U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### HAND DELIVERY January 31,2014 Office of the Chief Counsel Enforcement Division,**AGC~300**

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591



# RECEIVED JAN 3l 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET
SLU Re: SolutionsAir Charter, LLC, FAA DocketNo. Unassigned, Case No.

### 2011~910191 I=DM'i:>.**Z--0\~-** 

### O&S<-! Dear Sir: Enclosed are the original and one copy ofthe Complaintinthe matter referenced above. Complainant expects the hearing in this case to last one day and requests that the hearing be held in Indianapolis, Indiana. Please direct all correspondence to the undersigned counsel at the address below. Sincerely,

Nicholas R. Milliard Attorney EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Telephone: (202) 267-3452 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 cole.milliard@faa.gov
cc: J.C. Buehler, Esq.In the matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SOLUTIONS AIR CHARTER, LLC ) ) ) ) ) FAA DocketNo. CP-[to be assigned] 

## 2..01

# o·08S

## '1 Case No. 2011SW910191 Judge [to be assigned]
COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice inFAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. § 13.208), and states as follows: 1. Respondent Solutions Air Charter, LLC ("Solutions") was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated August 30, 2011, and by a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated January 15, 2014, that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of $9,025, later loweredto $4,500 based oninformation that Solutions provided demonstrating an inabilityto paythe civil penalty as originally proposed. By a letterpostmarked January 23,2014, Respondentrequested a hearing. The Enforcement Division, FAA Office ofthe ChiefCounsel received Respondent's written request for a hearing by U.S. First Class Mail onJanuary 29, 2014. 2.· Solutions is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate Number 11SA907L, issuedunder 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorizing Solutions to conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135. 3. Atall times mentioned herein, Solutions had appropriate operations specifications certifyingthat it would comply with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program.4. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R. § 120.7(f) defined "covered employee"
as an individual who performs, either directly orby contract, a safety-sensitive function. 5. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.70) defmed "hire" as retaining an individual for a safety-sensitive function as a paid employee, as a volunteer, orthroughbarter or other form ofcompensation. 6. At all times mentioned herein, 14 C.F.R. § l20.7(k) defined "performing" as any time during which an employee is actually performing, ready to perform, or immediately available to perform a safety-sensitive function. 7. At all times mentionedherein, 14 C.F.R. § 120.105 defined "safety-sensitive function" to include flight crewmember duties. 8. Under 14 C.F.R. §§ 120.105 and 120.215, flight crewmember duties performed for a 14 C.F.R. part 119 certificate holder exercising theprivileges ofits certificate are "safetysensitive functions." 9. Under 14 C.F.R. § 120.105, an employee who, either directly orby contract, performs flight crewmember duties for Solutions mustbe subjectto drug testing under an antidrug program implemented inaccordance with 14 C.F.R. part 120, subpart E. 10. Under 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a), Solutions musthave anindividual undergo preemployment drug testing and receive a verified negative drug testresult for that individual prior to hiring that individual to perform a safety-sensitive function ortransferring that individual from performing a non-safety-sensitive function to performing a safety-sensitive function for Solutions. II. Complainant's inspection ofSolutionsrevealed the following:

2

### a. On September 22,2009, Charles Stevens Abel provided a specimen for a pre-employment drug test. b. On or about October I, 2009, Solutions hired Mr. Abel to perform flight crewmember duties for Solutions.
c. Onor about October 8, 2009, Solutions was informed that Mr. Abel's specimenfor the pre-employment drug test obtained on September 22, 2009 had been lost and a new specimen from Mr. Abel was needed. d. On or about October 13, 2009, Mr. Abel provided a new specimen for a pre-employment drug test.
e. Onor about October 13, 2009, Mr. 

### Abel underwent a pre-employment drug test. f. 

### On October 15, 2009, Solutions received a verified negative result for Mr. Abel's pre-employment drug test. g. Solutions hired Mr. Abel to perform a safety-sensitive function for Solutions without administering apre-employment drug test and receiving a verified negative drug testresult in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 120, subpart E and 49 C.F.R. part40.h. 

### Mr. Abel performed flight crewmember duties on aircraftNl9CP for Solutions in operations conducted underpart 135 onOctober 11, 2009.
1. 

### AircraftN19CP was listed on Solutions's part 135 operation specifications
on October II, 2009. 12. Byreason ofthe foregoing, Solutions violated 14 C.F.R. § 

### 120.109(a)(l), in

### that it did not conduct apre-employment drug test and receive a verified negative drug test result in

3accordance with 14 C.P.R. part 120, subpart E and 49 C.P.R. part40 prior to hiring Mr. Abel to perform a safety-sensitive function. 13. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A), Solutions is subject to a civil penaltynot to exceed $11,000 for each violation oftheFederal Aviation Regulations. 14. Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case aud in accordance with the Administrator's Sanction Guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, including information that Solutions provided demonstrating auinability to pay the civil penalty as originallyproposed,
a civil penalty of$4,500 is appropriate for the violation in this case. WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative LawJudge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$4,500.

Date: January 31,2014

4 Respectfully submitted,

Attorney EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-3452 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 cole.milliard@faa.govCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifythat I servedbyhand delivery the original and one copy ofthe foregoing Complaint inIn the Matter of SolutionsAir Charter, LLC, FAADocketNo. Unassigned, Case No. 2011SW910191, addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 In addition, I hereby certify that I served a copy ofthe samebyU.S. Certified Mail, returnreceipt requested, and by facsimile, addressed to: Mr. J.C. Buehler, Esq. 777 East 86th Street Box40924 Indianapolis, IN 46240-0924 Facsimile: (317) 253-9371

Name: Br/Lul\ 

# fkyo-=\J,

Date: 

# Jc•<f\ ·3\ J 

## J0/1-J

5