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-Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RECEIVED 

JAN 3 l 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

SLU 

Re: Solutions Air Charter, LLC, FAA Docket No. Unassigned, Case No. 2011~910191 

I=DM'i:>. Z--0\~- O&S<-! 

Dear Sir: 

Enclosed are the original and one copy of the Complaint in the 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 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

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 Docket No. CP-[to be assigned] 2..01 o ·0 8S '1 

Case No. 2011SW910191 

Judge [to be assigned] 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), by counsel, hereby files its 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in FAA 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 of Proposed Civil Penalty dated August 30, 2011, and by a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty dated January 15, 2014, that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$9,025, later lowered to $4,500 based on information that Solutions provided demonstrating an 

inability to pay the civil penalty as originally proposed. By a letter postmarked January 23,2014, 

Respondent requested a hearing. The Enforcement Division, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

received Respondent's written request for a hearing by U.S. First Class Mail on January 29, 

2014. 

2. · Solutions is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate Number 11 SA907L, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorizing Solutions to 

conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135. 

3. At all times mentioned herein, Solutions had appropriate operations specifications 

certifying that 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 or by 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, or through barter or 

other form of compensation. 

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 mentioned herein, 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 the privileges of its certificate are "safetysensitive functions." 

9. Under 14 C.F.R. § 120.105, an employee who, either directly or by contract, 

performs flight crewmember duties for Solutions must be subject to drug testing under an 

antidrug program implemented in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 120, subpart E. 

10. Under 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a), Solutions must have an individual undergo preemployment drug testing and receive a verified negative drug test result for that individual prior 

to hiring that individual to perform a safety-sensitive function or transferring that individual from 

performing a non-safety-sensitive function to performing a safety-sensitive function for 

Solutions. 

II. Complainant's inspection of Solutions revealed 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. On or about October 8, 2009, Solutions was informed that Mr. Abel's 

specimen for 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. On or 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 a pre-employment drug test and receiving a verified 

negative drug test result in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 120, subpart E and 49 C.F.R. 

part 40. 

h. Mr. Abel performed flight crewmember duties on aircraft Nl9CP for 

Solutions in operations conducted under part 135 on October 11, 2009. 

1. Aircraft N19CP was listed on Solutions's part 135 operation specifications 

on October II, 2009. 

12. By reason of the foregoing, Solutions violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)(l), in that it 

did not conduct a pre-employment drug test and receive a verified negative drug test result in 

3 
accordance with 14 C.P.R. part 120, subpart E and 49 C.P.R. part 40 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 penalty not 

to exceed $11,000 for each violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 

14. Under the facts and circumstances of this case aud in accordance with the 

Administrator's Sanction Guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, including information 

that Solutions provided demonstrating au inability to pay the civil penalty as originally proposed, 

a civil penalty of $4,500 is appropriate for the violation in this case. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by counsel, respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the 

amount of$4,500. 

Date: January 31,2014 

4 

Respectfully submitted, 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-3452 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

cole.milliard@faa.gov 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I served by hand delivery the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Complaint in In the Matter of Solutions Air Charter, LLC, FAA Docket No. 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 of the same by U.S. Certified 

Mail, return receipt 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