i « 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '. • "•ARTf/lENl O r 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ; ;S OHTATlOl 1 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 6 OPER/TIONS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

In the matter of ) FAA Docket No. Unassigned /v'^Q^ 

) Case No. 2010WP910098 /pDfr) S <3L0il -Q^l ^ 

AIRLIFT HELICOPTERS, INC. ) Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

) 

) 

ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

Complainant, pursuant to Rule 13.218(f)(5) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty 

Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), files this Motion for Decision. 

I. Introduction 

A motion for decision shall be granted if there is "no genuine issue of material fact and 

that the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.218(f)(5). Complainant, the party making the motion, "has the burden of showing that there 

is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties." Id. Additionally, Rule 13.209(f) of 

the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), states that "A 

person's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the truth 

of each allegation contained in the complaint." The Complainant will show, by admissions of 

Respondent, Airlift Helicopters, Inc. ("Airlift"), that no genuine issues of material fact exist and 

that the Complainant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

JUN 2 0 2011 

' 'EARING DOCKET 
II. Summary of the Complaint 

The Complaint in this matter alleges that Airlift committed three violations of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations. First, Airlift neither conducted a pre-employment drug test on nor received 

a verified negative result on a pre-employment drug test for its employee, Seth Rauch, before 

transferring him to a position where he would perform aircraft maintenance and preventative 

maintenance, a safety-sensitive function. (Compl. § II, ^ 6a-6c.) The fimctions listed in 14 

C.F.R. § 120.105 are called safety-sensitive fimctions and include aircraft maintenance or 

preventative maintenance. (Compl. § II, ^ 3.) Mr. Rauch performed aircraft maintenance or 

preventative maintenance on an Airlift aircraft on or about January 28, 2010. (Compl. § II, ^ 6d.) 

Therefore, Airlift's failtire to conduct a pre-employment drug test and receive a verified negative 

result violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(a)(2). (Compl. § III, TI 7a.) 

Second, Airlift failed to include Mr. Rauch in its random drug testing pool. (Compl. § II, 

^ 6e.) Airlift's failure to include Mr. Rauch in the random drug testing pool violated the 

regulatory requirement to ensure each covered employee has an equal chance of being tested 

each time random selections are made. (Compl. § II, Tni 4, 6f.) Anyone performing a safetysensitive fimction is a covered employee under 14 C.F.R. § 120.7(f). (Compl. § II, ^ 2.) Airlift 

therefore violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(b)(5). (Compl. § III, t 7c.) 

Third, Airlift failed to include Mr. Rauch in its random alcohol testing pool. (Compl. § II, 

^ 6e.) Airlift's failure to include Mr. Rauch in the random alcohol testing pool violated the 

regulatory requirement to ensure each covered employee has an equal chance of being tested 

each time random selections are made. (Compl. § II, 1f^ 5, 6f.) Anyone performing a safetysensitive function is a covered employee under 14 C.F.R. § 120.7(f). (Compl. § II, 12.) Airlift 

therefore violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.217(c)(5). (Compl. § III, T| 7b.) 
III. The Evidence Shows No Genuine Issues of Material Facts 

The above-described Complaint was served on Airlift on April 26, 2011. Under Rule 

13.209(a) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a 

Respondent must file an answer no later than thirty days after service of the complaint. As of 

June 13, 2011, neither Complainant nor the ALJ assigned to this matter has received any answer 

fi"om Respondent.' Respondent, by his failure to file an answer, has admitted the truth of each 

and every allegation in the Complaint. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f). 

IV. Complainant Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law 

Because Respondent has failed to file an answer to the Complaint, resulting in each and 

every allegation in the Complaint being admitted as true, there are no other factual issues for 

resolution other than the appropriateness of the sanction. In the Complaint, the Complainant 

asserts that a civil penalty in the amount of $6,700 is appropriate under FAA Order 2150.3B 

("Order"), given the facts and circumstances in this case. (Compl. § III, ^ 9.) Airlift is a U.S. part 

135 operator with no more than five pilots and no more than five aircraft. Therefore, it is 

classified under Group IV. Order at B-3. According to Figure B-5-c in Appendix B of Order 

2150.3B, a civil penalty in the maximum range is appropriate for a failure to receive a verified 

negative result for a pre-employment drug test before transferring an individual to a safetysensitive fionction. Order at B-32. Because this violation is covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(5)(A), the maximum civil penalty range is $4,400 to $11,000. The civil penalty 

asserted as appropriate in the Complaint is $1,000 below the midrange value of the maximum 

' Undersigned counsel spoke with personnel in the ALJ's office on June 13, 2011 and was informed that they had 

not received any answer from Respondent as of that date. 
I 

2 

range, i.e. $7,700. A civil penalty of $6,700, which is less than the midrange for a single 

violation, is therefore more than appropriate under the sanction guidance given that there are 

three violations in this case. As Respondent failed to file an answer or raise any affirmative 

defenses, there are no mitigating factors present in the record that would result in fiirther 

reduction of the $6,700 civil penalty specified in the Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfiilly requests that this motion be granted and 

that the Complaint be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Date: June 16,2011 

Nicholas R. Milliard 

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 

^ Chapter 7 of FAA Order 2105.3B, specifically page 7-9, paragraph 5(b)(3), provides that sanction calculations 

begin with an amount in the middle of the range and that the sanction increases or decreases based on the presence 

of any aggravating or mitigating factors, respectively. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I sent by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, the original 

and one copy of the foregoing Motion for Decision in In the Matter of Airlift Helicopters, Inc, 

FAA Docket No. Unassigned, Case No. 2010WP910098, to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

In addition, I hereby certify that I sent a copy of the same by U.S. Certified Mail, 

return receipt requested, and by facsimile, to each of the following addresses: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Mr. Justin Seyferth 

President/CEO 

Airlift Helicopters, Inc. 

550 West Plumb Lane, B#401 

Reno, NV 89509 

Facsimile: (775) 359-7930 

Name: ^^(AUXJCK ^^RH^V ^ 

Date: J\v^ ^ U ^ X/D i )