Inthe matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 

# RECEIVED JUL 142016 

## HEARING DOCKET

ENDLESS MOUNTAINS AIR, INC., DocketNo. FAA-2013-0848 Respondent.

COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL BRIEF Pursuant to section 13.233(d) ofthe Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(d), Complainant files this briefin support ofits appeal ofthe Initial Decision issued by Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan (ALJ) on May 20,2016, in the above-captioned matter. STATEMENT OF THE CASE OnNovember 13,2013, Complainant issued a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty alleging that between September 23,2011 and October 9, 2011, Endless Mountains Air, Inc. (EMA) operated a Cirrus SR-20, civil aircraftN624CP, 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 ofthe 12th calendar monthbefore 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 monthbefore the six flights, passed a flight check in a Cirrus SR-20. Complainantproposed a $46,200 civil penalty for these violations. OnDecember 9, 2013, EMA requested a hearing and onDecember 17, 2013, Complainant filed a complaint listing the abovementioned allegations, whichEMA answered on April3, 2014 1•

1The ALJ found good cause for EMA's late-filed answer. Order Denying Motionfor Decision at 8-9 (May 15, 2014).EMA subsequently admitted to each ofthe aUegations inthe complaint at a scheduling conference onMay 28, 2014. OnMarch 10, 2015, the parties appeared for hearing solely onthe issue ofthe proposed civil penalty. The ALJ issued aninitial 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. Complainantnow appeals the ALJ's initial decision concerning the amount ofthe assessed civil penalty. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The following facts are undisputed. EMAholds 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 inbusiness 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 periodicallyto demonstrate his knowledge ofthe aircraft, applicable safety regulations, and operationalprocedures, 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 ofthese 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 sixpart 135 flights for EMA inN624CP. Sched. Conf. Tr. 13-14. 

### See Answer at 2; Tr. 35. Mr. Palmer passed an instrumentproficiency check in April20II. Tr. 46; Exh. C-8. His last required knowledge test and his lastrequired flight check,

2however, tookplace in July 2010, more than 12 months before these six flights. Tr. 42-44; Exh. C-2, C-3. Accordingto Mr. Palmer andthe president ofEMA, William Dobitsch, Mr. Palmer calledthe Allentown Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for assistance onAugust 29, 2011 because he was unsure whenhis next checkride was due. Answer at 1-2; Tr. 104, 110-111, 122, 129-130. Inspector Robert Ference testified thathe asked Mr. Palmerto submit copies ofhis competency and proficiency check records, FAA Form 8410-3, to compare withrecords onfile atthe FSDO. Tr. 86, 89; 

### see Tr. 95. Inspector Ference, formerly EMA's Principal Operations Inspector, explainedthathe did not "wantto give [Mr. Palmer] any type offalse information" without seeing the records or discussing them withEMA's Principal Operations Inspector at the time, Inspector Harry Soudas. Tr. 88; 

### see Tr. 85, 87, 89-92. Inspector Ference did not recall, however, whetherhe referredthe matter to Inspector Soudas. Tr. 93-94. Inspector Soudas statedthathe did not learn ofMr. Palmer's conversation with Inspector Ference until he initiated the investigationin this case. 

### See Tr. 81. He explained thatbased on his review ofMr. 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 checkwere due in July 2011, as stated onthe 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 ofAugust 2011 before his currency expired. Tr. 37-38, 45. 

### See Tr. 77-78. Both Inspector Soudas and Inspector Ference noted that neitherMr. Palmernor Mr. Dobitschtook any action to follow up with either inspector after Mr. Palmer contactedthe FSDO. Tr. 80-82, 86-87. Mr. Palmer expressed a different view ofhis conversation with Inspector Ference. Tr. 104, 110-111, 122-124. According to Mr. Palmer, Inspector Ference did not ask himto produce

3

### a copy ofhis flight check records. Tr. 104. Instead, Inspector Ference "stated
... you need to check your paperwork, leaving itup 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 "neverbeen able to tell the difference" between different types ofcheckrides. Tr. 106. As far as he was concerned, "the flight tests are exactly the same" for each ofthe regulatory requirements in 14 C.F.R. part 135. Tr. 110. After his conversation with Inspector Ference, Mr. Palmer consulted with Mr. Dobitsch and togethertheyreasoned that Mr. Palmer was qualified to continue flying under part 135 "for another three months." Tr. 107-08, 130. Theyrelied, mistakenly, on section 135.297(c), which provides that an instrument proficiency check maybe substituted for the competency checkrequired 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 atthe Allentown FSDO because he felt that there was no one else thathe could ask for help. Id. 

### 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 inlate August 2011 "because [he] wasn't sure ofthe expiration." Tr. 122. In his view, Inspector Ference's response to his inquiry was not typicalFAApersonnel "ha[d] always beenvery helpful" to him in the past. Tr. 123. Mr. Palmer noted that "FAAregulations arejust 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.



### 4Mr. Dobitsch stated thathis "understanding ofthe rules were [sic] that every six months Mr. Palmerneeded a checkride." Tr. 167. Based onthatunderstanding, Mr. Dobitschthought that Mr. Palmerwas eligible to fly part 135 flights because he had completed a checkride in April20ll. 

### !d. He asked Mr. Palmerto contact the FSDO andthought that personnel would be responsive to Mr. Palmer's inquiry. Tr. 130, 132, 164. Mr. Dobitsch did not thinkto follow up with a manager atthe FSDO after Mr. Palmer did notreceive an answer from Inspector Ference. Tr. 170-171. Mr. Dobitschopined that the violations were "technical" innature and did not affect the safety ofthe six flights. Tr. 137-38. He also noted that EMAhad a cleanrecord withno prior history ofenforcement actions. Tr. 137. In his view, "all ofthis couldhave been avoided, had
wejustgotten a yes orno answer [fromthe FSDO]." Tr. 132. Mr. Dobitsch further stated that the proposed civil penalty "has made it difficult, ifnot impossible, [for EMA] to stay in business." Tr. 140. In support, Mr. Dobitsch submittedthree W-2s showing a downwardtrend in wages EMApaid him as president. Tr. 158-162; Exh. R-E, R-F, R-G. He stated that he did nothave any other financial documents available to him, noting that he hadjustpaid EMA's accountantto 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 explainedthat EMA was a Group IV air carrierbecause ofits status as a singlepilot, single aircraft operatorunder l4.C.F.R. part 135. Tr. 60-61; Exh. C-7 at 1. He testified that the recommended sanctionfor the use ofan unqualified crewmemberis a maximumrange civil penalty--$4,400 to $11,000. Tr. 62-63; Exh. C-7 at 3, 6. Inspector Soudas noted thatboth EMA and Mr. Palmer had years ofexperience operating flights under the regulations in 14 C.F.R. part 135 and, as a result, he did not find their professed confusion about the currency requirements to



### 5be mitigating. Tr. 57-58, 79-80. He stated thatbecause there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances inthis case, a civil penalty inthe middle ofthe maximumrange--$7,700-was appropriate for eachflight, resulting in a total civil penalty of$46,200. Tr. 63-64. The ALJ issued a written decision finding thatEMA violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 135.293(a) and 135.299(a), as admitted. Decision at 1. Forthese violations, the ALJ assessed a $16,200 civil penalty againstEMA, comprised ofa $2,700 penalty for each ofthe 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 introducedin support ofthis defense--three W-2s showing wages paid to Mr. Dobitsch-was insufficient. Decision at 5. 

### See Tr. 205-206. Butthe ALJ also rejected Complainant's position thatthere were no mitigating circumstances warranting a lowerproposed civil penalty inthis
case. Decision at 8. The ALJ credited EMA and Mr. Palmer's decision to contactthe AllentownFSDO 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 thenthe FAAwaitedto see what wouldhappen." She concluded that "whether or notthe FAAthinks that [EMA) shouldhave known about the
... requirements doesn't eliminate its responsibility to have answered [EMA's) safety compliance question fully, fairly, and promptly whenit was asked. Hadthe FAA done so, [EMA) would likely have complied (givenits history ofcompliance) and therefore not committedthe violations." 

### !d. Based on these circumstances, the ALJ found that a civil penalty atthe lower end ofthe moderate range was appropriate. Decision at 8-9.

6STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether $46,200 is an appropriate civil penalty for EMA's use ofan unqualified pilot on six part 135 flights in violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under the Rules ofPractice, the Administrator considers on appeal whether the ALJ's conclusions oflaw are in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy. 14 C.F.R. §13.233(b)(2). Complainant bears the burden ofproving 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 ofan unqualified pilot on six part 135 flights. Althoughthe 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 ofComplainant'sproposed sanction does not comport with agency sanction guidance
or precedentregarding appropriate factors for mitigating a sanction. Agency sanction guidance supports a $46,200 penalty for EMA's use ofan unqualified pilot on six part 135 flights. 1. The ALJ erred by finding that Complainant's failure to answerEMA's "safety compliance question" was a mitigating factor warranting a substantial downward departure from Complainant's proposed civil penalty. The ALJ's decision to creditMr. 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 ofthe text ofthose regulations and the evidence presented at the hearing. BothMr. 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,
7since the beginning ofthe 12Th calendar monthbefore that service, thatpilothas passed a written
or oral test ... onthatpilot's knowledge" in specific areas. In other words, ifit has beenmore than 12 months since the pilot last passed a knowledge testrequired under section 135.293(a), the pilot musttake 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 monthbefore that service, thatpilothas passed a flight checkinone ofthe types of aircraft whichthat pilot is to fly." Inother words, ifithas beenmore than 12 months since the pilot lastpassed a f1ight checkrequired under section 135.299(a), the pilot must take and pass
one before operating a part 135 flight. As Inspectors Ference and Soudas explained, every time a pilottakes one ofthe competency andproficiency checks required under part 135, the inspector conducting the check prepares a record ofthe check onFAA Form 8410-3. Tr. 37. See Tr. 85, 88. FAAForm 8410-3 contains a specific section in the lowerright-hand corner ofthe form for the inspector to write in the expiration date for each checkride based onthe 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 monthbefore or one month after the expiration date or "base month"-forthe pilotto complete the required checkride. Tr. 37-38. 45. See Tr. 77-78. In this case, Mr. Palmer's last knowledge testunder section 135.293(a) and his last flight checkunder section 135.299(a) tookplace in July 2010, as written on FAAForm 8410-3. Exh. C-2, C-3. Accordingly, as written inthe bottom right-hand corner ofthe form, his currency for those specific checks expired in July 2011. 

### !d. Under section 135.301, Mr. Palmer had until the last day ofAugust 2011 to reestablish his currency by passing a newknowledge test and a new flight check in a Cirrns SR-20 as required.

8While there is some dispute as to whether Inspector Ference asked Mr. Palmerto produce copies ofFAA Form 8410-3 or whether Inspector Ference merely directed Mr. Palmerto examine those records onhis own,2 it is clear onthe face ofthe Form 8410-3 completed at the time ofMr. Palmer's last checkride 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 ofMr. Dobitsch and Mr. Palmer, who have a combined 22 years ofexperience inpart 135 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 promptlywhenit was asked." Decision at 8. Inspector Ference's failure to answerMr. Palmer's question does not excuse EMA's operation ofsix flights while Mr. Palmer was not current and qualified under 14 C.P.R. 

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

### Cf OffshoreAir, FAA OrderNo. 2001-4 at 18 (May 16, 2001) (finding thatreliance on "outdated guidance providedby the FAA" was a mitigating factor). This is particularlytrue where, as here, the respondent is an air carrierrequired by statute to operate with the highest possible standard ofcare. 49 U.S.C. 

### § 44701 (d)(l). 

### See Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 at 16 (Nov. 6, 2008). The use ofanunqualified crewmember, contrary to Mr. Dobitsch's assertion, is not a "technical error." Tr. 138. 

### See Answer at 3; Tr. 163. "Part !35'stesting
... requirements are designed to ensure that air carriers providethe highest level of

2 Tr. 86, 88 (testimony oflnspectorFerence that he asked Mr. Palmer to produce a copy ofFAA Form 8410-3 because he did not want to give Mr. Palmer "false information"); Tr. 104 (testimony ofMr. Palmerthat Inspector Ference told himto "checkyourpaperwork"). 9

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

### Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order 2008-11 at 15. Even ifyou accept the assertions ofMr. 

### Palmer and Mr. Dobitsch thatthey 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 AllentownFSDO 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 ofthis could have been avoided had wejustgotten 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 sixpart 135 flights anyway. Tr. 130. Moreover, the ALJ's finding that "FAAerected roadblocks
... andthen
... 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"-Form 8410-3-isthe very source ofinformationthat would have definitively answered Mr. Palmer andMr. Dobitsch's question and dispelled any purported confusion as to when Mr. Palmer's knowledge test and flight check were due, had either ofthem 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 inthis case. The ALJ's decision also gives short shrift to the gravity ofa part 135 air 

### carrier operating six flights with an unqualified pilot. Accordingly, the ALJ erred inconsidering 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 ofcivil penalties, the FAAhas 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" thatrecommendthe type and amount ofsanction for specific violations, i.e., civil penalty or certificate action, and a set of "Civil PenaltyRanges" defining the minimum, moderate, and maximum range for a recommended civil penalty depending on the size and operational status ofthe 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 ofthis sanction guidance to EMA's regulatory violations supports the assessment ofa $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. BatB-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 

### inthe aircraft 

### inwhich the pilotwas to fly), the Table ofSanctions provides that "Use ofunqualified crewmember" corresponds to a "Maximum" range penalty. 

### See FAA Order 2150.3B, app. BatB-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 ofthis 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 enforcementpersonnel begin with an amount in the middle ofthe range and increase that amount toward the higher end ofthe 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-atthe midpoint ofthe maximumrange-is warranted because, for all ofthe 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 inthis case Complainant could have proposed a total civil penalty of $92,4003 

### by simply adding up the individual penalties for each ofEMA'sregulatory violations
on each ofthe six flights, compounding the sanction in this way would be disproportionately harsh. Accordingly, aproposed $46,200 total civil penalty-$7,700 for each flight-as sought by Complainant inthis case, is appropriate for EMA'sregulatory 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 ofa $16,200 civil penalty is not. In herview, a maximumrange civil penalty did not "reflectthe unique circumstances ofthis case." Decision at 8. The circumstances ofthis case, however, are not unique. There is nothing mitigating or aggravating about EMA'suse ofan unqualified pilot on six part 135 flights. Yet, the ALJ chose to mitigate the penaltytwice 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

12favor ofa moderate range penalty. Decision at 8. And thenthe ALJ found that "given all the evidence, the lower end ofthe moderate range shouldbe utilized." 

### I d. But, as also discussed above, the ALJ did not consider all ofthe evidence in this case. When an ALJ assesses a civilpenaltythat is not consistent with agency sanctionpolicy, the Administrator on appeal mayreverse the ALJ. 

### VenturaAirServs., Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2012-12 (Nov. 

### I, 2012) (citing 

### Folsom'sAirService, FAA Order 2008-11 at 14 (Nov. 6, 2008). Indeed, the Administratorhas boththe authority and the duty to impose the agency's policy on appeal. 

### Warbelow'sAir Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 (Feb. 2, 2000). Here, the ALJ's imposition ofa $16,200 civil penalty for EMA's regulatory violations is contrary to agency sanction guidance, policy, and precedent. Accordingly, it shouldbe 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 penaltyfor EMA's regulatory violations.

Dated: July 14, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Patricia A. McNall Actin Assistant ChiefCounsel 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 ofthe ChiefCounsel 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). 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date l sent the foregoing Complainant's Appeal Briefby 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 ofthe foregoing to: Federal Aviation Administration ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Bldg., Ste. 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591

Dated: July 14,2016

14