10/05/201 0 15;5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 12001/01 1

BEFORE TH E UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIO N . - ' IN THE MATTERO F BRENDAN AIRWAYS , LLC , Respondent . FAA investigatio n No. ; 2009EA70036 1 FA A Docke t No. : unassigne d—L P lCQ/\OC0 f DMSNo . FAA-2010-unassigne d^i^u- ) D/IQ O RESPONDENTS ' MOTIOI S T O DISMIS S FO RINSUFFICIENC Y

Judg e No t

Ve t Assigne d Pursuant t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(1) , Brenda n Airway.s , LL C d^/ aUS A 300 0 [hereinafte r "US A 3000" ] respectfull y move s t o dismis s th e above-captione dmatte r o n th e ground s tha t

th e complaint , i f

readin aligh t

mos t favorabl e to th e AdministratQi: , fail s to state sufficient

fact s t o suppor

t a n allegatio n o f

violation , " " • - 

### SUMMAR

Y O F TH E ARGUMEN T 'n %o ^ m-P m Th e Administrato r

ha s allege d(1 ) violatio n o f th e regulatio n tha t

specifie s that

hazrna t ^o O employee s mus t

b e traine dan dteste dbefor e performin g regulate dhaTma t functions ? and ^ (2 ) violatio n o f

th e regulatio n that

specifie s wha

t th e trainin g mus t

consis t o f an d ho w i t mus t b e recorded . Th e Administrato r

ha s faile dt o alleg e tha t

any individual in thi s cas e i s ahazmat employee. ' Th e Administrato r ha s als o faile dto alleg e fact s tha t coul dleadon e t o th e logica l conclusio n that

any individual i n thi s cas e i s ahazmat employee . Becaus e ther e ar

e n o hazma

t employee s i

n thi s case , th e regulation s requirin g training , testing , andtrainin g record s for hazmat employee s d o no t

apply t o anyon e i n thi s case . Thus , thi s cas e mus t

b e dismissed .

' Thi s Is no l merel y aharmles s omission : non e o f the person s mentione d i

n Lhi s cas e ar e hazmat

employees . Maitc r o r Brenda n Airways , Ll. C I WiL<ihin|^o n Aviacio n Group . P C Motio n 1 0 DiiiinLs.- ; 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Sl e 50 3 Wushingion , D C 2000 7 (202)628-677 710/05/201 0 15:5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @1002/01 1



### ARGUMEN T Th e Administrato r

ha s allege dviolation s o f

severa l regulation s unde r

titl e 49 . Eac h o f thes e regulation s applie s onl y t o ahazmat employer . Thus , on e propositio n that mus t b e prove n in thi s cas e i s tha

t US A 300 0 i s ahazma

t employer . Eac h o f

th e regulation s allegedl y violate dals o concern s th e trainin g o f ahazmat employee . Thus , anothe r propositio n that

mus t b e prove n i n thi s cas e i s tha t eac h o f th e person s describe din th e complain t i s ahazmat

employee . 

## 1 . Th e Administrato r

Ha s Faile dt o Alleg e Fact s t o Suppor t Importan t

Elemen t o f th e Administrator' s Cas e a . Th e Administrato r

ha s Faile dt o Alleg e tha t Any Perso n i n thi s Cas e ar e Hazma t

Employee s Th e Administrato r

claim s that

US A 300 0 ha s violate dhazma t trainin g regulation s (4 9 C F.R . § § 172.702-704) . Th e Administrato r mention s thre e person s i n thi s cas e (Tecare z Cook , Clayn e Currl e an dLowel l Thorngard ) bu t carefull y avoid s th e allegatio n tha t an y o f thes e person s ar

e hazmat employees . Each o f thos e violation s allege di

n thi s cas e applie s t o trainin g an dtrainin g record s fo r hazma t employees ; bu t

th e Administrato r

ha s faile dto alleg e tha

t an y individua l i

n thi s cas e i s ahazmat

employee , an dha s furthermor e faile dt o alleg e fact s supportin g a conclusio n tha

t they anyon e i n thi s cas e i s ahazma t employee . The ter m"hazma t employee " i s define di n 4 9 C.F.R . § 171.8 , a s follows : Hazma t employe e means ; (1 ) A perso n vvh

o is : (i ) Employe do

n afull-time , part

time , o r temporary basi s by a hazmat employe r an dwh o i

n th e cours e o f

suc h ful l time , part

tim e Mailer o f Brendan Airways . LLC 2 Washingno n Aviaiio n Group , PC Morion t o Dismii;! : 22.^. 1 Wiixoni^i n Avenue , St

e Sd J Washingloii , D C 2000 7 (202 ) 6:18-677 710/05/201 0 15;5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S I2|003/01 1

or temporar y employmen t

directl y affect s hazardou s material s transportatio n safety ; (ii ) Self-employe d(includin g an owner-operato r o f amoto r vehicle , vessel , o r

aircraft) transportin g hazardou s material s i n commerc e wh o i n th e cours e o f suc h self-employmen t

directl y affect s hazardou s material s transportatio n safety ; (iii ) A railroa dsignalman ; o r (iv ) A railroa dmaintenance-of-wa y employee . (2 ) Thi s ter

minclude s a

n individual , employe do n aful l time , par i lime , o r temporary basi s by ahazma t employer , o r

wh o i s self-employed , wh o durin g th e cours e o f

employment : (i ) Loads , unloads , o r

handle s hazardou s materials ; (ii ) Designs , manufactures , fabricates , inspects , marks , maintains , reconditions , repairs , o r

test s apackage , containe r or packagin g componen t

that i s represented , marked , certified , o r sol da s qualifie dfo

r us e in transportin g hazardou s materia l i n commerce . (iii ) Prepare s hazardou s material s fo r transportation ; (iv ) I s responsibl e fo

r safet y o f transportin g hazardou s materials ; (v ) Operate s avehicl e use dt o transport hazardou s materials . Th e Administrato r

ha s faile dt o alleg e any fact s supportin g th e propositio n tha t Tecare z Cook , Clayn e Currl e o r

Lowel l Thorngard(th e thre e ASI G employee s mentione di n th e Complaint ) ar e hazmat

employees . • Th e Administrato r

ha s no t allege dtha t

any o f thes e person s directl y affect hazardou s material s transportatio n safety . • Th e Administrato r

ha s no t allege dthat

thes e person s are railroa dsignalmen . • Th e Administrato r

ha s no t allege dtha

t thes e person s arc railroa dmaintenance-of

wa y employees . Th e onl y fac t

offere db y th e Administrato r abou t th e wor k performe db y thes e thre e individual s i s tha t

the y performe dgroun dhandlin g dutie s for US A 300 0 a

t BWI . Complaint a t 6 . "Groun dhandlin g duties " i s no t amon g th e task s tha t

cause s aper5;o

n t o b e considere dahazmat

employe e under

litl e 4 9 o f

th e regulations , an dther e i s nothin g intrinsi c t o groun dhandlin g dutie s tha t woul dcaus e thes e dutie s t o b e considere dt o b e a functio n covere dunde r

th e hazardou s material s rule s subchapter o f Titl e 49 . Loading , unloading , o r

handlin g o f

hazardou s material s i s amon g th e lis t o f task s that ca n render someon e ahazmat

employe e but

merel y performin g "groun dhandlin g duties " doe s Maile r o r Brenda n Airwsys , LL C 3 Washingto n Aviatio n (jroup , P C Moiio n 10 Dismis s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Si e 50 3 Wa.'Jhineton , n C 2000 7 (202 ) 628-677 710/05/201 0 15:5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS §1004/01 1

no t mean that

thes e individual s ar

c handlin g hazardou s material s (especiall y for acarrie r tha t doe s no t carr y hazmat , lik e US A 3000 ) an dthere i s N O allegatio n (no r fact s t o suppor t suc h an allegation ) i

n th e Complain t

tha t an y o f thes e thre e person s eve r

loaded , unloade dor

handle dhazardou s materials . Moreover , th e Administrato r ha s faile dt o eve n make th e bal dallegatio n that Tecare z Cook , Clayn e Currl e o r

Lowel l Thorngardar

e hazmat employees . Thi s importan t fiic t i s simpl y elide dfro

mth e Complaint . Th e claim s i n thi s cas e ar e brough t under five paragraph s o f

4 9 C.F.R . § § 172.70 2 an d 172,704 . All five mus t

fail becaus e o f

th e failure t o alleg e tha

t anyon e i s ahazmat employee . * Sectio n 172.702(a ) require s hazma t employer s to trai n thei r

hazmat employees . There i s n o allegatio n i n th e complain t tha t anyon e i s ahazmat

employee . Thus , thi s clai mmus t

b e dismissed . Sectio n 172.702(b ) preclude s hazma t employee s fro mperformin g an y functio n subjec t to th e regulation s o f

subchapter

A (Hazardou s Material s AndOi l Transportation ) unles s th e hazma t employe e ha s firs t

been trained . Ther

e i s n o allegatio n i n th e complain t tha t anyon e i s ahazma

t employee . ITius , thi s clai m mus t b e dismisse da s inapplicabl e t o th e fact s alleged .

• Sectio n 172.702(d ) require s hazmat employer s t o tes t

thei r hazmat employees . Ther e i s n o allegatio n in th e complain t that anyon e i s ahazmat

employee . Thus , thi s clai mmus t

b e dismissed .

• Sectio n 172.704(a) ( 1 ) require s hazma t employe e trainin g t o includ e genera l awarenes s training . Ther e i s n o allegatio n i n th e complain t tha t anyon e i s a

Maire ro f Brenrla n Airways , LL C 4 Washinglo n Aviwio n Group , P C Motio n 1 0 Dismis s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , .Sl e 50 J Wiuhington , D C 2000 7 (202)628-577 710/05/201 0 15;5 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 21005/01 1

hazma t employee . Thus , thi s clai mmus t b e dismisse da s i t

describe s trainin g that doe s no t appl y t o an y perso n describe di n thi s Complaint .

• Sectio n 172.704(d ) require s th e hazmat employe r t o creat e arecor do f

trainin g fo

r eac h hazma

t employee . Ther

e i s n o allegatio n i n th e complain t that anyon e i s a hazmat employee . Thus , thi s clai mmus t b e dismisse da s i t

describe s record s tha

t d o no t appl y t o an y perso n describe di n thi s Complaint . Thus , even i f

yo u conside r

al l o f th e fact s allege db

y th e Administrato r

i n aligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e Administrator , yo u ar e stil l lef t wit h n o fact s no r

allegation s that

anyon e i n thi s cas e i s ahazma

t employee . Under

th e Twombl v standard , mer e notic e pleadin g i s insufficien t i f th e pleadin g omit s factua

l allegation s t o suppor

t eac h require delement s o f th e complaint . See , infra , sectio n 2(b ) (discussin g th e wa y tha t Twombl v ha s influence d pleadin g requirement s i n an y cour t subjec t t o th e appellate jurisdictio n o f th e Unite d State s Supreme Court) , Havin g faile dt o alleg e fact s supportin g th e propositio n tha i anyon e i s ahazmat

employee , an dhavin g faile dto eve n baldl y alleg e th e conclusio n tha t anyon e in thi s cas e i s ahazmat employee , th e Administrato r ha s faile dt o mee t

th e minimu mstandard s for

pleadin g thi s case . Therefore , th e matte r mus t b e dismisse dfo

r insufficiency . 

### b . Th e Administrato r

ha s Faile dt o Alleg e an y Fact s Supportin g th e Propositio n tha t US A 300 0 i s aHazma t Employe r Additionally , th e Administrato r ha s faile dt

o alleg e an

y fact s supportin g th e propositio n that US A 300 0 i s ahazmat

employer . There i s abaldallegatio n o f thi s legal conclusion , bu t there are n o fact s t o suppor t suc h aconclusion . Hazmai employer

mean.s : (1 ) A perso n wh o employ s or use s a t leas t on e hazmat

employe e on afull

time , part time , or temporar y basis ; an dwho :
Mane r o f Brenda n Airways , LL

C 5 Wajihingron Aviatio n Group , PC Morion l o Dismis. s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . Si e 50 3 Washineron , D C 2000 7 (202 ) r.2g-677 710/05/201 0 15;5 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS glOOG/OI I

(i ) Transport s hazardou s material s i n commerce ; (ii ) Cause s hazardou s material s t o b e transporte di n commerce ; o r (iii ) Designs , manufactures , fabricates , inspects , marks , maintains , reconditions , repair s or

test s apackage , container , o r packagin g componen t

tha t i s represented , marked , certified , or sol db y tha t perso n a s qualifie dfo

r us e i n transportin g hazardou s material s i n commerce ; (2 ) A perso n wh o i s self-employe d(includin g a n owner-operato r

o f a moto r vehicle , ve.s.sel , o r

aircraft) transportin g material s i n commerce ; an d who : (i ) Transport s hazardou s material s i n commerce ; (ii ) Cause s hazardou s material s to b e transporte di n commerce ; o r (iii ) Designs , manufactures , fabricates , inspects , marks , maintains , reconditions , repair s o r

test s apackage , container , o r packagin g componen t

tha t i s represented , marked , certified , o r sol db y tha t perso n a s qualifie dfo

r us e i n transportin g hazardou s material s i n commerce ; o r (3 ) A department , agency , o r instrumentalit

y o f th e Unite dState s Government , o r

a n authorit y o f aState , politica l subdivisio n o f aState , o r an Indian tribe ; an dwho : (i ) Transport s hazardou s material s i n commerce ; (ii ) Cause s hazardou s material s t o b e transporte di n commerce ; o r (iii ) Designs , manufactures , fabricates , inspects , marks , maintains , reconditions , repair s o r

test s apackage , container , o r packagin g componen t

that i s represented , marked , certified , o r sol dby that perso n a s qualifie dfo

r us e i n transportin g hazardou s material s in commerce . Only ite m(1 ) o f

th e hazmat

employe r definitio n woul dappl y t o US A 3000 , becaus e US A 30 0 i s neithe r

a n individual no r

a n instrumentalit

y o f agovernment . Unde r

ite m(1 ) o f th e regulator

y definition , US A 300 0 i s only ahazmat employer i f i t (1 ) transport s hazardou s material s I

n commerce , o r

(ii ) Cause s hazardou s material s to b e transporte din commerce , or

(iii ) manufactures , repair s o r test s hazardou s material s packaging . Ther e ar e n o allegation s i n th e complain t tha t US A 300 0 ha s don e an

y o f thes e things . A s discusse di n sectio n tw o o f thi s Argument , infra , th e cour t shoul dno t

accep t th e Administrator' s legal conclusion s i n lie u o f factua l allegations , an dshoul dno t treat legal conclusion s cas t

in th e guis e o f

factua l allegation s a s i f

the y wer e reall y factua

l allegations . Unde r

th e Twombl v standard , mere notic e pleadin g i s insufficient i f th e pleadin g omit s factua

l allegation s to suppor

t eac h require delement s o f th e complaint . Manc r o r Brenda n Airu'ays . LL C 6 WiKhingto n Aviatio n Group , P C Morio n r o Dismis s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Si e 50 3 Washinglon , D C 2000

7 (202 ) 62S-677

710/05/201 0 15:5 1 FA X 202433514 2 FA A* DM S 1007/01 1

See , infra , sectio n 2(b ) (discussin g th e wa y tha t Twombl v ha s influence dpleadin g requirement s i n any cour

t subjec t to th e appellate jurisdictio n o f th e Unite dState s Supreme Court) . Therefore , th e matte r mus t b e dismisse dfor

lac k o f fact s supportin g th e notio n that

USA300 0 i s ahazmat

employer . 

### 2 . Th e Failur e t o Alleg e Fact s i n Thi s Cas e Shou U Resul t i n Dismissa l a . USA3000 i s Prejudice db y thes e Failure s Th e failur e t o alleg e tha t

anyon e i s ahazmat

employee , an dth e failure t o alleg e fact s supportin g aconclusio n that US A 300 0 i s ahazma

t employer , prejudic e US A 300 0 i n tha t US A 300 0 canno t

moun t areasonabl e defens e agains t th e Administrator' s claim s when th e factua

l basi s o f th e claim s ha s no t

eve n bee n allege dby th e Administrator . 

### b . Twombl y Ha s Establishe daHighe r Standar dfo r Pleading s Th e Administrato r

may clai mtha

t ihe notic e pleadin g standardpermit s amer e allegatio n o f th e offense , withou t

any factua

l basis . I f thi s wer e true , the n it

woul drende r

amotio n t o dismis s fo

r insufficienc y meaningless , becaus e mere recitatio n o f aregulatio n that

wa s allegedl y violate dwoul db e enoug h to preven t dismissal . N o regulatio n shoul db e readt o b e meaningless , s o i t

woul db e inappropriate t o clai mtha t "notic e pleading " permit s th e Administrato r

t o elid e factua

l allegation s concernin g essentia l element s o f th e case . Furthermore , recen t

th e Suprem e Cour

t decisio n i

n th e Twombl v cas e ha s she dne w ligh t on pleadin g requirements , an dha s mad e i t clea r tha t " aformulai c recitatio n o f th e element s o f

acaus e o f

actio n wil l no t

do. " Bel l Atlanti c v . Twomblv . 55 0 U.S . 554 , 55 5 (2007) .

Mailer o f Brenda n Airtvay. s LL

C 7 WiLshin^LC n Avinlio n Croup , PC Motio n 10 Dismis s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , St e 50 3 Wushingion , L C 2000 7 (202 ) 628-677 710/05/201 0 15:5 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S [gOOS/OI I

I n Bell Atlanti c v . Twomblv . th e Supreme Cour t overturne dConle v v . Gibson' s ver y libera l notic e pleadin g standardan dhel dtha t apleadin g mus t

alleg e sufficient

fact s to suppor t aplausibility o f

wrongdoing . In practice , thi s mean s tha t th e complain t

mus t alleg e fact s supportin g eac h clemen t o f th e eac h caus e o f

action . In Twomblv , th e Cour

t explaine dtha

t aparty' s obligatio n t o describ e th e ground s fo r entitlemen t

t o relie f i n apleadin g "require s mor e than label s an dconclusions , an da formulai c recitatio n o f

th e element s o f

acaus e o f

actio n wil l no t

do " Bel l Atlanti c v . Twomblv . 55 0 U.S . 554 , 55 5 (2007) , relyin g o n Paoasa n v . Allain , 47 8 U.S . 265,28 6 (1986) . Th e Cour

t state dthat

"[f]actua l allegation s mus t

b e enoug h to rais e aright lo relie f abov e th e speculativ e level. " Bell Atlanti c v . Twomblv . 55 0 U.S . 554 , 55 5 (2007 ) relyin g on 5 C , Wrigh t

& A . Miller , Federa

l Practic e an dProcedur e § 1216 , p p 235-23 6 (3 ded , 2004) . A s aconsequence , th e Cour t conclude dthat

a"pleadin g mus t

contai n somethin g more . . . tha

n .. . astatement

o f fact s tha t merel y create s asuspicio n [of ] a legall y cognizabl e right

o f action. " Bel l Atlanti c v . Twomblv . 55 0 U.S . 554 , 55 5 (2007 ) [ellipse s i n th e original] . I n th e cas e a

t bar , thi s mean s that

merel y allegin g th e legal conclusio n tha t US A 300 0 i s a hazma t employe r i s in.sufficien

t i n th e absenc e o f

asingl e allegatio n o f

fac t tha t woul d suppor t suc h alega

l conclusion . Mor e importantly , i

t als o mean s tha

t th e failure to alleg e an

y fact s supportin g a conclusio n tha

t there are an

y hazma i employee s in thi s cas e (combine dwit h th e failur

e t o eve n alleg e th e legal conclusion ) render s it impossible , under

th e fact s alleged , t o conclud e that

ther e i s aviolatio n o f

either o f th e regulation s allege dt

o hav e bee n violate d i n thi s cas e (4 9 C.F.R . § § 172.70 2 an d172.704) , Thi s i s becaus e both o f thes e regulation s appl y in relatio n t o hazmat employee s (requirin g training , testin g an drecord s o f trainin g fo r hazma t employees) , an dthere are n o allegation s that anyon e i n thi s cas e i s ahazma t employee .

Mancro f Brenda n Airways . LL C S Washingro n Aviario n Group , FC : Moiio n lu Dismi:s. s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Sl e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 (202 ) 6.28.677 710/05/201 0 15:5 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12009/01 1



### c . Dismissa l i s th e Appropriat e Remedy Th e fact tha t there i s a n allegation , i n th e lis t

o f violations , o f

tw o regulation s that

appl y t o hazma t employee s i s insufficient , alone , t o suppor t acomplain t

concernin g thos e tw o regulations . Th e burde n rest s on th e Administrato r t o plea dfact s supportin g th e element s o f th e regulation s tha t

ar e allege dt o hav e bee n violated . O n amotio n fo

r dismissal , ther e mu.s

t b e fact s t o suppor

t eac h elemen t

o f eac h allegatio n o f violation , or

els e th e allegatio n o f

violatio n mus t

b e dismissed . E.g . Torc h Liquidatin g Trus t v . Stockstill , 56 1 F.3 d377 , 38 4 (5t h Cir . 2009 ) (dismissal i s prope r i f th e complain t lack s afactua

l allegatio n regardin g arequire delement) . A statemen t o f fact s tha t merel y create s asuspicio n o f

violatio n i s insufficient . Rg ^ Rio s v . Cit y o f De l Rio , 44 4 F.3 d 417,42 1 (5t

h Cir . 2006) . Th e cour

t shoul dno t

"conjur e up " factua

l allegation s that

hav e no t bee n pled . Goole v v . Mobi l Oi l Corp. . 85 1 F.2 d513 , 51 4 (1s t Cir . 1988) . There i s a differenc e betwee n legal conclusion s andfactua l allegations , an dth e Cour t doe s no t nee d t o treat legal conclusion s a s i f

the y wer e factua l allegations . E.g . Marceau v . Blackfee t Rous . Auth. . 54 0 F.3 d916 , 91 9 (9t h Cir . 2008 ) ("We nee dno t assum e th e truth o f

lega l conclusion s cas t

i n th e for mo f factua l allegations") . A s previousl y discussed , th e tw o regulation s tha t ar e allege dt o hav e bee n violate d(4 9 C.F.R . § § 172.70 2 an d172.704) , eac h appl y onl y t o trainin g o f hazmat employees . The y d o no t appl y t o trainin g o f

person s wh o are no t

hazmat employees . Thus , th e failure t o alleg e that anyon e i n thi s cas e i s ahazma t employe e mean s tha

t a n essentia l elemen t

o f eac h o f th e cause s o f

actio n ha s no t

bee n ple dandtherefore dismissa l i s proper .

Matte r ofBrencla n Airways , LL C 9 Wu.>;hinelo n AviMio n Group , C C Moiio n t o Dismis s 223 3 Wifcon-ii n Avenue , Si e 50 3 Washington . D C 2000 7 (202 ) .52«-677 710/05/201 0 15:5 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0010/01 1



### CONCLUSIO N Eve n i f all o f th e allegation s in thi s complain t wer e true , th e Administrato r

ha s faile dt o alleg e th e conclusio n tha t

thes e thre e person s were hazmat employees , ha s faile dt o alleg e fact s supportin g aconclusio n tha t thes e thre e person s wer e hazmat employees . Th e Administrato r

ha s als o faile dt o alleg e fact s supportin g aconclusio n tha t US A 300 0 i s a hazmat employer . I n ligh t

o f th e fac t that ther e are n o allegation s o f fact s t o suppor

t th e element s o f

th e regulator

y violation s allege din thi s case , thi s matte r mus t b e dismissed . I'wombl v expresse dth e propositio n tha i amere formulai c recitatio n o f ih e element s o f

a caus e o f actio n i s insufficient

i n th e complain t

- thi s Complain t

doe s no t eve n feature a mere formulai c recitation . Merel y statin g th e regulatio n tha t i s allegedl y violate di s insufficient

t o establis h fact s tha t

suppor t aplausibilit

y o f wrongdoin g under

th e Twombl y -Standard . Thu.s , th e cas e a t ba r mus t b e dismissed . RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D thi s 23rdda y o f September , 2010 . WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP , PC AND TH E LA W OFFICE S O F JASO N A DICKSTEI N

Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC andth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Ste 50 3

Wa.shington , D C 2000 7 Tel ; (202 ) 628-677 6 Fax : (202 ) 628-894 8 j ason(^washingtonaviation,co m Attorne y fo

r Responden t

Brendan Airways , LL C d/b/ aUS A 300 0

Mauer of Brenda n Airways , LL

C 1 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C Morion t o Dismis s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Sl e 50 3 Wa.5liington , DC 2000 7 (202 ) 62.8-677 710/05/201 0 15:5 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 0011/01 1

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E RE : I n th e Matte r

o f Brendan Airwavs . LL C (Complain t serve dSep t

2 , 2010 , FA A Docke t Numbe r No t Yet Assigned) . Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s thai sh e cause dth e attache dMOTIO N T O DISMIS S t o b e filed, a t th e followin g location , by Fede x Two-Da y Service , on th e date indicate d below ; Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW . Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Roo m2 W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Andserve don th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y Fede x Two-Day Service , o n th e dat e indicate dbelow . Jeanin e Gotimer , Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Oflfic e o f th e Regional Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : (718 ) 553-327 2 FAX : (718 ) 995-569 9 

# i^^¥^i^ . Kat t Brigha m Date

Msfre r o f Brenda n Airu'ays , l.I. C Cenificai e o f

Servic e Wa<Jiingto n Aviatio n Croup . P C 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , Ste 50 3 Wa-shingron , D C 2000 7 (202 ) ^20-677 7