t

N o CP0 8 WP000 4 an d2 copies , addresse dto : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 I n dependenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 Facsimile : (202)493-514 2 And , I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f tha t documen t

wa s sen t b y facsimil e and certifie dUnite dStates Mail , postage-prepaid, to : Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l for

Enforcement , AGC-30 0 C/ 0 Josep h A . Cont e Counse l for

complainan t Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Dated : Apri l 5 , 201 1