04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS**~002/018** PAGE 02/16 04/20/2812 lB:Sl 4252271807 ANM7

l 2 .3 4 5 6 7 B

SOl lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 17 18 H 20 21 :22 23 :14 25 :2G ::!7 J.EF.FREY M.HAlPER

.. f A.A. OFFICE OP RF..GIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LlND AV'.S'NUB Sot.TI'HW!ST RENTON. WASHlNG1'01'4' 93057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 FACSIMJ.l..E: (425) 227·1007 !7 I"


### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · DEPARTMENT OJ' TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In

### the Matter of:
Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. DMSNo. FAA-2011-0481 

### DMS No. F.AA-2011-0484 DMS No. F AA-2011-0489 

### ·coMPLAINANT'S BRIEF Judge Richard C. 

### Goodwin 

## ·) ·r**'··~** 

## ")2 .,)

2e To: 

### Honorable Richard C. Goodwin: .2.9

. 30 31 32 3l 34 35 36' 37 39 39 40 41 42 4"3 44 45 46 47 4ft 49 

### so 51 5::! 53**Procedural~tory** The**Compl~t** incase DMS No. FAA-2011-0481 'WS flled on 

### May 18j 2011. The 

### Complaint alleged Respondent failed to comply "With its. 

### approved training course, a violation of 14.Code 

### of Federal**Regul~tions** (C.P.R.) Section (§)141.83(a)(l) by starting a stUdent, 

### Mr. Stann, on the

.**~trument** 

### I commercial training course whenbe did notmeet theprerequisites for that course. It 

### also alleged Respondent failed to maintain an accurate record ofthe 

### date Mr. Stann was enrolled in that course, a violationofl4 

### C.F.R. § l41.1Q1(a)(l).

On December 8, 2011, the Departro,cnt ofTransportation., Office of Hearing (Court)**en~red** sn Order granting Complainant's 

### Motion for 

### Limited. 

### Summary Judgment in 

### case FAA-2011.-0481, 

### :fin.cling that tb.e violations charged had

### been established, 

### and limiting the 

### hearing to the question 

### ofsanction.
The Complaint in 

### case DMS No.**FAA-2011~0484** 

### was 

### filf'ld on**MAy26~** 

### 2011. It alleged 

### Respondent did not 

### eomply with its 

### approved training cou:tse. did not maintain current aud aecura.t¢ records ofthe 

### participation. of.an 

### enrolled student, graduated a student who bad not completed the curriculum., and 

### issued a graduation ·certificate to 

### that student, 

### violations of

Complainant's Brief Come:rstone Aviation, Inc.- PAA·2011-0481, FAA-:20 1l.c484, FAA·2011-048!;1 Page 1 of9 · l:BP'FREY ].\.1(. H.Aia'n.F AA. A'1TO:!l:N8Y T!L: (42:5) 227•2161; FAX: (425) 227-100704/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA -. OMS 141003/018 PAGE 03/16

l 2 J 4 5 0 i 

### e 9 10 l1 '12 l3 14 15 1"6 17 16 3.9 :(0 21 :!2 23 24 25 ::!6 27 28 29 30 31 32

34 35 :liS 37 3S 39 4,0 41 42 43 -4.4 45 4G 47 4B 19 

### so 51 $2 5) 425227Hl87 ANM7



### 14 C.P.R..§§ 141.77(aX1),**14~.77(b),** 

### 141.83(a)(l), and 141.101(a)_ Tile violations 

### stemmed .from a student who hadhad not completed ground school un.der Part 141. ·
On October 28, 201 

### L the Court 

### entered an Order granting Complainant's Alternative 

### Motion for Summary Judgment Hereafter Limiting Hearing 

### to 

### Sanotion 

### ln. case FAA-201 t-0484, finding that 

### the violations ch.arged had been established. and limiting the hearing to 

### the q;uestion. 

### ofsanction.
The 

### Complaint in case DMS No. PAA-2011-0489 was tiled on June 16,2011. The Complaint
was amended on July 

### 13,2011. As amended, the Contplaint alleged Respondent issued a graduating 

### certificate that did not eo:otain the graduate's**name~** 

### failed to

### 'maintain a. 

### current and accurate record ofa student's 

### participation intraining. 

### and failed to certify a student's record at 

### the end of

### training, violations ofl4 C.P.R.§ 14h95(b)(2),**14l.l01(a)~** and 

### 141.101(c).


### On December 8, 2011**~** 

### the Court entered an Order granting Complainant's Motion for Limited Summary Judgment in case F AA-20 11-0489, 

### findi:D.g that the violations charged had been established, and limiting the hearing to the question ofsanction.


### On October 6, 2011, 

### the Court entered an Order consolidaling these three 

### matters for bearing. The 

### hearing on sanction was held

### March**12~** 

### 2012 in 

### Salt Lake City, UWl.



### Facts In determlning 

### an appropriate 

### sanction, tbe Federal Aviation AdminiStration (FAA) follows the**san~ion** 

### guidance found in FAA Order 2150.3B. 

### Transcript, 17:1-11. 

### In these cases, the FAA**follo~** 

### that guidance. Transcript

.. 17:12-15. 

### Respondent is a 

### small busi.o.ess, 

### imd**~as** been in 

### business for nine years; Transcript, 17:16-18 and 50:19-51:4

In determining an appropriate 

### sanction., the FAA

### considered the violations oommittc:d by Respondent**~** 

### these cases as non-opera.tional and inadvertent Transcript, 17:22 -,18:12. Respondent has a history 

### ofbeing coo_pua.tive 

### with the FAA as 

### it investigates violations, to the extent ofdisclosing Federal 

### Aviation Regulation violations to 

### the FAA.**Transcrip~** 

### 18:13- 19:1. 

### This fact was taken. 

### into account in 

### determining an appropriate sanction.**Transcript~** 

### 19:2.:..5.
These were purely recordkeepmg violations, where there was 

### no. concern 

### tha.t the pilots whose training records were incorreet were competent and qwili:fied to exercise the privileges oftheir newly-earned certificates. Transcript 

### 19:8 -20;11.

Complainant's Brief Comcmone Aviatioll, Inc:.-FM·20J H>48l, FAA-2011·0484. FAA-2011..0489 Pa-ge2 of9 J:JilillR.EVM.**~ FMA'lTO~**  T!L: (42S)227..ll61; FAX: (425) 227a100704/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141004/018 PAGE eld/16 64/26/2812 18:51 4252271El07 ANM7

1 :2 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l-4 15 

### Argument

Standard 

### Under 49 

### United States Code (U.S.C.) § 

### 4630l(a)(5)(A), a "small business 

### concern is liable 

### to the 

### Government for a civil penalty 

### ofoot more than $10,000

..."" lbe maximum penalty was

. I adjusted to**$11~000** on June 15,2006. 

### 14 C.P.R.§ 13.305 (Table). 

# In determining an appropriate civil penaltyt theAgency 

### ccnsiders seven factors. 

### In the Matter of Warbelow 's Air Ventures, 

### Inc., FAA Order

### No. 2000-3 at**1~17** 

### n. 22 and 21 (Febr.uaty**3~** 2000).


### The Agency has the burden of justifying the amount ofcivil penalty sought. 14 C.F.R.
16 · § 

### 13.224(a); 

### In the Matter of Luxemburg, FAA Order 1994-18 

### (June 22, 1994) at 4. To guide the**~~** 

### F 

### A.A.'s prosecutorial discretion, the Agency bas**promulflSle~** 

### penalty guidelines, which.are found in

### FAA Order 21.50.3B Chapter 7 and Appendix B·dated October 

### 1, 2007 (Sanction 

### Guidance). The Sanction Guidance**con~** 

### tables 

### that establish specific penalty 

### .ranges for different types of 

### viola.tions. 2 

### The startin.g point 

### for a sanction detenr.ims.tion is the middle ofthe sanction 

### range, Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Paragraph 3.c. The 

### PM's sa!letion detennination does 

### not. however, reflect a fixed mathematical computation; 

### in addition tothe pubUshed penalty ranges, it 

### takes into account thirteen factors 

### set.forth in 

### Chapter 7, 

### Paragraph 4 of

### the sanction guidance, whieh address the .issues set forth in Warbelow?' These factors are used to adjU:S.: the sanction 

### upward 

### or downward 

### from the middle.ofthe recommended range
.. 19 20**~1** 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30 3l 32 33 34 3$ 36 37 38 39 4.0 41 42 43 H 45 415" 47 48 49 so 51 52 53 

### The FAA Order reflect.&; the Adminlstrator's gen.eral views about appropriate civil penalties; civil penalties must reflect the totality ofthe circumstanCes surrounding the violations. Folsom'sAir 

### Service, Inc_, FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November. 6, 2008). 

### The weight to 

### bt: given 

### to each of these factors·is within the discretion ofth.e Complainant; "'the**Complain~t** maintains relative

1 28 U.s.c. § .2461. (Note).
: Sanction Guidance, Appendix B. ' Those f.actors are: a. Nature ofthc violation; b. Wlletbc;:r the violation W89 inadvertent and not deliberate;
c. .1he certificate holder's level ofexperience; d.. The :atti.tur::fe ofthe violator;
e. The**de~** ofhazard;

. . f. Whether there was Ktlon takeo by the em.ployer or other authority against the employee thar committed rhe violation(s); · . g. Use of the certificate; h. Viol.atioD hlstory; i Dccisio.nalla.w; j. Ability to absorb the saoetion; k. Consistency ofSanction; 1. Whc:tl'ler the violation was r¢ported voluntarily; and · m. Corrective Action. Complainant,s Brief Cornerstone Aviation,**Ine.-~AA-2011..()481,** fAA-2011.-04g4, FAA·201 r·04.89 Pago;J of9**JEPFREYM.~ FAAAno~**  Ta: (425) 227-:2]6J; 'FAX: (42:S) 2.17-100704/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141005/018 PAGE BS/15 94/20/2012 10:51 4252271097 ANM7

1 :d 3 4 5 G 7 a**~** 10**~1 l~**  13 14 15**l~** l7 18 

# l'
20 .21 22 :2) 24 25 26 27 29 29 JC u 32 33 34 3$ )IS



### . n

38 3:i 40 41 42 43 i4 45 46 47 4e 49 50 51 52 53 ......·
prosecutorial discretion indetmnining the ease'$ final aggregate weight inproposing 

### the level of civil penalty." 

### In the Matter ofWilliam A. Luker, Jr., FAA DooketNo. 

### CP09SW0008, 2010 WL 1989430 (May 13 1 2010) 

### (Order ofChlefJudge,Yoder Granting Complainant's ¥otion for

. Summazy Judgment). Although a Department ofTransportation Administrative Law Judge is 

### v.ot 

### statutorily bound to follow the Administrator's guidanee, "[a]n

### administrative agency is entitled to substantial deference 

### in assessing the civil 

### penalty approprillte 

### for a violation of

### its regulations. Tile 

### agency's choice ofa sanction is 

### not to be 

### overturned

..unless 

### it is 

### unwarranted in 

### law or withoutjustification 

### in fact." 

### NL Industries, Inc. 

### v. Dept ofTra.nspo1'tation, 901 F.2d**141~** 144 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Further, the Administrator has the ability to impose the

### Agency~s sanction policy on appeal 

### ifthe 

### assessed civil penalty 

### is not consistent with the 

### policy. In the 

### matter ojWa,.below 's Air**VentW'~.r. Inc.~**  

### FAA Order No. 2000·3 (February 

### 3, 2000) -at 

### 20; 

### In the mauer o.f 

### Northwest Airlines, 

### FAA Order No. 

### 1990-37 (November**7~** 

### 1990) at 

### 8-9.

Case 

### DMS No, FAA

..2011·0481
Sanction Guidance
As 

### discussed, the: Satlction 

### Guidanee establishes sanction :ranges for 

### different 1ypes ofviolations. 

### For violations committed 

### by Part 141 pilot schools, 

### the ranges are found 

### in Figun: B-3-d. The San.ction Guidance for the violations under th.i,s docket are: 

### Violation, B-3-d(7) Unquali:Oe:d or unauthorized instruction· (14 C.F.R. §§ 

### 141.83(a)(1))

B

..3-d(8) Failure to maintain training record (14 C.F.R. 

### § 14Ll0l(a)(l)) Sanction Range

Moderate to Maximum



### Moderate to Maximum

The Adm.inistrator seeks 

### a; total 

### sanction- of**$5~000** in 

### tW.s 

### case.

Case 

### DMS No. FAA

..2011·0484 .MultiplJcity Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 141.77(a)(1), l41.77(b), 14l.83(a)(l), and 141.101(a). Complainant concedes, however, that sections 141.77(a)(l) and 141:77(b)requireproofofthe

same facts and therefore should be considered as OJJe violation under the

### Block'burger test. Ban


### v. U.S,, 470 U.S.

### 856~ 861 (1985); 

### Blockburger 

### -v. US., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); 

### In the Matter 

### of James Walsh, 

### 2008 "WL 

### 926620 at 

### 9 (March-31, 2008); 

### In the Matter ofFolsom 's

### Ai1' Service,**Complai~:~ant's** :Stief Corncr:stooe AviatiQII., Inc.

- FAA-201I ·0481, F .AA-20 11-0484, FAA-2011·0489**PaS~=4** of9 IEI'FREYM 'HARPmt, FAAA'tl"ORNEY TEL: (425) 22:7-2161; FAX: (423) l27·100104/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141008/018 PAGE 135/16 04/20/2el2 10:51 4252271007 ANM7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8**~** 10 l1 J.2 Inc., 2006 WL 1316970 at 11 (May 3, 2006) (stating that one violation that incorporates the others may not 

### be considered as a $eparate 

### Yiolation for determining the 

### amount ofthe sanction). 

### The Administrator thus consider! this esse 

### as**~ving** three violationsfor sanction 

### pwposes, each ofwhich is subject to the maximum $11,000 civil penalty.



### Sanction Guidance As discussed, the Sanction Guidance establishes sanction ranges .for diiferent types of

### violations. Figure B-3-d lists sanction·ranges. The listed 

### penalty ranges for 

### the vjolations under this 

### docket**~.;** are: 14 15 lt> 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 :l3 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 30" 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44" 45 46 47 4a 0 so 5J. S::l $3 

### Violati.on B-3.-d(5)(b) Improper graduation ofstudent (inadvertent) (14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 141.77(a)(1) & 141.77(b))**B-3~d(8)** Failure to main.tain 

### training record (14 C.P.R. § 141.101(1)) B-3-d(7) Unauthorized instruction (14 C.P.R.§ 14.1.83(a)(1)) 

### Sanction Range



### Moderate to Maxim.w:n

Moderate to Maxim'Uin

Moderate to 

### Maximum

The 

### Adto.inistrator seeks a total 

### sanction inthis 

### case of$5,000.

Case DMS No. FAA

..2011-0489 Multiplicity 

### This ease involved disc:repsncies in

### the rec<:lrds oftwo (2) students. Complainant c:Onced.es that the 14 C-F.R. § 141 .lOl(a) and (c) violatioiiS requireproofof:the 

### sam.e facts and 

### therefore should 

### be considered as one violation. Ball 

### at 861; Bloclcburger 

### at .304; In the 

### Matter of James Walsh at 9; 

### ln the Matter of Folsom's Air Service at 1

### 1.. The Admi.Distratorthus views this case as having 

### two (2) violations for sanction

### purposes> each of

### which is subject 

### to the maximum $11,000 

### civil penalty.

Sanction Guidance 

### The sanction ranges for 

### the violations in this docket are: Violation B-3-d(8) Failure to maint.aln 

### tmning record**Complainant'~** Brief CornernoneAviation, Inc. -FAA-:2011...0481, FAA·20ll·0484, FAA-2011-()489 PageS of9 Sanction Range 

### Moderate to 

### Maximum

J:Ef!FUY M. HABl'ER. F .AA A T'T'OR.NF.Y TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX:**(~.lS)** .227·100704/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS @007/018 PAGE 67/16 ed/20/2012 1a:s1 4252271007 ANM7

I --•'

1 (1'4 C.P.R.§ 14l.95(b)(2), I41.101(a) & 141.10l(e)) 2 3 -4 5 6 

# ' e g :LO 11 l2 13 l4 15 110 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.9 30 :n. 32 33 34 3$ 3.S 37 38 39 40 41 42 4.3 44 45 46 47 .ae 49 

### so 51**s~** 53 

### TheAdministrator seeks a total sanction inthis 

### case of$S,SOO.

Application of

### sanction Guidance to 

### the-se Cases 

### Respondent is a small business. Transcript 17:16-18 and 

### 50:19-51:4. For a 

### smallbusiness


### concern holding an 

### Air Agency certificate. a 

### moderate penalty is 

### in 

### the range of$3,950- $7, 149;

a maximllDlpenalty is in the range of$7,150-**$11~000.** 

### Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Paragraph 3.c(4). The sanction guidance establishes a guideline ofa 

### moderate to maximum penalty 

### for all ofthe violations 

### committed inthese cases. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Figure**B-3~d.** 

### The starting point ofa sanction calculation is the nudpoint 

### ofthese ranges, $7,425, per 

### violation.

From this starting point:. the thirteen factors described 

### in Chapter 7> Paragraph 4 ofthe Sanction 

### Guidance are applied to 

### either aggravate or 

### mitigate the sanction. 

### The followmg table is a synopsis of

### those factors applicable to these: cases and the evidence 

### in these cases relevant to**thos~~:** factors:


### Factor

Natute ofviolation 

### Chapter 7> 

## 14.a

Inadvertent v. deliberate Chapter**7~** 

## 14.b 

### E"idence Complainant took the 

### n.on-<:lperational nature of

### these violations into accoUllt in selecting a sanction. Transcript 

### 17:22- 18:12. Mitigating. Complainant considered the violations as inadvertent 

### in 

### choosing an aprn:opriate 

### sanction. 

### Transcript 17:22-18:12. Mitigating.**----------~------------------------------------------~--------** 

### Certificate holder's 

### level ofexperience Chapter 7, 

## 14.c



### . Attitude ofviolator

Chapter 7, '1J4.d
Degree ofhazard Chapter 7, 

### f 4.e 

### Respondent has been inbusiness for nine years. 

### Transcript 50: 19- 51 :4. Aggravating. Respondent's 

### owner is the 

### :responsible party at Cornerstone Aviation, holds an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, and has experience operating under the 

### Fedeml Aviation Regulations. Transcript 51:5-52:11. 

### Aggravat;ing. Complainant considered Respondenes ltistory ofhaving a. 

### good

- compliance attitude. Transcript 18:13

- 19:5. Mitigating.

The violations were record keeping 

### violations.**T~pt** 

### 19:10---11. There 

### is no coneem. that 

### the students trained by**---------------=&.::e~~J~o:::n:.::d.::.::en::.:t:...;w.::.;:o~ul~J!Ose** 

### an aviation 

### safety hazard. Transcript**cOmpl:llin~t''** Brief Coro.mtone Aviation, Inc.- FAA-20ll·048J, P AA-20 11·0484. F.AA·20! 1·0489 Paee 6 of9 J1F'Jili:1V M'. HAuml, .'F'A.AATTO!UlEY TBL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100704/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS**~008/018** PAGE 08/15 04/28/2812 le:51 4252271887 ANM7

l 2 3 4 

### s 5 7 

### e 9 10 ll 12 13 H 15 16 l7 16 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25**2~** 27 28 29 30 :u 32 33 :34 :3S 36 37 .39 39 40 41 4.2 43 44 4S 46'

. 47

. ·U

49 50 51 · ......-.



# --------------------**·----------~------------------------------**
Use ofcertificate 

### Chapter 7> 

## 14.g

Ability to absorb 

### sanction Chapter 7,, 4j

Voluntary reporting 

### Chapter 7,**~** 

### 4.1

Coneetive action 

### Chapter 7,**~** 

### 4.rn · 19:12

- 20:11. Mitigating. 

### Training sru.diimts Ullder 

### 14 C.F'.R Part 141 requires a certificate issued underPart 141. 14 C.F.R. § 141..3.



### ·Respondent claims that it 

### cannot absorb 

### tbe proposed 

### sanction. Transcript 48:12-17. 

### Respondent has not presented to the court 

### any evidence to 

### support that**contentio~** 

### such as tax 

### retu:m.s, fma:ocial statements. bank 

### account statements, loan documents·, 

### or past 

### due bills. Respondent alludes to the possibility that it may 

### have voluntarily repo:rted one of

### these offenses. Transcript**29~3-** 30: l. Respondent has been previously toldthe FAA's**req~ments** for 

### properly making a voluntary 

### disclosure. Transcript 33:9- 4r':9.

There is no evidence that**~** 

### voluntary disclosure 

### was actually 

### .made by 

### Respondent, or that 

### such a disclosure complied 

### with the FAA)s 

### applicable voluntary disclosure reporting guidelines. Respondent asserts that it has taken corrective action 

### in the form ofa software program, although that**corre~ve** 

### action is ongoing. Transcri.pt48:20- 49:5, 52:12-55:11.

There

# is no evidence ofhowtb.e software program would 

### \1ave p:revented the violations in 

### these cases or 

### how it 

### will**prev~nt** these types ofviolations 

### in the future.**~** sanction sought by Complainant 

### inthis**ca~e** is 

### near or below the bottom ofthe range given in 

### the SBncti.on guidanoe, when considering the number 

### ofviolations. This reflects the**mitigatio~** ofthe 

### sanction by the Complainant based**o~** tb.e factors 

### discussed above.4 Althougb Respondent**ma~ cl~**  that a 

### further reduction is warranted based on other factors, RespondeDt has not presented e'Vide.nce which 

### would warrant a further reduction ofsanction under twt> (2) ofthe

52 6**~** Th.e nature**of'th~** violations, s J • The fact that the violations wero**inadverten~** • Respondent•s good complia:oce a:tdtudc. and
• lhe low de,s.ree ofha:QU'd prescnt.ccl. by the violafiOD$. Complainant's Brief Corncrsrom: Aviation. Inc.

- F'AA-2011**~0481,** FAA-20 Jl-o484, F

AA·20 11--0489 Pase 1 o'f9 .fm'R.EyM, HAkP:EJt, FAAATTO$r.'NJSY TEL: (425) 227-.2161; FAX: (425) 227-100704/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS**~** 009/018 PAGE 89/16 64/26/2612 16:51 42522711387 ANM7

1 :z 3 4 

### s s 7 8 9 lO 11 l2 l3 14 15**l~** 17 18 19 20 2l .22 ...._,

three 

### (3) factors 

### raised. 

### s With regards to the 

### thil'd,6 

### Respondent

### has~ at

### be~ shown that some 

### corrective action ofsome sort is being taken, but has 

### not shown how that conective action relates to 

### the offenses in

### tb.ese cases.

TheAdministrative Law Judge should defer to the Administrator's 

### selection of

### sanction under 

### NL l'n.d:ustJ-ies, Inc., 901 F.2d 

### at 144, and 

### enter an Order assessing the full $

### lS,500 penalty sought in the three (3) Complaints.



### Conc:Jusion
The Court should defer 

### 1:9 the Administrator's 

### selection ofsanction under

### NL Industries, Inc., 

### 901 F.2d at 144. 

### Complainant respectfully requests that this 

### Court entering an Order imposing 

### tb.e full 

### sanction sought in

### the Complaints. Any 

### deviation from the

### Sanctio~ Guidelines has been to Respondent•s benefit 

### Respondent has presented no evidence warranting a further reduction of sa,netion.

2l DATED this 20th dayofApril,2012,. 24 :25 2G ::!7 28 .:2.9 30 31 32 Jeffrey 

### M, Harper FAA Attorney

JJ 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SD 51 SJ
S:l 5 • Respoadent's ability to absorb the S&Dction., ai:ld
• The alleged voluntary n:port.ing oftb,e violations

- • Cor.rietive aetion taken by

### R~ndcnt. Complainant's Brief**Corne~toue** Aviation. Inc.**-FAA-20Il~0481,** FAA·.201J ·0484, P

AA·20 11..0489 Page 8 Of9 11iFn.ErM.**~** FAAAnoromy T'EI.: (425).227•2161; FAX: (425) 227-100704/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS**~010/018** PAGE Hl/16 64/20/2012 10:51 4252271BB7 ANM7

1" .2**~** 4 5 6 7 8 SJ 10 11 12 u 14 15 g 17 J,e 19 20**2~** ' 22

23 .24 2S 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 34. .35, lo 37 38 l!:l 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sl 52 53 ·-.-



### CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE

I hereby· certify that 

### the foregoing Complainant's Briefbas been served via facsimile and Certified·Mail

- 

### Return Receipt 

### Requested this date. to the following:
Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofl·Iearings. M·20 

### 1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

### East 

### Building Ground**Floor~** 

### Rm E12-320**VVasbin~n.D.C.20590** 

### FAX: 202.366.75.36

Attn: Hearing Dooket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wrigh.t Building

- Suite 2Wl000 

### Federal 'Avi.ation Admi.Iristration 

### 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington) D.C. 20591 FAX: 202.493.5020

I hereby 

### certifY that 

### the foregoing Complainant's Briefhas been served via Ovemight Courier. 

### First

### Class~ and Certifi.ed:..... Return Receipt Requested 

### Mail tb.is 

### date, to the f9llowing:

Susan Horstman. 

### ChiefExecutive Officer Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. 337 North 2370**We~** #130 Salt Lake City, 

# or 84116

Datedthis 20th, day of 

### April, 2012.



### MOIFAIR CHIN Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM• 7) Federal Aviation

### Administration 1601 LindAve. SW Renton> 

### WA 98057 425.227.2160

CQDlplainant's Brief Comemone Aviation. Inc::. -:F'AA-2011-0481, fAA..-.2011-0484, FAA·201.1·0489 Page 9 of9 J:eFJ:REYM. HAAnlt, FAAAnoRNEY

. TEL: (425) 227-21El: FAX: (425) 227-1007