In the matter of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 4 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

ENDLESS MOUNTAINS 

AIR, INC., 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0848 

Respondent. 

COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL BRIEF 

Pursuant to section 13.233(d) of the Rules of Practice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(d), Complainant 

files this brief in support of its appeal of the Initial Decision issued by Administrative Law Judge 

J. E. Sullivan (ALJ) on May 20,2016, in the above-captioned matter. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On November 13,2013, Complainant issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

alleging that between September 23,2011 and October 9, 2011, Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

(EMA) operated a Cirrus SR-20, civil aircraft N624CP, on six flights with an unqualified pilot. 

Complainant alleged violations of 14 C.F.R. § 135.293(a), for using a pilot who had not, since 

the beginning of the 12th calendar month before the six flights, passed a written or oral 

lmowledge test; and 14 C.F.R. § 135.299(a) for using a pilot who had not, since the beginning of 

the 12'h calendar month before the six flights, passed a flight check in a Cirrus SR-20. 

Complainant proposed a $46,200 civil penalty for these violations. On December 9, 2013, EMA 

requested a hearing and on December 17, 2013, Complainant filed a complaint listing the abovementioned allegations, which EMA answered on April3, 2014 1

• 

1 The ALJ found good cause for EMA's late-filed answer. Order Denying Motion for Decision 

at 8-9 (May 15, 2014). 
EMA subsequently admitted to each of the aUegations in the complaint at a scheduling 

conference on May 28, 2014. On March 10, 2015, the parties appeared for hearing solely on the 

issue of the proposed civil penalty. The ALJ issued an initial decision on May 20,2016, finding 

that EMA violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.293(a) and 135.299(a), as admitted, and assessing a civil 

penalty of$16,200. Complainant now appeals the ALJ's initial decision concerning the amount 

of the assessed civil penalty. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 

The following facts are undisputed. EMA holds an air carrier operating certificate issued 

under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and is authorized to conduct on-demand operations in accordance with 

the regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 135. Complaint~ I; Sched. Conf. Tr. 13 (May 28, 2014). It has 

been in business as an on-demand operator since 2003. Tr. 58. EMA employs one pilot, Randy 

Palmer, and operates one aircraft-N624CP, a Cirrus SR-20. See Complaint~~ 2-3; Sched. 

Conf. Tr. 13; Tr. 33-34. A pilot who operates flights under 14 C.F.R. part 135 is required 

periodically to demonstrate his knowledge of the aircraft, applicable safety regulations, and 

operational procedures, as well as his ability to fly the aircraft used in those operations. 

14 C.F.R. §§ 135.293(a) (requiring a knowledge test every 12 months), 135.297(a) (requiring an 

instrument proficiency check every six months), and 135.299(a) (requiring a flight check every 

12 months). See Tr. 31-32. Each of these requirements must be met independently in order for a 

pilot to maintain currency to operate part 135 flights. Tr. 29-30,49. From September 23,2011 

through October 9, 2011, Mr. Palmer flew six part 135 flights for EMA in N624CP. Sched. 

Conf. Tr. 13-14. See Answer at 2; Tr. 35. Mr. Palmer passed an instrument proficiency check in 

April20 II. Tr. 46; Exh. C-8. His last required knowledge test and his last required flight check, 

2 
however, took place in July 2010, more than 12 months before these six flights. Tr. 42-44; Exh. 

C-2, C-3. 

According to Mr. Palmer and the president of EMA, William Dobitsch, Mr. Palmer 

called the Allentown Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for assistance on August 29, 2011 

because he was unsure when his next check ride was due. Answer at 1-2; Tr. 104, 110-111, 122, 

129-130. Inspector Robert Ference testified that he asked Mr. Palmer to submit copies of his 

competency and proficiency check records, FAA Form 8410-3, to compare with records on file 

at the FSDO. Tr. 86, 89; see Tr. 95. Inspector Ference, formerly EMA's Principal Operations 

Inspector, explained that he did not "want to give [Mr. Palmer] any type of false information" 

without seeing the records or discussing them with EMA' s Principal Operations Inspector at the 

time, Inspector Harry Soudas. Tr. 88; see Tr. 85, 87, 89-92. Inspector Ference did not recall, 

however, whether he referred the matter to Inspector Soudas. Tr. 93-94. 

Inspector Soudas stated that he did not learn of Mr. Palmer's conversation with Inspector 

Ference until he initiated the investigation in this case. See Tr. 81. He explained that based on 

his review of Mr. Palmer's Form 8410-3, dated July 2010, he determined that Mr. Palmer's 

section 135.293(a) knowledge test and Mr. Palmer's section 135.299(a) flight check were due in 

July 2011, as stated on the form. Exh. C-2, C-3; Tr. 42-45. Inspector Soudas also explained that 

there is a grace period, which gave Mr. Palmer until the last day of August 2011 before his 

currency expired. Tr. 37-38, 45. See Tr. 77-78. Both Inspector Soudas and Inspector Ference 

noted that neither Mr. Palmer nor Mr. Dobitsch took any action to follow up with either inspector 

after Mr. Palmer contacted the FSDO. Tr. 80-82, 86-87. 

Mr. Palmer expressed a different view of his conversation with Inspector Ference. Tr. 

104, 110-111, 122-124. According to Mr. Palmer, Inspector Ference did not ask him to produce 

3 
a copy of his flight check records. Tr. 104. Instead, Inspector Ference "stated ... you need to 

check your paperwork, leaving it up to [Mr. Palmer] to try and interpret [Mr. Pahner' s] 

dilemma." Id. Mr. Palmer, who had been flying as a charter pilot for 14 years, stated that he has 

"never been able to tell the difference" between different types of check rides. Tr. 106. As far as 

he was concerned, "the flight tests are exactly the same" for each of the regulatory requirements 

in 14 C.F.R. part 135. Tr. 110. After his conversation with Inspector Ference, Mr. Palmer 

consulted with Mr. Dobitsch and together they reasoned that Mr. Palmer was qualified to 

continue flying under part 135 "for another three months." Tr. 107-08, 130. They relied, 

mistakenly, on section 135.297(c), which provides that an instrument proficiency check may be 

substituted for the competency check required under section !35.293(b). Id. at 107-108, 118, 

121. 

Mr. Palmer testified that he sought out Inspector Ference, rather than Inspector Soudas, 

EMA's Principal Operations Inspector, because Mr. Soudas had failed him on previous check 

rides. Tr. 112, 117-118. He did not attempt to follow up with anyone else at the Allentown 

FSDO because he felt that there was no one else that he could ask for help. I d. at 111-112. 

Under 14 C.F.R. § 135.301, Mr. Palmer had until August 31,2011 to complete the knowledge 

test and the flight check required under sections 135.293(a) and 135.299(a). Tr. 37-38,45. 

Mr. Palmer stated that he called the FSDO in late August 2011 "because [he] wasn't sure ofthe 

expiration." Tr. 122. In his view, Inspector Ference's response to his inquiry was not typicalFAA personnel "ha[d] always been very helpful" to him in the past. Tr. 123. Mr. Palmer noted 

that "FAA regulations are just so complex, and so difficult for anybody to understand, ... we 

should be able to call and get some guidance. And when we don't get it, ... this is the type of 

thing that happens." Tr. 124. 

4 
Mr. Dobitsch stated that his "understanding of the rules were [sic] that every six months 

Mr. Palmer needed a check ride." Tr. 167. Based on that understanding, Mr. Dobitsch thought 

that Mr. Palmer was eligible to fly part 13 5 flights because he had completed a check ride in 

April20ll. !d. He asked Mr. Palmer to contact the FSDO and thought that personnel would be 

responsive to Mr. Palmer's inquiry. Tr. 130, 132, 164. Mr. Dobitsch did not think to follow up 

with a manager at the FSDO after Mr. Palmer did not receive an answer from Inspector Ference. 

Tr. 170-171. 

Mr. Dobitsch opined that the violations were "technical" in nature and did not affect the 

safety of the six flights. Tr. 137-38. He also noted that EMA had a clean record with no prior 

history of enforcement actions. Tr. 137. In his view, "all of this could have been avoided, had 

we just gotten a yes or no answer [from the FSDO]." Tr. 132. Mr. Dobitsch further stated that 

the proposed civil penalty "has made it difficult, if not impossible, [for EMA] to stay in 

business." Tr. 140. In support, Mr. Dobitsch submitted three W-2s showing a downward trend 

in wages EMApaid him as president. Tr. 158-162; Exh. R-E, R-F, R-G. He stated that he did 

not have any other financial documents available to him, noting that he had just paid EMA's 

accountant to prepare and file EMA's tax returns for 2012, 2013, and 2014. Tr. 11. 

Using the agency's sanction guidance set forth in FAA Order 2150.3B, Inspector Soudas 

explained that EMA was a Group IV air carrier because of its status as a single pilot, single 

aircraft operator under l4.C.F.R. part 135. Tr. 60-61; Exh. C-7 at 1. He testified that the 

recommended sanction for the use of an unqualified crewmember is a maximum range civil 

penalty--$4,400 to $11,000. Tr. 62-63; Exh. C-7 at 3, 6. Inspector Soudas noted that both EMA 

and Mr. Palmer had years of experience operating flights under the regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 

13 5 and, as a result, he did not find their professed confusion about the currency requirements to 

5 
be mitigating. Tr. 57-58, 79-80. He stated that because there were no aggravating or mitigating 

circumstances in this case, a civil penalty in the middle of the maximum range--$7,700-was 

appropriate for each flight, resulting in a total civil penalty of $46,200. Tr. 63-64. 

The ALJ issued a written decision finding that EMA violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 135.293(a) 

and 135.299(a), as admitted. Decision at 1. For these violations, the ALJ assessed a $16,200 

civil penalty against EMA, comprised of a $2,700 penalty for each of the six flights that EMA 

operated without a qualified pilot. Decision at 2, 8. The ALJ rejected EMA's affirmative 

defense that it was financially unable to pay the proposed civil penalty, finding that the evidence 

introduced in support of this defense--three W -2s showing wages paid to Mr. Dobitsch-was 

insufficient. Decision at 5. See Tr. 205-206. But the ALJ also rejected Complainant's position 

that there were no mitigating circumstances warranting a lower proposed civil penalty in this 

case. Decision at 8. 

The ALJ credited EMA and Mr. Palmer's decision to contact the Allentown FSDO for 

guidance before Mr. Palmer's currency expired. Decision at 8. She found fault with the 

inspectors' failure to answer Mr. Palmer's question, observing that "the FAA erected roadblocks 

for [EMA) to overcome, and then the FAA waited to see what would happen." She concluded 

that 

"whether or not the FAA thinks that [EMA) should have known about the ... 

requirements doesn't eliminate its responsibility to have answered [EMA's) safety 

compliance question fully, fairly, and promptly when it was asked. Had the FAA 

done so, [EMA) would likely have complied (given its history of compliance) and 

therefore not committed the violations." 

!d. Based on these circumstances, the ALJ found that a civil penalty at the lower end of the 

moderate range was appropriate. Decision at 8-9. 

6 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE 

Whether $46,200 is an appropriate civil penalty for EMA' s use of an unqualified pilot on 

six part 135 flights in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Under the Rules of Practice, the Administrator considers on appeal whether the ALJ's 

conclusions of law are in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy. 14 C.F .R. 

§13.233(b)(2). Complainant bears the burden of proving the appropriateness ofthe civil penalty. 

See 14 C.F.R. § 13.224(a); Seven's Paint & Wallpaper Co., FAA Order No. 2001-6 (May 15, 2001). 

ARGUMENT 

A $46,200 civil penalty is appropriate for EMA's use of an unqualified pilot on six 

part 135 flights. 

Although the ALJ determined that EMA violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.293(a) and 

135.299(a), she assessed only a $16,200 civil penalty. This civil penalty is well below 

Complainant's proposed civil penalty. For the reasons discussed below, the ALl's substantial 

reduction of Complainant's proposed sanction does not comport with agency sanction guidance 

or precedent regarding appropriate factors for mitigating a sanction. Agency sanction guidance 

supports a $46,200 penalty for EMA's use of an unqualified pilot on six part 135 flights. 

1. The ALJ erred by finding that Complainant's failure to answer EMA's "safety 

compliance question" was a mitigating factor warranting a substantial 

downward departure from Complainant's proposed civil penalty. 

The ALJ's decision to credit Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dobitsch's testimony that they were 

confused about the regulatory requirements in 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.293(a) and 135.299(a) was 

arbitrary and capricious in view of the text ofthose regulations and the evidence presented at the 

hearing. Both Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dobitsch stated that they were confused by the currency 

requirements and were unsure when, or if, Mr. Palmer needed a check ride. Tr. 104, 122, 129-

130. On its face, section 135.293(a) states that a pilot may not operate a part 135 flight "unless, 

7 
since the beginning ofthe 12Th calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed a written 

or oral test ... on that pilot's knowledge" in specific areas. In other words, if it has been more 

than 12 months since the pilot last passed a knowledge test required under section 135.293(a), 

the pilot must take and pass one before operating a part 135 flight. Similarly, section 135.299(a) 

on its face states that a pilot may not operate a part 135 f1ight "unless, since the beginning ofthe 

12'11 calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed a flight check in one of the types of 

aircraft which that pilot is to fly." In other words, if it has been more than 12 months since the 

pilot last passed a f1ight check required under section 135.299(a), the pilot must take and pass 

one before operating a part 13 5 flight. 

As Inspectors Ference and Soudas explained, every time a pilot takes one of the 

competency and proficiency checks required under part 135, the inspector conducting the check 

prepares a record of the check on FAA Form 8410-3. Tr. 37. See Tr. 85, 88. FAA Form 8410-3 

contains a specific section in the lower right-hand corner of the form for the inspector to write in 

the expiration date for each check ride based on the date that it was completed. See Exh. C-2, C3, and C-8; Tr. 41 (admitted without objection), 45. As Inspector Soudas also explained, under 

14 C.P.R. § 135.301, there is a grace period-up to one month before or one month after the 

expiration date or "base month"-for the pilot to complete the required check ride. Tr. 3 7-3 8. 

45. See Tr. 77-78. In this case, Mr. Palmer's last knowledge test under section 135.293(a) and 

his last flight check under section 135.299(a) took place in July 2010, as written on FAA Form 

8410-3. Exh. C-2, C-3. Accordingly, as written in the bottom right-hand corner of the form, his 

currency for those specific checks expired in July 2011. !d. Under section 135.301, Mr. Palmer 

had until the last day of August 2011 to reestablish his currency by passing a new knowledge test 

and a new flight check in a Cirrns SR-20 as required. 

8 
While there is some dispute as to whether Inspector Ference asked Mr. Palmer to produce 

copies of FAA Form 8410-3 or whether Inspector Ference merely directed Mr. Palmer to 

examine those records on his own,2 it is clear on the face of the Form 8410-3 completed at the 

time of Mr. Palmer's last check ride and knowledge test in July 2010 that Mr. Palmer's currency 

under sections 135.293(a) and 135.299(a) expired in July 2011. Exh. C-2, C-3. Instead of 

reconciling this evidence with the testimony of Mr. Dobitsch and Mr. Palmer, who have a 

combined 22 years of experience in part 13 5 operations, the ALJ ignored it. See generally 

Decision. The ALJ focused her attention on what she perceived as the FAA's failure to uphold 

"its responsibility to have answered [EMA's] safety compliance question fully, fairly, and 

promptly when it was asked." Decision at 8. 

Inspector Ference's failure to answer Mr. Palmer's question does not excuse EMA's 

operation of six flights while Mr. Palmer was not current and qualified under 14 C.P.R. 

§§ 135.293(a) and 135.299(a). The absence of guidance from the FAA is not a mitigating factor. 

Cf Offshore Air, FAA Order No. 2001-4 at 18 (May 16, 2001) (finding that reliance on 

"outdated guidance provided by the FAA" was a mitigating factor). This is particularly true 

where, as here, the respondent is an air carrier required by statute to operate with the highest 

possible standard of care. 49 U.S.C. § 44 701 ( d)(l ). See Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order 

No. 2008-11 at 16 (Nov. 6, 2008). The use of an unqualified crewmember, contrary to 

Mr. Dobitsch's assertion, is not a "technical error." Tr. 138. See Answer at 3; Tr. 163. "Part 

!35's testing ... requirements are designed to ensure that air carriers provide the highest level of 

2 Tr. 86, 88 (testimony oflnspector Ference that he asked Mr. Palmer to produce a copy of FAA 

Form 8410-3 because he did not want to give Mr. Palmer "false information"); Tr. 104 

(testimony of Mr. Palmer that Inspector Ference told him to "check your paperwork"). 

9 
safety, and consequently, failure to comply with these requirements is a serious matter." 

Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order 2008-11 at 15. 

Even if you accept the assertions of Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dobitsch that they were 

confused about the regulatory requirements, both men acknowledged that they did not attempt to 

follow up with EMA's Principal Operations Inspector-Inspector Soudas-or anyone else at the 

Allentown FSDO after Inspector Ference failed to give them a "yes or no answer" to their 

question. Tr. 111-112, 132, 170-171. In fact, as Mr. Dobitsch put it, "all of this could have been 

avoided had we just gotten a yes or no answer [from the FSDO]." Tr. 132. Nevertheless, 

without seeking further guidance from the FSDO and with their question about their regulatory 

responsibilities admittedly unanswered, EMA chose to operate not one, but six part 135 flights 

anyway. Tr. 130. 

Moreover, the ALJ's finding that "FAA erected roadblocks ... and then ... waited to see 

what would happen" is wholly unsupported in the record. Decision at 8. By Mr. Palmer's own 

account, Inspector Ference specifically directed him to "check your paperwork." Tr. 104. This 

"paperwork"-F orm 8410-3-is the very source of information that would have definitively 

answered Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dobitsch's question and dispelled any purported confusion as to 

when Mr. Palmer's knowledge test and flight check were due, had either of them bothered to 

look at it carefully. Exh. C-2, C-3. Consequently, there is no basis in the record for the ALI's 

finding that there were mitigating circumstances concerning EMA's violations in this case. The 

ALJ' s decision also gives short shrift to the gravity of a part 13 5 air carrier operating six flights 

with an unqualified pilot. Accordingly, the ALJ erred in considering non-mitigating factors as 

the basis for assessing a $16,200 civil penalty. 

10 
2. Agency sanction guidance, precedent, and policy support a $46,200 civil penalty. 

To guide FAA's assessment of civil penalties, the FAA has promulgated agency sanction 

guidance which can be found in FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7 and Appendix B. Appendix B 

has two central features: a set of "Sanction Guidance Tables" that recommend the type and 

amount of sanction for specific violations, i.e., civil penalty or certificate action, and a set of 

"Civil Penalty Ranges" defining the minimum, moderate, and maximum range for a 

recommended civil penalty depending on the size and operational status of the particular 

violator. FAA Order 2150.3B, app. B at B-2 to B-8 (civil penalty ranges), B-9 to B-53 (sanction 

guidance tables). 

Application of this sanction guidance to EMA's regulatory violations supports the 

assessment of a $46,200 civil penalty in this case. Under agency sanction guidance, EMA is 

classified as a Group IV air carrier, small business concern, because it operates under part 135 

and has one pilot and one aircraft. See FAA Order 2150.3B, app. Bat B-3; Complaint n 1-3; 

Sched. Conf. Tr. 13-14 (May 28, 2014). Addressing EMA's six violations of 14 C.F.R. 

§ 135.293(a) (for operating a part 135 flight with a pilot who had not completed a required 

knowledge test) and its six violations of 14 C.F.R. § 135.299(a) (for operating a part 135 flight 

with a pilot who had not completed a required flight check in the aircraft in which the pilot was 

to fly), the Table of Sanctions provides that "Use of unqualified crewmember" corresponds to a 

"Maximum" range penalty. See FAA Order 2150.3B, app. Bat B-15, fig. B-1-a. For a Group 

IV air carrier such as EMA, the maximum range corresponds to a penalty range of $4,400-

$11,000 per violation. !d., app. B at B-4. This represents the normal civil penalty range the 

FAA ordinarily seeks for a single, inadvertent violation of this type. !d., ch. 7, ~ 5.b.(l) at 7-9. 

11 
Sanction guidance further provides that, when assessing a civil penalty within a sanction 

range, FAA enforcement personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase 

that amount toward the higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease the amount 

toward the lower end for mitigating factors. See FAA Order 2150.3B, ch. 7, ~ 5.b.(3) at 7-9. 

Here, a civil penalty of $7,700-at the midpoint of the maximum range-is warranted because, 

for all of the reasons discussed above, there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 

Sanction guidance, consistent with FAA's statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(2), provides that a civil penalty may be assessed for each regulatory violation on each 

ofEMA's six operations ofN624CP with an unqualified pilot. FAA Order 2150.3B, ch. 7, ~ 6.a. 

at 7-10. Thus, while in this case Complainant could have proposed a total civil penalty of 

$92,4003 by simply adding up the individual penalties for each ofEMA's regulatory violations 

on each of the six flights, compounding the sanction in this way would be disproportionately 

harsh. Accordingly, a proposed $46,200 total civil penalty-$7,700 for each flight-as sought 

by Complainant in this case, is appropriate for EMA's regulatory violations. This sanction 

amount is consistent and in accordance with agency sanction guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B 

and 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(2) .. 

In contrast, the ALJ' s assessment of a $16,200 civil penalty is not. In her view, a 

maximum range civil penalty did not "reflect the unique circumstances of this case." Decision at 

8. The circumstances of this case, however, are not unique. There is nothing mitigating or 

aggravating about EMA' s use of an unqualified pilot on six part 13 5 flights. Yet, the ALJ chose 

to mitigate the penalty twice based on the same mitigating factor that, as already discussed 

above, was not mitigating. First, the ALJ set aside the recommended maximum range penalty in 

12 
favor of a moderate range penalty. Decision at 8. And then the ALJ found that "given all the 

evidence, the lower end of the moderate range should be utilized." I d. But, as also discussed 

above, the ALJ did not consider all of the evidence in this case. 

When an ALJ assesses a civil penalty that is not consistent with agency sanction policy, 

the Administrator on appeal may reverse the ALJ. Ventura Air Servs., Inc., FAA Order No. 

2012-12 (Nov. I, 2012) (citing Folsom's Air Service, FAA Order 2008-11 at 14 (Nov. 6, 2008). 

Indeed, the Administrator has both the authority and the duty to impose the agency's policy on 

appeal. Warbelow's Air Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 (Feb. 2, 2000). Here, the ALJ's 

imposition of a $16,200 civil penalty for EMA's regulatory violations is contrary to agency 

sanction guidance, policy, and precedent. Accordingly, it should be reversed. 

CONCLUSION 

Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrator grant this appeal, reverse the 

ALJ's $16,200 civil penalty, and impose a $46,200 civil penalty for EMA's regulatory 

violations. 

Dated: July 14, 2016 

Respectfully submitted, 

Patricia A. McNall 

Actin Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

I . d) lJ;{I(j' ~ / / fl 8)1: '' '1. '\<o _,e 

Amanda Bruchs Sheridan, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-4761 (direct) 

(202) 267-5106 (fax) 

3 This total civil penalty would be the sum of$7,700 x 6 violations of 14 C.P.R.§ 135.293(a) and 

$7,700 x 6 violations of 14 C.P.R. § 135.299(a). 

13 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this date l sent the foregoing Complainant's Appeal Brief by certified mail 

return-receipt requested and fax to: 

William Dobitsch, Jr. 

Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

Seamans Airport 

727 Windsock Lane 

Factoryville, PA 18419 

Fax: (570) 945-5953 

I also certify that on this date I personally delivered the original and one copy of the 

foregoing to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Bldg., Ste. 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dated: July 14,2016 

14