In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: April 2, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

LIBERTY 

FOUNDATION, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2011-GL-03-0070 

Respondent 

ORDER DENYING THE FAA'S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

DECLARING AS ESTABLISHED CERTAIN UNDISPUTED FACTS 

<'"'§;~ -..,. f .... _ 

L~ .) G 

On August 15,2013 the FAA filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion"). This 

Motion sought only partial dispositive relief, because it did not address the FAA's proposed civil 

penalty assessment. 

On January 31,2014 the Respondent filed its Response in Opposition to [the] FAA's 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Response"). 

On February 14, 2014 the FAA filed a Motion to Exclude, in which it objected to the 

expert opinion testimony ofthree of the Respondent's witnesses. 

On February 19, 2014 the Respondent filed its Response to FAA's Motion to Exclude. 

On February 25,2014, the FAA filed a Reply in support ofMotion to Exclude. 

On February 27, 2014 the parties convened for a telephone Motion Conference, and 

presented arguments on the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. At the conclusion of oral 

argument, both parties were given the opportunity to file supplemental materials. 

On March 5, 2014, the FAA filed its Supplement on Motion for Summary Judgment 

("FAA Suppl."). On March 6, 2014 the Respondent filed Respondent's Notice of Filing 

Supplemental Documents ("R Suppl. "). 
On March 24, 2014 an Order Extending Deadline for Filing List of Witnesses and 

Exhibits was filed, which extended the March 25, 2014 deadline to April4, 2014. 

On March 28, 2014 an Order Granting Relief, but Denying the FAA's Motion to Exclude 

Expert Testimony was filed. 

A. Summary Judgment Request for Partial Decision 

The FAA's August 15,2013 Motion for Summary Judgment seek~ a decision on the 

merits of all thirty-seven (3 7) counts of the eight (8) alleged violations of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FARs), with the proposed civil penalty of$49,850 reserved for litigation at the 

evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on April22, 2014 in Atlanta, Georgia. 

B. Notice of Violation and Proposed Penalty Assessment 

On or about June 21,2012 the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Division 

Administrator for the Great Lakes Region filed a Complaint with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation's (DOT) Office ofHearings in which the FAA alleged that the Respondent, 

Liberty Foundation, Inc., had committed a minimum of four (4) violations 1 ofthe Hazardous 

Materials Regulations, under 49 C.F .R. § 171.2( e) et. seq. The FAA proposed a total penalty of 

43,250 for the violations. 

On November 2, 2012 the FAA clarified, during a November 2, 2012 Motion 

Conference, that it was charging a total of 14 violations in its Complaint. There was one (1) 

violation of 14 CFR 91.405(b), one (1) violation of 14 CFR 91.407 (a), and twelve (12) 

violations of 14 CFR 91.7 (a). (11/2/12 Tr. 13: 3-16:10). 

On July 31, 2013 the FAA filed Its Amendment to Complaint ("7/31/13 Complaint"), in 

1 The June 21, 2012 Complaint alleged that 3 regulations had been violated. The Complaint alleged that under 14 

CFR 91.7 (a), the aircraft identified as N390TH flew at least 12 times (Complaint, 3). Because the proposed penalty 

of $43,250 exceeded the maximum allowed for three violation (i.e, $33,000), but was within the maximum allowed 

for four violations (i.e., $44,000) it appeared likely that the FAA was charging a minimum of four (4) violations. 

However, the FAA did not identify in the Complaint whether it was charging 1 violation of 14 CFR 91.7 (a) for all 

12 flights, or I violation with 12 counts, or 12 violations of 14 CFR 91.7 (a) (Complaint, 4). Subsequently, on 

November 2, 2012 the FAA asserted during a Pre-Hearing Conference that it was charging.l2 violations of 14 CFR 

91.7 (a). However, on February 27, 2014 the FAA asserted during a Motion Conference that it was charging 13 

counts of 14 CFR 91.7 (a). 

Page 2 of21 
/ 

which it charged an additional five (5) violations? and proposed an increase in the penalty from 

$43,250 to $49,850 (i.e., a $6,600 increase). 

On February 27,2014 the FAA clarified, during the Summary Judgment Motion 

Conference, that it was alleging a total of eight (8) regulations violated in its 7/31/13 Complaint. 

The FAA stated that it was charging the following: Violation No. 1 - 14 CFR 91.405 (b): two 

counts; Violation No.2- 14 CFR 91.407 (a): thirteen counts; Violation No.3- 14 CFR 91.7 (a): 

thirteen counts; Violation No.4- 14 CFR 43.5 (a): one count; Violation No.5- 14 CFR 43.9 (a); 

two counts; Violation No.6- 14 CFR 43.9 (d): two counts; Violation No.7- 14 CFR 43.13 (a): 

two counts; and Violation No.8 -14 CFR 43.13 (b): two counts. (2/27/14 Tr. ). 

C. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218, a party may file motions, including a motion for a 

decision on the merits, in advance of a hearing when a party asserts that there is no disputed 

material issues of fact to be heard. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), any motion for a 

decision on the merits prior to a testimonial hearing is reviewed under the same standard as a 

summary judgment motion (Civ. R. 56). 

The purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate, and then terminate, claims and defenses 

that are factually unsupported." Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 

West Publishing (2012)(Rule 56). 

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56 (a), a summary judgment motion may be granted if "the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter oflaw." See, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); 

Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Circuit 2006). In addition, pursuant to Rule 56 (f), 

summary judgment may also be granted to a non-moving party, after all parties have had notice 

and a reasonable time to respond. 

A fact is "material" if it is capable of affecting the substantial outcome of the litigation. 

Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895; Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is "genuine" if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. 

2 The newly charged regulations were: 14 CFR 43.5 (a), 14 CFR 43.9 (a), 14 CFR 43.9 (d), 14 CFR 43.13 (a), and 

14 CFR 43.13 (b) (7/31/13 Complaint, 4-5). 

Page 3 of21 
See, Scott v. Harris, 5550 US 372, 380 (2007); Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 US at 248, Holcomb, 433 

F.3d at 895. 

On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in light 

most favorable to non-moving party. However, a non-moving party (e.g., the Respondent herein 

answering the FAA's Motion) may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings. 

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56( c), (d), and (e), a non-moving party who wishes to proceed to trial must 

respond to the motion for summary judgment, and set forth specific facts sufficient to show there 

is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US 317, 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 

L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See also, Citizens State Bank of Big Lake v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 815 

F.Supp. 309 (D. Minn. 1993). See also, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules 

Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 56)( a non-moving party may produce materials, and/or 

cite to materials produced or not produced by the movant in resisting the summary judgment 

motion). 

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56 (c)(1)(A), specific facts alleged by either party may be asserted by 

submitting or citing to a variety of documents and declarations. Materials submitted during 

summary judgment proceedings must be capable of being offered at trial in an admissible form. 

See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 

56). Once the moving party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show, by affidavit or otherwise, that a genuine dispute of material fact remains 

for the fact-finder to resolve. (ld). 

On a summary judgment motion, the court does not rule on the weight of the evidence. 

See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 

56). (The court never weighs the evidence, evaluates credibility or makes findings on disputed 

facts in summary judgment proceedings). 

D. Admissibility of FAA's Summary Judgment Factual Proof 

As part of its August 15,2013 Motion for Summary Judgment, the FAA submitted 

thirty-four (34) Exhibits, identified as FAA Exhibits A-Z, and AA-HH. 

On February 20, 2014, prior to the summary judgment motion conference, the FAA 

submitted a Reply, with one (1) additional exhibit, identified as Exhibit JJ. 

Page 4 of21 
At the February 27, 2014 motion conference, the Respondent did not object to the 

admissibility of any of the FAA's summary judgment exhibits. 

On March 5, 2014, the FAA re-submitted legible copies of Exhibits D-P and BB. The 

FAA also submitted one (1) supplemental exhibit, identified as Exhibit KK. 

The Respondent did not object to the admissibility of the FAA's Supp. Exh. KK. 

• FAA Exhibits B, C, R, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, and JJ are admissible as testimonial 

evidence. 

• All other FAA Exhibits are admissible as documentary evidence 

All thirty-six (36) FAA Exhibits are deemed admissible for s'ummary judgment 

consideration. 

E. Admissibility of Respondent's Summary Judgment Factual Proof 

As part of its January 31,2014 Response, the Respondent submitted twenty-four (24) 

Exhibits, identified as Respondent Exhibits A, A-1, and B-W. 

On February 27,2014 the FAA did not object to the admissibility of most ofthe 

Respondent's summary judgment exhibits, reserving its prior objection the expert opinions of 

Mr. Fowler, Mr. Underwood, and Mr. Schneider, about which it had submitted a Motion to 

Exclude. 3 

On March 6, 2014, the Respondent submitted two (2) supplemental, unmarked exhibits, 

which are hereby marked by the court as Respondent Exhibits X (i.e., FAA Advisory Circular 

No. 120-16E) andY (i.e., FAA Advisory Circular No. 120-16F). 

The FAA did not file any objection to the admissibility ofRespondent Exhs. X or Y. 

• Respondent Exhibits A, B, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, P, V, and Ware admissible as 

testimonial evidence. 

• All other Respondent Exhibits are admissible as documentary evidence 

All twenty-six (26) Respondent Exhibits are deemed admissible for summary judgment 

consideration. 

3 The FAA's Motion to Exclude was addressed in the March 28, 2014 an Order Granting Relief, but Denying the 

FAA's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. 

Page 5 of21 
F. Applicable Regulatory Definitions 

Pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Definitions) the following 

definitions are applicable: 

1. Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of 

parts, but excludes preventative maintenance. · 

2. Preventative Maintenance means simple or minor preservation operations and the 

replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations. 

3 .. Major Alteration means' an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or 

propeller specifications -- (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, 

structural strength, performance, power plant operation, flight characteristics, or other 

qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted 

practices or cannot. be done by elementary operations .. 

4. Major Repair means a repair: (1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect 

weight, balance, structural strength, performance, power plant operation, flight 

characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done 

according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. 

5. Minor Alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration. 

6. Minor Repair means a repair other than a major repair. 

G. Dictionary Definitions 

The Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") do not provide a definition for the adverb 

"appreciably," which is contained in both the F ARs major alteration and major repair definitions. 

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, G. & C. 

Merriam Company (1976) provides a common definition for both the verb and the adverb form. 

Appreciable: Capable of being perceived and recognized or being weighed and appraised. 

Appreciably: To an appreciable extent or degree: noticeably. 

In addition, the F ARs do not provide a definition for the words "airworthiness" or 

"airworthy." The dictionary definitions are: 

Airworthiness: The quality or state of being airworthy. 

Airworthy: Fit for operation in the air: able to bear the strains of flight and to withstand 

Page 6 of21 
storms. 

(Webster's, 1976). 

H. Identification of Major Alterations/Major Repairs in the F ARs 

Appendix A to Part 43 of the PARs addresses major alterations, major repairs, and 

preventative maintenance. Appendix A (a)(l) states that major alterations to an airframe, when 

not listed in the aircraft specifications, include the following: 

(iii) Fuselage. 

(xi) Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the 

maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft. 

(xii) Changes to the basic design of the fuel. .. systems." 

(xiii) Changes to the wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter 

and vibration characteristics. 

Appendix A (b)(1) a1so identifies major repairs to an airframe, when such repairs 

involve the aircraft's "primary structural members or their replacements." 

I. Brief Discussion of Violations and Counts 

The FAA is charging 8 separate regulatory violations, with a total of 37 counts. In the 

discussion in this section, when two counts are identified, the FAA has asserted that such counts 

occurred on February 24, 2011 and on June 12-13, 2011. All admissible evidence was 

considered, but only highlights of certain disputes are discussed herein. 

As part of its argument for summary judgment, the FAA asserted that it had presented 

multiple declarations from a variety of maintenance experts while the Respondent offered only 

"lay" testimony in response. (Reply, 1). This argument was not persuasive, given the fact that 

both parties had mistakenly mischaracterized some of the Respondent's witnesses' testimony as 

"lay." 4 In reality, the Respondent did present multiple expert opinions in response to the FAA's 

Motion. 

4 This dispute was addressed in the March 28,2014 Order Granting Relief, but Denying the FAA's Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony. 

Page 7 of21 
Both parties agreed that neither the removable bladder fuel tanks, nor the aluminum . 

shells, were a structural component of the B-17 aircraft. (R Exh. M, para. 14; FAA Exh. JJ, para. 

14). Both agreed that the B-17 was a limited issue military aircraft, and that that the 

manufacturer had issued one B-17 Handbook to cover all the B-17 "series" aircraft made during 

the time period surrounding World War II. (R Exh. N, para. 14; FAA Exh. U). Both agreed that 

the B-17 Handbook authorized welding as a repair on non-structural aircraft components in 

certain circumstances. (R Exh. N, 240-242; FAA Exh. JJ, para. 14). 

The major disagreement between the parties was whether the maintenance performed by 

the Respondent on February 24,2011 rose to the level of a major alteration, requiring FAA 

approval and inspection before the aircraft was returned to service. This major dispute is 

contained in every count charged against the Respondent herein. 

The FAA witnesses opined, among other things, that the permanent removal of the nonstructural bladder tanks from the aluminum fuel tank shells was a change in the B-17's type 

certification. This was not supported by the evidence, since the B-17's type certification did not 

include any reference to the bladder fuel tank system. The FAA witnesses opined that that the BFebruary 24, 2011 maintenance on the fuel tanks changed the B-17's type design. There was 

conflicting testimonial and documentary evidence submitted on this point. 

For example, there was only one B-17 Handbook published, which addressed the 

common aircraft design for several different series of B-17 aircraft. The Respondent also pointed 

out that Mr; Duellman, an FAA witness, had agreed in a 2012 deposition that the B-17's fuel 

tanks remained fuel tanks after the February 24, 2011 maintenance. Mr. Duellman had also 

agreed during his 2012 deposition that some late model B-17 s had gotten "rid of the self-sealing 

tanks and went back to a metal tank." (FAA Exh. JJ, para. 8 and 10; Response, 18; R Exh. J, 2). 

The FAA witnesses also opined that when the Respondent welded fittings and closures 

onto the aluminum fuel tarik shells, the B-17' s type design was changed, which could have had 

an "appreciable effect" on the B-17' s airworthiness. (FAA Exh. JJ, para. 14 ). The FAA 

witnesses opined that the B-17' s destruction by fire on June 13, 2011 demonstrated that it was 

not airworthy. Thus, the February 24, 2011 maintenance was a major alteration (or in the 

alternative, a major repair). 

In response, the Respondent pointed out that welding was specifically permitted as part 

of the B-17' s maintenance on non-structural components. The basic design of the B-17 aircraft. 

Page 8 of21 
had not changed by removing the bladders, since the aluminum fuel tank shells remained on the 

aircraft, and still functioned as fuel tanks. 5 In addition, the Respondent argued that the FAA's 

assertions of non-airworthiness were speculative, and not supported by the evidence. 

The FAA witnesses opined that the Respondent's welding work had been flawed, and had 

not been performed in compliance with industry standards. The welding failed, as evidenced by 

the June 12, 2011 weld crack and fuel leak. The June 12, 2011 repair to the weld crack was also 

flawed, because during the flight the B-17 took on June 13, 2011, a fire started and the aircraft 

was ultimately destroyed. 

In response, the Respondent presented opinion evidence that the February 24, 2011 

welding, and the June 12, 2011 weld crack repair, had been done in compliance with aviation 

industry standards, utilizing industry accepted materials. Welding was specifically permitted on 

the B-17 as part of its maintenance. A weld expert also opined that there was no evidence to 

support the FAA's deductive assertion that the February 24, 2011 welding, or the June 12, 2011 

maintenance repair to the weld crack, had failed and caused the June 13, 2011 airplane fire and 

destruction. 

In viewing the evidence and inferences in light most favorable to non-moving party, the 

Respondent presented sufficient facts to support a finding that there are genuine disputes, 

supported by material facts, that exist between the p~ies. A few other matters, that are violation 

specific, are discussed briefly below. 

1. Violation No. 1 - 14 C.F.R. §91.405 (b): two counts 

According to 14 C.F.R. §91.405(b), the Respondent, a Part 91 owner/operator, is required 

to ensure that maintenance personnel working on its aircraft make appropriate entries in the 

aircraft maintenance record indicating that the aircraft has been approved for return to service. 

The regulation does not specifically describe what constitutes an "appropriate" narrative entry. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 91.407 (a), the maintenance record must be made before the aircraft as 

\ ' 

flown. 

Count 1: It is undisputed that Mr. Rodney Schneider made a log entry on February 24, 

2011 after the B-17 fuel tank maintenance was finished, and before the aircraft was flown. He 

5 It should be noted that as part of this argument, the Respondent argued that Appendix A in Part 43 clearly required, 

' on its face, that more than one change to the basic design of the fuel system had to occur before the changes rose to 

the level of a major alteration. (App. A (a)(l)(xii); Response, 13-14). This argument is not addressed herein. 

Page 9 of21 
approved the B-17 to return to service. 

The FAA asserts that Mr. Schneider's February 24, 2011log entry was inaccurate, and 

therefore inappropriate. According to the FAA, this log entry failed to fully identify the 

maintenance work performed. Mr. Schneider failed to identify that the work was a major repair 

or alteration the fuel tanks. 6 

In response, the Respondent asserts that Mr. Schneider's February 24, 2011log entry was 

appropriate. It generally described the. work performed, and conformed to the requirements of 14 

C.F.R. §43.9 (a)(l-4). The Respondent also reiterated its position that the removal ofthe 

nonstructural bladder fuel tanks and the subsequent welding of the aluminum shells was not a 

major repair or alteration. , 

Count 2: The FAA asserts that Mr. Schneider did not make any entries in the B-17's 

maintenance record before approving it for return to service on June 13, 2011.7 In response, both 

Mr. Schneider and Mr. Hess testified that Mr. Schneider made a maintenance discrepancy log 

entry before the B-17 took off from the landing strip on June 13, 2011. In addition, a second log 

entry was made on June 14, 2011 to address the June 13, 2011 approval to service. 

2. Violation No.2- 14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a): thirteen counts 

According to 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a), the Respondent, a Part 91 owner/operator, may not 

operate any aircraft after it has undergone maintenance, 8 unless such aircraft has been approved 

to return to service: (1) by a person authorized under 14 C.F.R. § 43.7 and (2) the maintenance 

record required by 14C.F.R. § 43.9 or 14 C.F.R. § 43.11 has been made. 

It was undisputed that Mr. Schneider's A & P mechanic rating authorized him to make 

certain maintenance record entries and approve aircraft to return to service under 14 C.F.R. § 

43.9. Mr. Schneider was not authorized, however, to perform aircraft inspections un~er 14 

C.F .R. § 4 3 .11. It was also undisputed that an aircraft inspection is required anytime a major 

6 The FAA also asserts that Mr. Schneider did not have the authority or the certification to return the aircraft service, 

because his A & P rating did not qualify him to return aircraft to service after a major repair or alteration. This 

allegation is addressed in multiple violations charged herein against the Respondent. 

7 It appears undisputed that Mr. Schneider also made a log entry on June 14, 2011 for the maintenance, after the B17 was destroyed by fire, and back-dated the log entry to reflect the date ofJune 13, 2011. 

8 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a), the word "maintenance" includes "preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration." 

Page 10 of21 
alteration or major repair has been made to an aircraft. 

Counts 1-13: As noted in Violation No. 1 herein, the FAA and the Respondent dispute 

the scope and characterization ofthe maintenance performed on the B-17 fuel tanks on February 

24, 2011. As a result, the FAA asserts that Mr. Schneider did not have the authority to ( 1) 

approve the B-17 for return to service, and (2) did not have the ability to make the necessary 

maintenance record. 

In addition, the FAA a.Sserts that the Respondent operated the B-1 7 on "more than 12 

flights" between February 24, 2011 and June 13, 2011, after the B-17 had undergone a major 

alteration (or, in the alternative, a major repair) (Am'd Complaint, p.11). 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §12.209(e), the Respondent specifically denied this allegation in its 

entirety. (R Answer, 11 ). The FAA acknowledged this denial, but then claimed that there was a 

"lack of dispute" about its accusation that the B-17 was flown at least 13 times (FAA Supp. 

Motion, 1 ). Based on the summary judgment materials, it is undisputed that the Respondent 

operated the B-17 in flight at least once during the time frame in question- on June 13, 2011 -

and the B-17 was completely destroyed by fire at the conclusion of the flight. There is no further 

proof stipulated to by the parties, or submitted by the FAA, as to the dates/times/locations of the 

other alleged 12 flights. 

The FAA did submit two separate B-17 log entries, showing a total of 105 ACTT flight 

hours accrued by the B-17 between the dates of February 24, 2011 and June 13, 2011. However, 

no witness for either side contends that such information, standing alone, can lead the trier of fact 

to the reasonable conclusion that "more than 12 flights" occurred. 

In its supplemental materials, the FAA submitted the Respondent's discovery response to 

FAA Interrogatory 15, in which the Respondent did not affirmatively defend against the 

allegation of the thirteen flights (FAA Supp. Exh. KK). The FAA argued that this interrog~tory 

response should be characterized as a factual admission by the Respondent that the alleged 13 

flights all occurred (dates/times/locations unknown). The FAA did not point to any authority 

that supports this argument regarding the interrogatory response. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§13.224(a), the FAA still has the burden of proof in presenting evidence in support ofits 

allegations, before the Respondent is required to respond. 

Page 11 ofZl 
3. Violation No.3- 14 C.F.R. §91.7 (a): thirteen counts 

According to 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a), the Respondent, a Part 91 owner/operator, may not 

operate any civil aircraft unless the aircraft is in an airworthy condition. 

Counts 1-13: As noted above in Violation No.2, the FAA asserts that the Respondent 

operated the B-17 on "more than 12 flights" between February 24, 2011 and June 13, 2011, after 

the B-17 had undergone a major alteration (or, in the alternative, a major repair), and before it 

was approved as airworthy by the Administrator. (Am'd Complaint). As discussed in Violation 

No.2, supra, the FAA has not yet proven the number offlights. 

As part ofViolation No.3, the FAA witnesses opined that the February 24, 2011 

maintenance was not in conformance with the B-1 7' s type design or type certificate. In addition, 

the B-17 was never airworthy after February 24, 2011. The fuel tank weld performed on 

February 24, 2011 failed, because a fuel leak and weld crack was discovered on June 12, 2011. 

The repair to the weld crack on June 12, 2011 failed, and as a result of the weld failures, the B17 was destroyed on June 13, 2011. 

In response, the Respondent witnesses and documents asserted that the February 24, 2011 

maintenance ensured that the B-1 7' s design remained intact. There was no direct evidence that 

the February 24, 2011 maintenance was the cause that rendered the aircraft airworthy. In fact, 

there was evidence to s~ow that the fuel tank weld performed on February 24, 2011, and its 

repair on Jun 12, 2011, had both been properly performed. There was no evidence to 

demonstrate that the welding contributed to the fire and destruction of the B-1 7. 

4. Violation No.4- 14 C.F.R. §43.5 (a): one count 

According to 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a), the Respondent, a Part 91 owner/operator, may not 

allow any aircraft to be operated after it has undergone maintenance,9 unless the aircraft has been 

approved to return to service: (1) by a person authorized under 14 C.F.R. § 43.7 and (2) the 

maintenance record has been made as required by 14 C.F.R. § 43.9 or 14 C.F.R. § 43.11. 

During the February 27, 2014 motion conference, the FAA identified this count as 

relating solely to the June 12, 2011 weld crack repair. The FAA argued that Mr. Schneider 

improperly approved the B-17 for service after the weld crack repair, because a maintenance 

9 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a), the word "maintenance" includes ''preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration." 

Page 12 of21 
inspection and record pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 43.11 was required, and Mr. Schneider did not 

have the authority to approve an aircraft for service under 14 C.P.R. § 43.11. Both parties 

reiterated their arguments regarding Mr. Schn~ider's work, and the scope/type of the 

maintenance performed on the aircraft. 

5. Violation No.5- 14 C.P.R.§ 43.9 (a); two counts 

According to 14 C.P.R.§ 43.9 (a), each person who maintains, performs maintenance, 

rebuilds or alters an aircraft or component part, shall make an entry in the maintenance record of 

that equipment part (except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c)). 

In this violation, the FAA asserts that Mr. Schneider's February 24,2011 maintenance 

entry failed to accurately describe the maintenance on the fuel tanks, and that he failed to make a 

proper maintenance record on June 13,2011. The Respondent disagreed. Both parties reiterated 

their arguments regarding Mr. Schneider's work, and the scope/type of the maintenance 

performed on the aircraft. 

6. Violation No.6- 14 C.P.R. § 43.9 (d): two counts 

According to 14 C.F.R. § 43.9 (d), in addition to the entry provided by 14 C.P.R.§ 43.9 

(a) (i.e., Violation No. 5), the person performing maintenance work that is a major alteration or 

major repair shall entered the work on a form (i.e., FAA Form 337), and in a manner prescribed 

by Appendix B. 

Again, the FAA asserts that the February 24, 2011 fuel tank maintenance was a major 

alteration (or in the alternative, major repair) that required FAA Form 337 to be filled out and 

filed. The FAA also argued that the June 12 2011 repair to the fuel tanks was a major alteration 

and a violation of this regulation, because "the fuel tanks themselves were unacceptable." (FAA 

Exh. GG, 6). 

In response, the Respondent doesn't dispute that FAA Form 337 wasn't used. The 

Respondent reiterated its arguments that the February 24, 2011 fuel tank maintenance did not 

meet the definition of a major alteration or major repair, and that Mr. Schneider's work on June 

12-13,2011 met all FAR requirements. 

Page 13 of21 
· 7. Violation No.7- 14 C.F.R.§ 43.13 (a): two counts 

According to 14 C.F.R.§ 43.13 (a), each person performing maintenance, alterations or 

previous maintenance on an aircraft shall ,use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed 

by the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or the instructions for continued 

airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices 

acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in 14 C.F.R.§ 43.16. 

Both parties reiterated their arguments regarding Mr. Schneider's work, and the 

scope/type of the maintenance performed on the aircraft. 

8. Violation No.8- 14 C.F.R. § 43.13 (b): two counts 

According to 14 C.F.R. § 43.13 (b), each person maintaining or altering or performing 

previous maintenance shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality 

that the condition of the aircraft worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly 

altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to 

vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness). 

The FAA asserts that the maintenance performed on February 24, 2011 and on June 12, 

2011 did not restore the B-17 aircraft to its original condition nor did it restore the B-17 to its 

properly altered condition. 

In response, the Respondent reiterated that the bladder tanks were not a structural 

component of the B-17, and the design of the aluminum fuel tank shells or the function of the 

fuel tanks shells had not been appreciably changed. 

J. Declaring as Established Certain Undisputed Facts 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(±)(5) and Civ. R. 56, in viewing all evidence submitted by 

the parties in summary judgment proceedings, the court may declare certain material facts, that 

are not genuinely disputed, as fully established. This declaration of established facts allows the 

parties to focus on matters in genuine dispute at the hearing. 

Absent objection by either party, the following undisputed facts are declared as 

established in this case: 

1. The Respondent, Liberty Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit foundation. It holds an FAA 

Part 91 aircraft carrier certificate. It was the registered owner of a Boeing B-17G, 

registered as N390TH, and bearing Serial No. 44-85734,("B-17"). (7/18/12 Answer, 1.1). 

Page 14 of21 
The B-17 was a military World War II bomber aircraft. Its name was the "Liberty Belle." 

(R Exh. B, 35 and 41; R Exh. Q). 

2. The B-17' s December 2, 1946 Specification Sheet is the Type Certification ("Type 

Cert.") for the aircraft. (R Exh. Q; FAA Exh. JJ, 27). 

' 

3. The B-17's Type Cert. specified only engines and propellers as equipment. (R Exh. Q). 

4. On August 8, 1952 a Revised Aircraft Parts Catalog was issued for the B-17, which 

included schematics of the aircraft's wing fuel tanks, and fuel system (FAA Exh. S, 48-

49, 312). 

5. On August 15, 1953, a Revised Handbook Erection and Maintenance Instructions was 

issued for the B-170 Series Aircraft. This Handbook included schematics and data about 

the B-17' s fuel system, which included the main tanks, the feeder tanks, and the outboard 

wing tanks (i.e., Tokyo tanks). (FAA Exh. T, 194-207). 

6. On August 15, 1956 a Revised Handbook Structural Repair Instructions ("B-17 1956 

Handbook") was issued for the B-17 Series Aircraft, which included B-17 Aircraft 

identified as B-17E, F, 0, RB-17E and QB-170 .. (FAA Exh. U; R Exh. N). 

7. On May 3, 2005 the FAA issued a Limited Airworthiness Certificate for the B-17. (R 

Exh. R). 

' 

8. On June 20,2010 the FAA issued the Respondent Exemption No. 8565C, which was an 

amendment to Exemption No. 8565. (R Exh. T). In this June 20,2010 Amendment, the 

FAA reiterated that the Respondent must maintain the B-17 in accordance with the 

following: (a) the B-17's type certificate data sheet, as amended; (b) FAA-approved 

maintenance inspection program that meets the requirements of§ 91.409(c), (f)(4) and 

(g); and (c) the appropriate military technical manuals. (R Exh. T). 

9. In 2011 the Respondent operated the B-17 as part of its "flying museum." (R Exhibit B, 

24; R Exh. D, 11 ). The B-17 was required to be maintained in accordance with FAA 

exemption 8565C. (7/18/12 Answer, 1.2). 

10. Mr. Raymond Fowler had served as the Respondent's Executive Director since its 

inception in 2004. He was the Respondent's "self-proclaimed" Chief Pilot. (R Exh. B, 6). 

11. FAA Advisory Circular ("AC") No. 120-16E requires Part 91 owners/operators to be 

"responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition." (R Supp. Exh. X). 

12. In either the year 2008 or 2009, Mr. Rodney Schneider began volunteering as a mechanic 

on the Respondent's B-17 aircraft. (RExhibit A, 6). Ultimately, in October 2010, Mr. 

Schneider began serving as the Respondent's volunteer Director of Maintenance. (R Exh. 

A, 7-8; R Exh. B, 42-43; R Exh. V, 1). 

Page 15 of21 
13. As a Part 91 operator, the Respondent was not required to have a director of maintenance. 

(R Exh. V, 1). 

14. When the Respondent originally certified the B-17 (date unspecified), the B-17 was given 

a modified fuel system. (R Exh. D, 13).This modification to the fuel system, which 

involved removing all the unused fuel transfer lines, had been a major alteration. (R Exh. 

B, 24-25; R Exh. D, 13). 

15. The B-17' s original design utilized a removable, bladder fuel tank )system. This original 

system had an aluminum fuel tank "shell" that encased self-sealing, bladder fuel tanks, 

which were held within the shell by straps. (R Exh. B, 20; FAA Exh. JJ, 6). Neither the 

removable bladder fuel tanks, nor the aluminum shells, were a structural component of 

theB-17 aircraft. (R Exh. M, para. 14; FAA Exh. JJ, para. 14 ). 

16. Over time (unspecified) the removable bladder tank system appeared to deteriorate, 

because the bladders were "slower and slower to sump." (R Exh. B, 7). The Respondent 

decided to replace the bladder tank system for safety reasons, because it didn't want to 

have any contamination in the fuel. (R Exh. B, 7). 

17. During the latter part of the year 2010, Mr. Fowler engaged in multiple discussions with 

various individuals on how to replace the bladder tank system with an aluminum system. 

(R Exh. B, 7-9). One option was to fabricate new fuel tanks from scratch. (R Exh. B, 29-

30). The Respondent "wrote a check" to a Designated Air Representative ("DAR") 

(individual unidentified) for approval of the schematics. (R Exh. B, 13 and 30). On behalf 

of the Respondent, Mr. Underwood talked with, and sent documents to, the DAR about 

the fuel tank problem. (R Exh. B, 16-17). The DAR then sent the Respondent 

"paperwork" regarding the B-17's fuel tanks. (R Exh. B, 13). 

18. Welding a fuel tank on the B-17 was permissible "under appropriate circumstances." (R 

Exh. M, para. 14). However, pur~uant to FAA Order 8900.1, any change in a permanent 

fuel tank, or installation of a new fuel tank, was deemed a major alteration. (R Exh. M, 

para.14). 

19. At some point in Mr. Fowler's 2010-2011 discussions, the Respondent decided that it 

was better to keep the original aluminum shells then to fabricate new tanks, because of 

the shells' type and thickness ofa1uminum. (R Exh. B, 30-31). Cost was not a factor in 

the Respondent's decision to keep the aluminum shells. (R Exh. B, 30-31). 

20. Mr. Underwood did research to discover what the B-17 fuel tanks were made of, and 

"what would be the appropriate welding materials to use." (R Exh. A, 30). Mr. 

Underwood utilized a set of Boeing B-17 drawings and engineering prints to determine 

that the fuel tanks were made in 1100 series aluminum. (RExh. A, 38; R Exh. F, 2). The 

original aluminum designation for the 1100 series was 2S. (R Exh. D, 2; R Exh. D, 2). 

Page 16 of21 
21. Mr. Underwood participated in conversations with personnel of Cobb industrial 

fabricators of Marietta Georgia to discuss the welding needed for the February 24, 2011 

aircraft maintenance work. (R Exh. F, 1). 

22. During the 2010-2011 discussions, and before beginning the February 24, 2011 

maintenance, Mr. Fowler, the Respondent, and various other Respondent members and 

volunteers formed the belief that changing the bladder fuel tanks to aluminum fuel tanks 

was not a major alteration. The Respondent and others believed that this type of change 

did not alter the B-17' s basic fuel tank design. (R Exh. B, 13-14, and 22). 

23. FAA Advisory Circular ("AC") No. 120-16E requires Part 91 owners/operators to be 

"responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition." (R Exh. X). 

24. FAA AC No. 120-16E requires that "authorized and certificated person(s)" have the 

"responsibility to perform the maintenance properly in accordance with the 

manufacturer's manual." The Part 91 owner/operator "does not have this responsibility." 

(RExh. X) 

25. In preparation for the February 24, 2011 maintenance work, Mr. Schneider read FAA's 

Advisory Circular ("AC") 43.13, Sections 8-32. (R Exh. A, 36). 

26. FAA AC No. 43.13 contains "methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the 

Administrator for the inspection and repair of non-pressurized areas of civil aircraft, only 

when there are no manufacturer repair or maintenance instructions." (R Exh. 0, 

"Purpose"). 

27. Mr. Schneider also reviewed the B-17 maintenance manual, the field service manual and 

the structural repair manual. He could not find any description of the work that he 

planned to perform on the aircraft on February 24, 2011. (R Exh. A, 36). 

28. The data in FAA AC No 43.13 "generally pertain[ed] to minor repairs." It could also be 

utilized "as a basis for FAA approval for major repairs." (R Exh. 0, "Purpose"). Under 

certain conditions, the data in FAA AC No. 43.13 could also be used as "approved data" 

in conjunction with FAA form 337. (Id.). 

29. On or about February 24, 2011, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Underwood, as well as five (5) 

other Respondent volunteers, performed maintenance work on N390TH, the B-17 

aircraft. (R Exh. A, 23 and 39). This work included removing the bladder linings from six 

(6) fuel tanks, welding up the tanks after the bladder removals, adding fittings to the 

tanks in order to mount various components back on, and then reinstalling the fuel tanks 

onto the aircraft. (R Exh. A, 17). 

30. When the February 24,2011 maintenance work was performed, Mr. Fowler was present 

and was briefed on the mechanical work that was being done. (R Exh. B, 19). 

Page 17 of21 
31. Although Mr. Schneider was present for the February 24, 2011 welding, he did not 

perform any welding on the aircraft. (R Exh. A, 24). 

32. The February 24, 2011 welding was performed by employees of Cobb Industrial 

Fabricators. (R Exh. A, 27-28; R Exhibit P, 1). All welding was done using the TIG 

method of welding. The filler rod was 4043. The fittings were made from 6061 

aluminum. (R Exh. D? 2). 

33. Pursuant to FAA AC 43.13, Tungsten Inert Gas ("TIG") welding was a form of electric 

arc welding that filled "most of the needs in aircraft maintenance." (R Exh. 0, p. 4-57). 

34. Electric arc welding was also described in the B-17's revised, 1956 Handbook: Structural 

Repair Instructions ("B-17 Handbook") as one of two welding methods allowed. (R Exh. 

N, p. 241). 

35. The August 15, 1956 B-17 Handbook stated that "welding of structural aluminum-alloy 

parts is 'prohibited. All-stress-approved applications of welding are discussed in section 

IV. Other repairs requiring welds probably will not return the full strength ofthe original 

part. Therefore, welding of members other than described in section IV is to be 

considered as an extreme emergency operation and cannot be recommended for 

permanent repairs. Great care must be taken that the welding process does not further 

weaken the part rather than strengthen it." (R Exh. N, p. 240-241). 

36. The Table of Contents of the B-17 Handbook identified Section IV as the "Nacelle" of 

the B-17 aircraft. Sub-sections of Section IV addressed negligible, reparable, and 

replacement damage to the Nacelle. (R Exh. N). 

37. Pursuant to FAA AC 43.13, "welded or riveted fuel tanks that are made of commercially 

pure aluminum, 3003, 5052, or similar alloys, may be repaired by welding." In addition, 

FAA AC 43.13 provides that "[i] n case it is necessary to rivet a new piece in a tank, use 

the same material as used in the tank undergoing repair, and seal the seams with a 

compound that is insoluble in gasoline." (R Exh. 0, p. 8-19) 

38. After the February 24, 2011 welding on the fuel tanks was finished, Mr. Schneider 

visually inspected and approved it. (R Exh. A, 24-25). In addition, the tanks were filled 

with fuel to visually verify any possible leaks. (R Exh. D, 2). 

39. FAA AC No. 120-16E requires that the Part 91 owner/operator be "responsible for 

ensuring maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance 

records indicating the aircraft has received approval for return to service." (R Exh. X). 

40. Typically, after maintenance has been performed on an aircraft and before it is released to 

fly, the mechanic who has performed the maintenance will fill out and sign the aircraft's 

discrepancy log. Then that maintenance information is provided to the person who 

maintains the aircraft's log books, and logbook entries are also made. (R Exh. B, 36). 

Page 18 of21 
41. During the February 24, 2011 maintenance, Mr. Schneider spoke with the "two Daves," 

about the changes made to the B-17's fuel tanks [time of conversation unspecified]. The 

"two Daves" referred to Dave Miller and Dave Alderman, FAA maintenance inspectors 

who also volunteered with the Respondent. Mr. Schneider spoke with the "two Daves" 

after the B-17's bladder linings had been removed and the tanks had been "welded up", 

but before the tanks had been re-installed on the aircraft. (R Exhibit A, 14-15). Both Mr. 

Fowler and Mr. Schneider participated in this telephone conference. (R Exh. A, 17). Mr. 

Schneider called the "two Daves" because he wanted advice on how to fill out the 

maintenance paperwork in order to get "a signoff done properly." (R Exh. A, 14:25-15:1. 

20-21, and 17:2-5). 

42. On February 24, 2011, after completion ofthe fuel tank maintenance, Mr. Schneider 

completed a log book entry in the discrepancy log book maintained in the aircraft. (R 

Exh. D, 1). Mr. Schneider approved the B-17 for return to service with an aircraft total 

time of2474.7 hours. (7/18/12 Answer, 2.8). 

43. Approximately 14 weeks later, on Sunday, June 12, 2011, the main fuel tank of the B-17 

was discovered to be leaking. (R Exhibit A, 40 and 46). ). This main fuel tank, located on 

the left wing, was designated on the B-17 as the "No. 1" fuel tank. (R Exh. A, 41). 

44. On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Mr; Schneider and Mr. Underwood flew to Aurora, Illinois to 

inspect the airplane. They discovered a weld crack, on the bottom edge of the main fuel 

tank's end cap, "roughly 5 inches long, maybe 6." (R Exh. A, 40). This weld crack was in 

one of the "new" weld edges that had been welded on February 24, 2011. (R Exh. A, 41-

42). 

45. Mr. Schneider and Mr. Underwood discussed this weld crack problem with Mr. Hess and 

Mr. Giese, both of whom were A and P mechanics and Respondent volunteers. Mr. Hess 

and Mr. Giese were present with the B-17 in Aurora, Illinois. All four men consulted the 

maintenance and field manuals, but they could not find any B-17 manual direction that 

addressed the weld crack problem. (R Exh. A, 44-45). 

46. Applying a weld crack sealer internally would have given the weld repair "a better 

chance of success." (R Exhibit A, 49). However, this would have required removing the 

aluminum shell fuel tank from the aircraft, which would have taken more time. (R Exh. 

A,49). 

4 7. The Respondent had paying passengers scheduled at its next B-17 flight destination. (R 

Exh. A, 49-50). In order to do the job in a "good manner" and yet still stay on schedule 

with the tour, the Respondent elected to apply the weld seal from the outside, which did 

not require taking the time to remove the No. 1 fuel tank from the aircraft. (R Exh. A, 

49). 

48. Mr. Schneider and the others decided to fix the weld crack with a two-part fuel tank 

sealer, which they packed from the outside. (R Exh. A, 42-43). Mr. Schneider and the 

others finished the weld repair on Sunday evening, June 12, 2011, around 6:00pm. (R 

Page 19 of21 
Exhibit A, 47; (7/18/12 Answer, 2.12). After the weld repair was finished, Mr. Schneider 

released the aircraft for service. (R Exh. A, 51). 

49. At dinner with Mr. Fowler that evening, Mr. Schneider discussed the weld repair. Mr. 

Fowler had also been in Aurora, Illinois, doing "P-40 rides that day.'' (R Exh. A, 51). He 

had had "very little" involvement in the repair work discussions, because he had spent 

most of the day flying. (R Exh. A, 51). 

50. The next morning, on Monday, June 13,2011, the B-17 aircraft was fueled in the early 

morning. It took off for an additional flight around 9:00am. (R Exh. A, 47). That same 

day, on Monday, June 13, 2011, the B-17's flight ended after an in-flight fire and 

subsequent emergency off airport landing. (7/18/12 Answer, 1.17; R Exh. A, 46). It was 

undisputed that the plane caught fire and was destroyed. 

51. The B-17's discrepancy log book, carried in the airplane, was destroyed in the fire that 

destroyed the aircraft on June 13, 2011. (R Exh. D, 1-2). 

I 

52. The following day, on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Mr. Schneider called and spoke with 

Dave Miller about the June 12, 2011 repair and how "we should sign this off." (R Exhibit 

A, 45-46). Mr. Schneider then made a log book entry for the Sunday, June 12, 2011 weld 

crack repair. (R Exh. A, 43-46). This log entry, dated June 13,2011, referenced "4313-1-

B, section 2, paragraph 832." (R Exh. A, 45). Mr. Schneider read this FAA AC reference 

before including it in his log book entry. (R Exh. A, 46). 

53. Approximately two months later, on August 22, 2011, the FAA filed against Mr. 

Schneider an Emergency Order ofRevocation, in which the FAA revoked Mr. 

Schneider's airman and mechanics Certificate No. 002649010, with Airframe and 

Powerplant ratings. {FAA Exh. W, 1). 

54. On January 31,2012, the FAA withdrew its August 22,2011 Emergency Order of 

Revocation against Mr. Schneider, and issued an Order of Suspension. This Order 

suspended all of Mr. Schneider's airman mechanics certificates, including Certificate No. 

002649010, with Airframe and Powerplant ratings, from August 22, 2011 until May 17, 

2012 (midnight). (FAA Exh. W, 6). 

55. The FAA's January 31,2012 Order of Suspension was issued as part of an agreement and 

settlement reached with Mr. Schneider on January 30, 2012. As part of this agreement, 

Mr. Schneider agreed to withdraw his appeal to the National Transportation Safety 

Board, waive notice of the Order, and waive all rights to appeal or contest the Order. 

(FAA Exh. W, 1 and 6). 

56. The FAA's January 31,2012 Order of Suspension found under Count 1 that Mr. 

Schneider had violated 14 C.F.R. 43.13(a) and (b), and 14 C.F.R. 43. 9 (a) and (d). In 

support ofthe charges in Count 1, the Order made ten (10) findings of fact regarding Mr. 

Schneider's February 24,2011 maintenance on the Respondent's B-17 aircraft. (FAA 

Exh. W, 2-3 and 4-5). 

Page 20 of21 
57. The FAA's January 31,2012 Order of Suspension addressed under Count 2 the 

maintenance performed on the Respondent's B-17 aircraft on June 10, 2011 that are not 

relevant to the issues in the case herein. (FAA Exh. W, 3). 

58. The FAA's January 31,2012 Order of Suspension found under Count 3 that Mr. 

Schneider had violated 14 C.F.R.§ 43.13(a) and (b). In support of the charges in Count 3, 

the Order made eight (8) findings of fact regarding Mr. Schneider's June 13, 2011 

maintenance on the Respondent's B-17 aircraft. (FAA Exh. W, 3). 

59. The Respondent was not a party in the FAA's January 30, 2012 settlement discussions or 

agreement with Mr. Schneider, nor was it a party involved in the FAA's January 31,2012 

Order of Suspension issued against Mr. Schneider. (FAA Exh. W). 

K. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(f)(5) and Civ. R. 56, all of the parties' admissible Exhibits 

were considered, as well as the applicable pleadings and documents. After having heard oral 

argument on the Motion, and having reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, 

statutory authority, motions, pleadings, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's Motion for (Partial] Summary Judgment is denied. There are genuine issues 

of material fact in dispute regarding the 8 charged violations and 3 7 counts in this case, 

and the FAA is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

2. The Declared Established Undisputed Facts in Paragraph J contained in this Order are 

conclusively established for the Hearing, and for the disposition of this case, unless a 

party files a specific objection to any declared fact, with supporting documentation, on or 

before April22, 2014 (the first day of Hearing). 

3. The Hearing scheduled for April22, 2014- Apri124, 2014 in Atlanta, GA is hereby reconfirmed. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 21 of21 
... 

• 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration1 0 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Mr. Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Stuart A. Goldstein 

Respondent's Counsel 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P .A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

TEL: 305-670-1222 

FAX: 305-400-0685 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0477 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

10 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence A venue, S. W ., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.