03/23/201 2 07:2 8 FA X 2024935U 2 FA A- DM S [2lO01/0l 4 

# xtCEIVE t MA R? ? lA M Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n u ^ * , ^ ^ ^ Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n nEARj^ Q DOCKP T I n ihe maUc

r u f )

) Docke t No . CPlOSOOOl l M & RH8LIC0PTE R) FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 ) Judg e RichardC Goodwi n ^ -, , ) Hearin g Date ; January 26-27 ; 201 2 '' ^ r^zn"^ - ) ••-••^= D 3 3 COMPLAINAN T SPOST-HEARIN( . BRIE FdD- ^ Pursuan t t o ih c Jun e 30 , 201 1 Amende dProcedural Orde r andihc February ' 21 , - ^ 201 2 Schedulin g Order , Complainan t file s thi s Posi-Hearin g Brief . I . STATEMEN T O FTH E CAS E Complainan t

serve dM & RHelicopter?; . LLC (''Respondent" ) wit h aNotic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty o

n July 23 , 2010 , i

n th e amoun t

o f $5,400 , to r

violation s o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs")- ' An informal conferenc e wa s hel dwit h Rcspondeiu . F.-

^ A attorneys , an dareprescnlaiiv c fro mth e Dru g Abatemen t

Divisio n o f th e Offic e o f

Aerospac e Medicin e on October 1 , 2010 . A Final Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penall y wa s is.siie

don Octobe r

21 , 2010 . Responden t

requeste dahearin g on Octobe r 27 , 201 0 andthe Complain t

wa s the n filedo n November 17 , 2010 . Th e Complain t ha s sinc e bee n amende dtwice , onc e on Decembe r 10 , 201 0 t o remov e certai n allegation s an d reduc e ih e penalty t

o $4,400 , andagai n on Augus t 11 , 2011-i n orde r

t n correc t typographica l errors . Responden t

filedhi s Preliminar

y Objections , whic h appea r t o serv e a s hi. s Answer , o

n Novembe r

27 , 2010 . I

n hi s PrclJminar> ' Objections , Responden t agree dthat 

## oS ^

e n

Th e specifi c violation s allege dar e 14C:.KK . ^ § 135.251(a ) an d135.255('b) .03/23/201 2 0 7 2 8 FA X 202433514 2 FA A. -DM S 2)002/01 4

Mr . hdwar d Bake rTTI performe d :>afety-sensitiv e function s fo rResponden t o n Jul y24 , 2008 . (Prelim . Objection s a t 3) . I n addition . Responden t agree d i n par t tha t Responden t i s now , an d a t al l lime s mentione d i n th e Complain t was , th e holde ro f Ai rCarrie r Certificat e No . MR3A020K , issue d unde r1 4 C.F.R . par t 11 9 an d wit h operation s specification s authorizin g i t t o conduc t operation s unde r1 4 C.F.R . par t 13 5 o f th e FARS . Id . a t 2 . Respondent , however , asserte d tha t i t "'has no t bee n abl e t o carr yo n par t 13 5 operation s sinc e Augus t 200 7 " jd . Responden t denie d ai l o f th e othe rallegation s liste d i n th e Complaint . O n Miirc h 25 , 2U11 , a conferenc e cal l wa s hel d amon g Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yoder , Complainan t an d Respondent . O n Ma y27 , 2011 , Complainan t tile d it s Pre hearin g Brie f i n accordanc e wit h Judg e Yoder' s direction . O n Jun e 3 , 2011 , Responden t tile d it s Repl yt o Complainant' s Brief . Thes e proceeding s wer e rc-assigne d t o Judg e Goodwi n o n Jun e 10 , 2011 . O n Augus t 2 , 2011 , Complainan t file d a Motio n t o Compe l Discoverv' . I n response , o n Augus t 15 , 201 1 Judg e Goodwi n ."serve d upo n Responden t a n Orde rt o Responden t t o Sho w Cause . O n Augus t 25 , 2011 , Responden t filed hi s Repl yt o ih e Orde rt o Sho w Cause . O n Septembe r29 , 2011 . Judg e Goodwi n .serve d a n Orde r findin g tha t becaus e Responden t faile d t o fil e adequat e response s t o th e issue s raise d i n th e Orde rt o Responden t t o Sho w Cause , Responden t ''wil i b e foreclose d a rth e hearin g fro m offerin g o rrelyin g upo n an ydocuments , o ran yinformatio n containe d i n them , o r an ywitnesses , regardin g whic h i t ha s faile d l u noiic e i n respons e t o Complainant' s discover yrequest. " (Orde rSanctionin g Resp' t a t I) . Responden t .subsequentl yfiled a Motio n fo rReconsideratio n o n Octobe r3 . 2011 , whic h Judg e Goodwi n denie d i n hi s Orde rDenyin g Respondent' s Motio n file d o n Octobe r18 , 2011 ,03/23/201 2 07-2 9 F^X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0)003/01 4

O n Novembe r

15 , 2011 , Complainan t

file daMotio n fo

r Decision . O n Decembe r I , 2011 , Responden t

filed aBrie f

Supportin g th e Motio n fo r Decisio n t

o Dismis s Complaint . O n Decembe r 5 . 2011 , Judg e Goodwi n issue da n Orde r Denyin g Motions . O n January 26-27 , 2012 , ahearin g for thi s matter

wa s hel di

n Easton , P

A before Judg e Goodwin . O n Fcbruaty 21 , 2012 , ,ludg e Goodwi n issue da n Orde r Settin g Ou t Briefin g Schedule . TI . STATEMEN T O FFACT S Responden t

i s th e holde r

o f Air Carrie r Certificat e No . MR3A020K , issue dunde r 14 C.K.R . par

t 11 9 an dwit

h operation s specification s authorizin g i t t o conduc t

operation s unde r 1 4 C.F.R . par

t 13 5 o f th e h'ARs . (T.xh . A-F) . Responden t i n ti s operation s specification s certifie dthat ii woul dcompl y wit

h th e requirement s o f

1 4 C.F. Rpart

121 , Appendice s 1 an dJ an d4 9 C.F.R . par t 4 0 for it. s Antidru g an dAlcoho l Misus e Preventio n Program . ("Exh. A-2) . O n Jul y 2 1 and23 , 2009 . th e FA A conducte da

n inspectio n o f Respondent' s DOT-rcquire ddru g an dalcoho l testin g programs . ('Exh . A-7'1 . Durin g th e investigation , i

t wa s diicoverc dtha

t o n Jul y 24 , 2008 , safety-sensitiv e maintenanc e wor k wa s performe do n Respondent' s aircraf t (N98CM ) whic h wa s liste do n Respondent' s part 13 5 operation s specifications . fHxh . A-4 : Fxh . A-3 : Tr . 87 ; 3-10:227 : 18-22) . Thi s maintenanc e wa s performe dby Edwar dBaker III . (Exh . A-4 : Tr . 87-8 ; 18-10) . Mr . Baker , wh o i s employe dby Air Methods , performe dthi s wor k fo r Responden t

i n hi s capacity a s a

n ^'independent

contractor. " (Tr . 228 ; 2-8) . Mr . Baker perfonne dth e wor

k directl y fo

r Respondent . Id . Mr . Bake r wa s no t include di

n Respondent' s rando mdru g an dalcoho l lestin g pools . fExh . A-6 : Tr . 228-9 : 22-3) . Mr . Bake r di dno t hav e hi s ow n03/23/201 2 07:2 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 01004/01 4

DOT-requirc ddru g o r

alcoho l testin g programs . (Tr . 204 : 11-13 , 228 : 18-20) . Mr . Bake r di dno t perfor mth e work

O n Respondent' s aircraf

t on behal f

o f cithe r Air Method s o r

th e Ai r Nationa l Guard . (Tr . 228 : 2-8) . Respondent' s Air Carrie r Certificat e No . MR3A020K , issue dunde r 14 C.F.K . par

t t J 9 wit h operation s specification s authorizin g i t t o conduc t

operation s under

1 4 C.F.R . par

t 13 5 o f th e FARS , wa s activ e a

r th e tim e o f th e violaiion . a

t th e tim e o f

th e inspection , an

dcontinue dt o b e activ e a s o f Novembe r

29 , 2011 . (Tr . 164-5 : 18-5 ; 165:21-22 : 168 ; 9-15 ; 333-4 : 14-20) . A t th e hearin g Responden t di dno t lesiif y unde r oat h i n support of hi s case . H e introduce dseve n e.\iiibil s an d oihcrwis e relie dupon onl y direc t examinatio n o f

Mr . Bake r

an dcross-examinatio n o f Complainant' s witnesse s III . ARGUMEN T A preponderanc e o f

th e reliabl e andcredibl e evidenc e support s tha t Responden t violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 135.251(a ) and135.255(b ) becaus e a n employe e o f

Responden t wh o perfonnedsafety-sensitiv e wor k o n th e aircraf

t liste don Respondent' s pa n 13 5 operation s specification s wa s not subjec t t o DOT-require drando mdru g or alcoho l testin g i n aeeordanc e wit

h1 4 CF.R . par

t 121 , Appendice s I an dJ . A . O n o r

Abou t Jun e 24 , 2008 , M r

Bake r Performe dSafety-Sensitiv e Wor k fo r Responden t

an dWa s Therefor e Require dt o b e Subjec t t o DOT-Requirc d Dru g an dAlcoho l Testin g O n Jun e 24 , 2008 , Mr . Bake r a s acontracto r

workin g fo

r Responden t

performe d safety-sensitiv e maintenanc e or preventiv e maintenanc e on aircraf t (N98CM ) whic h wa s th e aircraf

t liste do hRespondent' s operation s specificaiions . H e wa s therefor e require dt o b e subjec t t o DOT-require ddru g andalcoho l testing . Under ] 4 C.F.R , par

t 121 , Appendi x 1 , § 111 . a

n employe e wh o perform s aircraf t maintenanc e an dpreventiv e

~ Unles. i otherwis e noted , al l citations ar

c t o th e regulation s i n effec t I n 20O8.03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A . DH S ©005/01 4

maintenanc e dutie s o n aircraf t subjec t t o a n ai rcarrier' s operation s specifications , directl y o rb ycontract , i s performin g a safety-sensitiv e tunctio n an d mus t b e subjec t t o dru g testin g unde ra n antidru g progra m implemente d i n accordanc e wit h tha t appendix. " Unde r1 4 C.F.K . par t 121 , Appendi xJ . § U.A , a n employe e wh o perform s aircraf t maintenanc e o rpreventiv e maintenanc e dutie s o n a n aircraf t subjec i t o ih c ai rcarrier' s operation s specifications , directl yo rb ycontract , i s performin g a safet>'-sensitiv e ftjnction an d mus t b e subjec t t o alcoho l testin g unde ra n Alcoho l Misus e Preventio n Progra m C'AMPP" ) implemente d i n accordanc e wit h tha t appendix . • * O n Jun e 24 , 2008 , Mr . Bake rperforme d safety-sensitiv e function s fo rResponden t i n tha i h e performe d maintenanc e o rpreventiv e maintenanc e b yperformin g a vibratio n balanc e chec k

o n Respondent' s aircraft , whic h i s li.ste d o n Respondent' s operation s speeificiilions . an d signin g paperwor k relate d t o th e performanc e o f tha t maintenance . ('Ex h A-4 : Exh . A-3 : Tr . 87 : 3-10 : 227-8 : 15-1) . Therefore . Mr . Bake rwa s require d t o b e subjec t t o DOl'-rcquire d dru g an d alcoho l lesiin g i n accordanc e wit h 1 4 C.F.R . par t 121 . Appendice s I an d J .

1- 1 C.F.R . par r121 . .'Appendi xI , § II I - Emplayet." , H'h o Mus t b e Tested . Eac h employee , incJLidin g an y a-ssi.-nani . helper , o rindividua l i n 3 trainin g status , wh o perform s a safety-sensitiv e functio n liste d i n thi s sectio n directl yo rh ycontrac t (includin g b ysubcoiiirac t a t an ytier ) fo ra n employe rzs , define d i n thi s appendi xmus t b e subjec t t o dm g restin g unde ra n antidru g progra m implemente d i n accordanc e wit h thi ? appcndi. \

Thi s includ o fuII-iime , pan-time , temporary , an d jnternnitten t employcc i regardles s o f th e degre e o t supervision . Th e safciy-scnsiiiv e function s are : E Aircraf t mairitenanc e an d preventiv e maintenanc e duties . ^ MC.F.R . par t 121 , Appendi xJ. § H, A - Covere d Employee s A . Eac h employee , includin g an yas<istAnt , helper , o rindividua l i n a trainin g status , ^h o perform s a safcty-avnsitfv e functio n liste d i n thi s sectio n directl yo rh ycontrac t (includin g b ysubcontrac t at an ytier ) fo ra n employe ra

s define d i n thi s appendi xmus t b e subjec t t o alcoho l testin g unde ra n alcoho l misus e preventio n progra m implemente d i n accordanc e wiU i ihi s appendiv . Thi s include s I'ull-rime , pan-time , temporary , an d intcrmirten i employee s regardles s o f th e degre e ofsupervision . Th e safety-sensitiv e funelion s arc : 5 . Aircraf t maintenanc e o rpreventiv e maintenanc e duties .03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FA X 202(J93514 2 FA A^ DM S ^006/01 4

B . O n o r

Abou t Jun e 24 , 2008 , Responden t Wa s a n Employe r

Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . par t 121 , Appendice s T an dJ . Responden t

wa s a n employe r

a s define di

n 1 4 C.F.R . part

121 , Appendice s I an d J . 14 C.F.R . pai t

121 , Appendi x I , § I

I derine s "employer'as'' apart 11 9 certificat e holder wit hauthority t

o operat e under

part s 12 1 and/o r

13 5 . . . . " 14 CF.R . par t 121 , Appendi x .1 , § I D define s "employer " a s " apar t 11 9 certificat e holde r

wit h authority t o operat e unde r

parts - 12 1 and/o r

13 5 .. . ."Responden t

i s th e holder

o f Air Carrie r Certificat e No . MK3A020K , issue dunder 1 4 C.F.R . par

t 11 9 an dauthorize dl o conduc t operation s unde r

14 C.F.R . par

t 13 5 o f th e FARs , an di s therefore an/'employer ' a s define di n bor h14 CF.R . par

t 12i , Appendice s I an dJ . (Fxh^^Vi ; Tr . 107-8 : 19-7 ; 190 ; 7-20) . C . O n o r

Abou t Jun e 24 , 2008 , Mr . Bake r Wa s a n Employe e o f

Responden t Unde r 1 4 C.F.R , par t

121 . Appendice s T an dJ . Mr , Bake r

wa s a n employe e o f

Responden t

a s define di

n 14 C.F.R . part

121 , Appendice s 1 an dJ . 1 4 C.F.R . par t 121 , Appendi x I . § I

I define s "employee " a s " aperso n wh o i s hired, eithe r

directl y o r

b y contract , t o perfor

masafety-sensiiliv e functio n for a n employer... " 14 CF.R . par t 121 , Appendi x J , § l. D define s "'covere demployee " a s " a perso n wh o performs , eithe r directl y O

r b y contract , asafet

y sensitiv e functio n liste di n sectio n I I o f th e appendi x fo

r a n employe r

. . .. " A s discusse dabove , Mr . Baker pcrforitie dsafet

y sensitiv e tiinetion s whe n h e perfonn<.: dmaintenanc e o r preventiv e maintenanc e by performin g avibratio n balanc e chtc k o n Respondent' s pa n 13 5 aircraf t andsignin g paperwor

k relate dt o th e performanc e ottha t

maintenance . (Hxh . A-4 : Exh . A-3_ ; Tr . 87 ; 3-10 ; 227-8 : 15-1) . Mr . Baker pertbrme dthi s wor

k a s a n independen t

contracto r

an dno t i n hi s capacity a s a

n03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 12007/01 4

employe e o f

eithe r Ai r Method s or

th e Ai r National Guard . (Tr . 228 : 2-8) . Therefore , Mr . Baker wa s a n employe e o f

Responden t

a s define dby bot

h UC.F.R.par t

121 , Appendice s I an d.1 . (Tr . 1U8-9 : 8-14 ; 190-2 : 21-2) . D . O n o r

Abou t Jun e 24 , 2008 , Mr . Bake r Wa s No t Covere dUnde r Respondent': ^ DOT-Require dDru g o r Alcoho l Testin g Program s o r Hi s Ow n DOT-Require dDru g o r Alcoho l Testin g Programs . Mr . Baker

wa s not covere dunder

Respondent' s DOT-require ddru g or alcoho l lestin g program s or

hi s ow n DOT-require ddru g or alcoho l leslin y programs . Mr . Bake r wa s no t include di

n Rcspondenl' s rando mpoo l to r DOT-require ddru g an dalcoho l testin g when he performe dasafety-sensitiv e functio n fo r Responden t

o n Jul y 24 , 2008 . ("Exh. A-6 ; Tr . 228-9 : 22-3) . Mr . Bake r di dno ! hav e an dwa s no t include di

n hi s ow n FAA-mandate dantidru g prop-amo r AMP Pa t th e tim e he performe dsafety-sensitiv e function s fo

r Responden t

on Jul y 24 , 2008 . (Tr : 204 ; 1 i-13 ; 228 : 18-21) . Responden t

denies thes e fact s base don a n erroneou s understandin g o f th e regulation s an dth e so-calle d"moonlighting " loophol e whic h previousl y allowe d employer s t o utiliz e safciy-sensitiv c employee s wh o wer e unde r anothe r employer' s dru g testin g programregardles s o f whethe r th e othe r employe r

hadaconnractua

l relationshi p withtheemployerwhohiredihemoonlighter . (Tr . 67 : 15-17:68 : 11-14 ; 106 : 11-21 ; 192 : 6-9) . However , th e ''moonlighting' ' loophol e ha s n o bearin g o n thi s matte r becaus e th e loophol e wa s close di

n 200 4 an dth e regulatio n no w explicitl y prohibit s that practice . (Fxh . A-ll.Tr . 107:2-11 : 192 : 15-16 ; 197 : 11-21 ; 299 ; 16-13) . Therefore , employee s wh o performe dsafety-sensitiv e function s fo r Responden t

were require dl o eithe r

b e include di n Respondent' s dru g andalcoho l testin g program s o r b e include di

n th e dru g an dalcoho l lesiin g program s o f acompan y wit

h who mRespondcn l coniracie dt o provid e03/23/201 2 07.2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0008/01 4

suc h safciy-sensitlv e functions . I n thi s case , Mr . Baker

wa s no t unde r Respondent' s dru g an dalcoho l testin g program s o r unde r the dru g an dalcoho l testin g program s o f a compan y that

wa s contracte dwit

h Responden t

t o provid e safet>'-sensitiv e functions . E . O n o r

Abou t Jun e 24 . 2008 , Responden t Ha da n Activ e Par t

11 9 Certificat e Wit h Operation s Specification s Authorizio g Par i 13 5 Operations , Responden t

is . anda t ih e lim e o f

the violation s was , th e holder o f Ai r Carrier Certificat e No . MR3A020K . issue dunder 1 4 C.F.R . pa n 11 9 an dauthorize dl o conduc t operation s unde r

1 4 C.F.R . part

13 5 o f th e FARs.fExh . A-1 : Tr . 164-5 : 18-5 ; 165:21-22 ; 168 : 9-15 ; 333-4 : 14-20) . Responden t claim s that

i t wa s non-operationa l a

t th e tim e o f

ihc violaiion s andha s no t

bee n i n operatio n since . (Tr . 36 : 13-22) . I n support o f thi s atfmiiativ e defense , Responden t olTercda t hearin g aletter

fromth e FAA statin g tha t Dr . Seli g failedhi s .Airma

n Competency/Proficienc y Chec k an dwa s Therefor

e preclude d fro mactin g a s apilo t

durin g 1 4 CF.R . por

t 13 5 operations . (T-xh . R-6') . However , th e letter offere dby Responden t

onl y pertain s t

o Dr . Selig' s abilit

y t o ac t a s apilo t i n comman ddurin g par

t 13 5 operation s andha s n o impac t o n th e operational statu s o f Respondent' s .M

r Carrie r Certificate . (Tr . 167 : 3-11) . Respondent' s operation s specification s were activ e a t ih e time o f

th e violation , a

t th e tim e o f

th e inspectio n andcontinue dt o b e activ e a s o f

Novembe r

29 , 20M . (Tr , 164 - 5 : 18-5 ; 165 : 21-22 ; 168 : 9-15 ; 333-4 : 14-20) . Responden t provide dn o evidenc e t

o suppor t it s affirmativ e defens e tha t Responden t

wa s not operational a

t ih e tim e o f

th e violations . Becaus e Responden t ha dactiv e par

t I 1 9 operation s specification s authorizin g i t t o conduc t

pa d13 5 operations , Responden t wa s require dt

o perfor mall maintenanc e i

n accordanc e wit

hpart 13 5 includin g adherin g t o th e dru g an dalcoho l regulation s containe di

n 1 4 C.F.R . par

t 121 , Appendice s I an dJ . (Tr . 328-9 : 16-1) . Ihi s require dtha t03/23/201 2 0 7 2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA ArQM S @]009/0l 4

th e maintenanc e performe d b yMr . Bake rb e conducte d b ya mechani ctha t wa s unde r dru g an d alcoho l testin g program s delineate d i n 1 4 CF.R , par t 120 . Appendice s 1 an d J . (Tr . 328 : 2-8) . Regardles s o f whethe rResponden t wa s conductin g par t 13 5 operation s a t th e lim e o f th e violation , as th e holde ro f a par t 11 9 certificate . Responden t wa s require d l o adher e t o it s operation s specificaiion s includin g thos e authorizin g i t t o perfor m par t 13 5 operaiions . (Tr . 328 : 9-20) . Responden t ha d a n acfiv e pa n 1 ! 9 certificat e authorizin g i t t o conduc t par i I 35 operation s an d requirin g i t 1 0 compl ywit h th e dru g an d alcoho l tesfin g regulations . Responden t therefor e wa s require d t o adher e t o th e dru g an d alcoho l testin g regulation s containe d i n 14 . CF.R . pa n 121 , Appendice s I an d J wit h regar d t o it s employmen t o f Mr . Bake rt o perfor m safely-sensitiv e maintenanc e wor k o n it s aircraft . F . Rvspondcn i Violate d 1 4 CF.R . § § 135.251(a ) an d 135.255(b) . Responden t violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 135.251(a ) an d 135.255(b) . 1 4 CT.R . § 13 5 251(a ) Slate s that''[e|ac h certificat e holde ro roperato rshal l les t eac h o f it s employee s wh o perform s a functio n liste d i n Appendix ! t o Par t 12 1 o f thi s chapte ri n accordanc e wit h tha t appendix. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.255(b ) slate s iha t "[e]xcep t as provide d i n paragrap h (c ) o f thi s section , n o certiticat e holde ro roperato rma yus e an yperso n wh o meet s th e definitio n of'covere d employee ' i n appendi xJ t o par t 12 1 o f thi s chapte rt o perfor m a safety-sensitiv e functio n lisie d i n tha t appendi xunles s suc h perso n i s subjec i t o testin g fo ralcoho l misus e i n accordanc e wii h th e provision s o f appendi xJ. " Respondent , a certificdi e holder , violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 135.251(a ) an d 135.255(b ) becaus e a n employe e o f Respondent , Mr . Baker , wa s no t subjec i 1 0 DOT-require d rando m dru g o r alcoho l testin g i n accordanc e wit h 1 4 CF.R . pa n 121 , Appendice s I an d J .03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S ©010/01 4

G . Th e Regulation s Cite di n th e Complain t Wer e Properl y Promulgate dI n Accordanc e Wit hth e Administrativ e Procedure s Act . Durin g th e hearing . Responden t mad e numerou s comment s statin g thai th e regulation s that

are th e subjec i o f

thes e violation s were change dwithou t noiificiiiio n an d concealed . (Tr . 33-4 : 17-16) . Thi s argumen t i s withou t

merit . 1 4 CFR - par

t 121 , Appendice s 1 dn

dJ an d4 9 C.F.R . par

t 4 0 were properl y promulgate dan damende dby notic e andcommen t

i n accordanc e wit

h th e Administrativ e Procedure s Act . Se e 5 9 FR 42928 , Aug . 19 , 1994 (amendin g 14 CF.R . par t 121 , Appendi x I) ; 6 9 F

R1840 , Jan . 12 , 200 4 (amendin g 1 4 C.F.R . part 121 , Appendi. x J) ; jF.xh . A-ll) . I n addition , whe n 1 4 CF.R . par

t 121 , Appendice s I andJ were recodifie di n 2009 . th e final rul e explicitl y state dthat . "[i]h e FA

A i s not makin g an

y substantiv e change s t o the dru g an dalcoho l regulation s i

n thi s rulemaking. " Dru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Program ; Final Rule , 74 Fed . Reg.22649 , 2264 9 (Ma

y 14 , 2009) ; (Exh . A-12) . Sinc e n o substantiv e change s were mad e t o th e regulation s when the y were recodified , no notic e an dcommen t perio dwa s require dunde r

the Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t fo r tha t rulemaking . 5 U.S. C § 553(b) . Becaus e Responden t

wa s notifie do f

change s t

o th e regulation s throug h th e Federal Register publicatio n of

the Final Rul e when required , hi s argument that th e regulation s were changed , hidden , an dconceale dwithou t notificatio n i s withou t

meri t .Additionally , i t shoul dbe note dtha

t th e rul e makin g that

close dthe "moonlighting' ' loophole , whic h wa s don e b

y noiic e an dcomment , wa s propose di n 200 2 an dbecam e elTeciiv c i n 2004 . Respondeni' s regulatoty violation s didno t occu r unfi l 2008 ; four

year s afte

r th e change s were made . (fr . 516-8 : 20-8) . Thu s Responden t ha dmore tha

n a n ampl e opportunity t o lear n o f th e relevan t

regulation s t o whic h i

t certifie di

t woul dcompl y whe n i

t wa s issue d it s pa n 11 9 cenificaie . Moreover , a ^ acertificate holder , Responden t i s charge dwit

h 1 003/23/201 2 07:2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @l0n/01 4

responsibilit yt o kno w th e regulation s tha t pertai n t o it s exercis e o f ih e privilege s authorize d b yth e certificate . T^ . Th e Sanctio n i s Appropriate . Unde rth e fact s an d circumstance s o f thi s case , a civi l penalt yo f $4,40 0 i s appropriate . (Tr . 209-16 : 14-3) . Th e FA Aha s broa d authorit yt o asses s civi l penaltie s fo r violation s o f th e FARs . Se e e.g. , N L Industries . Inc . v . Departmen t o f Transportation . 90 1 F.2 d 141 , 144(Apr . 13 , 1990) . Th e FAA' s sanctio n determinatio n "i s no t t o b e overiurne d unles s 'i t i s unwarrante d i n law ' o r'withou t juslificalio n i n fact.' " Id . quotin g Panhandl e Cooperativ e Ass' n v . EPA , 77 1 F.2 d 1149 , 115 2 (8' ^ Cir . 1985) . Th e civi l penalt yi n thi s matte rwa s assesse d i n accordanc e wit h FA AOrde r 2150.3B . specifically . Appendi xB - Tabl e o f Sanctions . Responden t i s classifie d a s a Crou p I V ai rcarrie ro roperator. ' (T r215-6 ; 22-3) . Unde r4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A) . Responden t i s subjec t t o a civi l penalt yno t t o excee d S I 1,000 . FA A Orde r2150. 3 B delineaie s penalt yrange s fo rditTerenit>'pe s o f violation s b ydifferen t type s o f entities . (Tr . 211-2:6-20) . I n thi s case , FA A Orde r2150.3 B set s fort h th e followin g penalr> ' ranges : Maximu m - $4,400-$ l 1,000 ; Moderat e - $2,200-S4,399 ; an d Minimu m - S550-S2,199 . M . Fo rth e FAR s violate d b yRespondent , FA AOrde r2150.3B , Figur e B-5-b(T ) provide s guidanc e tha t ama.\jmu m penalt yshoul d b e levied . (Tr . 213 : 1 - 16) . KA A Orde r2150.3 D state s ''tha i ih e middl e o f eac h recommende d sanctio n rang e woul d b e to ra singl e violatio n withou t aggravatin g o rmitigatin g factors.' ' Th e middl e o f th e maximu m rang e fo ra Grou p I V ai rcarrie ro roperato ri s $7,70 0 pe rviolation . I n thi s ease , becaus e Respondent' s tw o violation s ste m fro m th e sam e omission , th e FA A

^ A Grou p I V aircarrie ri s define d i n KA AOrde r2150.3 B n i a n aircarrie ro rcommercia l opcraro r opcraiini ; unde rpa n 135 wii h n o mor e thn n 5 pilot s an d n o rnor e tha n 5 aircrwfl . FA A Orde r2150. 3 B at B 1 103/23/201 2 07:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 1^012/01 4

determine dtha t

base don th e totalit

y o f the facts andcircumstance s areductio n o f th e penalty fro

mth e amouniofS15,40 0 forth e tw o violation s t o $4,40 0 wa s warranted. ^ (Tr . 214-5:21-21) . Th e sanctio n i s reasonabl e andwa s se t i n accordanc e wit

h th e FAA' s sanctio n guidance . Se e I

n the Matte r

o f Ai r Solutions . LL C FAA Orde r No . 2009- 1 (2009 ) (recognizin g th e reasonablenes s of asanctio n se t

i n accordanc e wit

h th e FAA' s sanctio n guidance) . Prio r 10 th e hearing . Responden t raise dth e issu e o f

it s inabilit

y t o pa y th e sanctio n ye t ha s no t provide dinformatio n sufficient fo r Complainan t

t o make adetermination . A t hearing , Responden t

failedt o submi t

an y evidenc e supportin g it s allege dinability t o pay . Complainan t

requeste dthat

Responden l provid e th e mos t recen t thre e year s o f

federa l ta x return s includin g schedules . (Tr . 216 ; 7-11) . Respondcn l ha s onl y provide dincomplet e federal andstate ta

x returns. ^ A

n assertio n o f

inabilit y t o pa y i s a n affirmativ e defens e an dthe burde n i s on Respondent t o prov e that

defense . I

n th e Matte r

o f American Air Network , Inc. . FA

A Order No . 2006-5 , a

t fn . 1 9 (Feb . 10 , 2006) . Responden t faile dt o provid e th e federa

l ta x return s requeste dby Complainan t i n orde r fo r Complainan t

t o asses s Respondent' s assertio n o f inabilit y t o pay . At hearing , Responden t

faile dt o provid e an y evidenc e o f

it s inabilit

y l o pay . A s such . Responden t di dnot make ashowin g thai i t i s unabl e l o pa

y th e propose dcivi l penalty . Accordingly , th e .S4,40 0 civi l penalty

" Th e Complain t

wa s amende don Decembe r fO . 201 0 t o delet e stal e allegaiion s an da n appropriat e adjustmen t

l o ih e peiialrj ' amoun t

wa s mad e ai tlia

t time bringin g i

t dow n t o th e curren i $4,40 0 civi l penair)' . Responden t

provide dth e followin g documents : (1 ) 200 7 P ACorporat e Ta^ : Rcpon ; (2 ) 200 7 P A Scliedul c L ; (3 ) 200 7 Federal Schedul e C - Protl t o f Los s Fro mBusiness ; (4 1 200 8 P. ^ Corporat e la v Report : (5 ) 20() X I' A Schedul e L ; (6 ) 200 9 P A Corporai e Tav Report ; (7 ) 200 9 Schedul e C- 2 P ADividen dDeductio n Schedule ; (8 ) 200 9 l>

A Schedul e L ; (9 ) 200 9 P A Schedul e C- 5 Schedul e o f Taxes ; (10 ) 200 9 Federal Schedul e C • Profi t

o r Los s TromBu.=;incs s 1 203/23/201 2 07-3 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - QM S (21013/01 4

sough t i n th e complaint , whic h fully accord s wit h FAA sanctio n guidance , shoul db e affirmed . IV . CONCLUSIO N For th e forgoin g reasons . Complainan t ask s that th e Law Judg e findtha t Responden t

ha s violate d1 4 C.F.R , § § 135.251(a) an d135.255(b ) andissu e a n Orde r accordingly , assessin g acivi l penalty agains t th e Responden t

i n th e amoun t

o f $4,400 . J Respectfull y submitted , Peter Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l fo r Enforcemen t

Charle s Raley , Attorne y Enforcemen t

Division . AGC-30 0 Offic e o f the Chie f Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone ; (202)267-335 7 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 hmail : charles.raley@faa.go v Dated : Marc h22 . 201 2

1 303/23/201 2 07:3 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ OM S 0014/01 4

Certificat e ofServic e I hereb y ceriif

y tha t on thi s dat e 1 hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receip l requested , acop y of Complainant' s PoSi-Hearin g Brie f I n th e Matte r o f M & RHelicopter . Docke t No . CIPlOSOOO

l 10 . FA A Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto : Dr . Michae l B . Seli g

Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL

C 204 5 Westtjal

L Dr. , Suite 20 5 Belhlehcm . P

A 1801 7 i n addition . I hereb y cerlity - tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e sent

by th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receip t requested , on e cop y o f

the foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La

w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue . S.F . Washington . D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-566-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certity that on thi s date 1 hav e sent

b y personal delivery , th e original andon e cop y o f

th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : I learin g Doeke l Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0

Dated : Marc h22 , 201 2

14