### SERVE D JUN E 7,201 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTERO F BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09EA000 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-003 2 ORDE RO FCHIE FADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDG E RONNI E A . YODE R DENYIN GRESPONDENT' S PARTIA LMOTIO N T O DISMIS S TH E COMPLAIN T AN D FO RA MOR E DEFINIT E STATEMENT , AN D GRANTIN G COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O STRIK E TH E RESPONDENT' S SURREPL Y B y "Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfor aMor e Definite Statement " ("Motio n t o Dismiss" ) serve dFebruary 12 , 2009 , Brenda n Airways , LLC , ("Respondent" ) seek s t o dismis s th e Complain t

file db y th e Actin g Regiona l Counsel , Easter n Regio n ("Complainant") , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA") , arguin g tha t th e Complain t

faile dt o alleg e sufficien t fact s t o mak e ou t aprimafaci e cas e tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d121.153(a)(2). * I n th e alternative , Responden t seek s a n orde r

fo r amor e definit e statemen t

' Motion t o Dismis s a

t 3-8 . 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) provides : "Eachperso n performing maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e on a n aircraft , engine , propeller , o r applianc e shal

l us e the methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe din the curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s fo

r ContinuedAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o

r othe r methods , techniques , an

dpractice s acceptabl e t

o the Administrator , except a s notedi n § 43.16 . He shal

l us e the tools , equipment , an

dtes t apparatu s necessar

y t o assur e completion o

f the wor k i n accordanc e wit

haccepted industr y practices . I

f specia l equipmen

t o r tes t apparatu s i s recommendedb y th e manufacture

r involved , he must

us e tha t equipmen t o r apparatu s o

r it s equivalen

t acceptable t

o the Administrator. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b ) provides : "Eachperso n maintaining o r altering , o r performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o tha t wor k i n suc hamanne r an dus e material s o

f suc haquality , tha

t th e condition o

f the aircraft , airfi-ame , aircraf t - 1

-regardin g th e standar dtha t Complainan t

employ s t o "judg e th e airworthines s conditio n o f aircraf t unde r 1 4 C.F. R§ § 91.7(a ) an d121.153(a)(2). ^ B y it s "Answe r t o Respondents ' Partia l Motio n t o Dismis s an dfo r aMor e Definit e Statement " ("Answe r t o Motion" ) serve dMarc h12 , 2009 , Complainan t

contend s that

i t provide dResponden t

withsufficient

notic e o f th e violation s allege di n th e Complain t

an drequest s tha t

acivi l penalt y o f

$15,000 ^ b e assessed.' * O n Marc h18 , 2009 , Responden t serve d"Surrepl y t o Partia l Motion t o Dismiss , an dfor a Mor e Definit e Statement " ("Surreply"). ^ In response , o n Marc h25 , 2009 , Complainan t serve d "Motio n t o Strike th e Respondent' s Surrepl y t o Partia l Motion t o Dismiss , an dfor aMor e Definit e Statement " ("Motio n t o Strike" ) contendin g tha t th e Surrepl y i s redundan t an dmay no t b e file dat

thi s poui t i n th e proceeding. ^ O n Apri l 2 , 2009 , Responden t serve d"Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motion t o Strike Surreply " ("Oppositio n t o Motio n t o Strike") , arguin g tha t th e Surrepl y "is avaluable expansio n of th e record , an dshoul db e allowe din." ^ Fo r th e reason s se t

fort hbelow , w e den y Respondent' s Motion t o Dismis s an dgran t Complainant' s Motion t o Strike . LBACKGROUN D

engine , propeller , o

r applianc e worke

do n wil l b e a t leas t equa l t o it s origina

l o r properl y alteredcondition (wit

h regar dt o aerodynamic function , structura l strength , resistanc e t

o vibration an

ddeterioration , an

dothe r qualitie s affectin g airworthiness). " 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a

) provides : "N

o person ma

y operat e acivil aircraf

t unles s i t i s in a n airworth y condition. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) provides : "Except a s providedi

n paragraph(c ) o

f thi s section , n

o certificat e holde r ma y operat e a n aircraf t unles s tha t aircraft.. . (2 ) I s in a

n airworth y conditio n an

dmeets th e applicable airworthines s requirements o

f thi s chapter , including thos e relating to identification an dequipment. " ^ Motion to Dismis s a

t 7 , 8 . ^Compl.5IV-2 . • * Answe r t o Motion a

t 6-8 . ^ Surrepl y a t 1 . The contents o

f th e Surrepl y ar e discussedi n Par

t D o f thi s Order . * Motio n t o Strik e a t 2 . 7 , Opposition t

o Motion t o Strik e a t 1-2.

- 2Th e Complain t allege s fiv e violation s of th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs"). ^ First , it allege s that

Responden t

operate dan aircraf

t i n a n unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a). ^ Second , i t allege s that

Responden t

fle w th e aircraf

t withinoperabl e instrument s o r equipmen t

an dtha t th e aircraf

t wa s not operate di n accordanc e withth e applicabl e condition s an dlimitation s o f th e Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t ("MEL") , i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.628(a)(5).' ° Third , i t allege s tha t

Responden t

faile dt o perform prope r maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b). " Responden t argue s tha t

th e allegation s tha t

i t violate d1 4 C.F. R§ § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2 ) ar e "insufficien t o n thei r fac e an dmus t

therefor e b e dismissed."' ^ Th e Complain t

allege s th e followin g facts : O n Ma y 17 , 2008 , Responden t operate da

n Airbu s A320-21 2 ("th e aircraft" ) o n afligh t tha t too k of f an dlande dat

Miam i Internationa l Airport ("th e flight") . Prio r

t o th e flight , maintenanc e was performe do n th e aircraft , durin g th e cours e of whic hth e spoile r

serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e wer e place d i n maintenanc e mode.'" * After th e maintenanc e wa s performed , th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e no t returne dt o operationa l fligh t mode.* ^ Responden t

operate dth e fligh t

withth e spoile r

serv o actuator s i n maintenanc e mode.' ^ Accordin g t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Mzinua l fo r th e aircraft , spoiler s lef

t i n maintenanc e mod e wil l caus e "unwante dmovemen t of th e spoiler."' ^ Accordin g t o th e aircraft' s MEL , th e aircraf t caimo t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g

* Se e Compl . ^ ni-(a ) t o Ill-(e) . ' Se e id . M n-19 , ffl-(a), Ill-(e) . ' ° Se e id . ffl n-1 1 t o n-16 , ffl-(b). " Se e id . ffl II- 4 t o U-S , m-(c) , ni-(d) . ' ^ Motio n t o Dismis s at

3-8 . Th e Motio n t o Dismis s doe s no t addres s Complainant' s clai mtha t Responden t

violate d 1 4 C.F.R . §121.628(a)(5) . " Compl . f

II-3 . 

### "'w.^n-4 . ^^Id.\ll-5 . ' * Se e id . M n-5,11-1 0 t o 11-13,11-15,11-16 . ^' ' Id.tll-6 . - 3 -ar e i n an inoperabl e condition . Durin g th e flight , bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize dAircraf

t Monito r ("ECAM" ) displaye damessag e indicatin g tha t ther e was afailur e of on e of th e aircraft' s spoile r

servojacks.' ^ Durin g takeoff , a s wel l a s twent y minute s int o th e flight , th e ECA M wa s indicatin g tha t four win g rol l spoiler s wer e "no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout. " Th e aircraft' s pilot s wer e awar e tha t th e ECA M wa s indicatin g tha t four win g rol l spoiler s wer e "no t

operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout."^ ' Durin g th e aircraft' s firs t landin g attemp t at Miam i Internationa l Airport , th e aircraft' s lef t win g ti p mad e contac t

withth e runwa y an dth e landin g attemp t

wa s aborted.^ ^ Th e Complain t allege s tha t

thi s faile dlandin g attemp t wa s cause db y th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers.^' ' Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s dispute s th e fact s allege di n th e Complaint . Accordin g t o Respondent , th e aircraf t ha dreache dth e en dof

it s leas e t o Responden t

and , pursuan t

t o th e term s of th e lease , Responden t

sen t th e aircraf

t fo r maintenance.^' * Responden t allege s tha t

after th e maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t wa s completed , th e aircraf t wa s t o b e returne dt o th e lessor.^ ^ Prio r t o returnin g th e aircraft , amaintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t wa s performe dt o ensur e tha t th e aircraf t was airworthy . Responden t contends tha t

i t was onl y durin g th e flight , after take-off , tha t th e cre w discovere daproble mwithth e win g rol l spoilers.^ ^ Responden t contend s tha t accordin g t o asubsequen t investigation , th e spoiler s ha dbee n move dint o maintenanc e mod e

^Ud.fU-l4 . 

### " Compl . f]in-io,n-ii . ^ Id . mn-15 , n-16 . The fou r allegedl y inoperative win

g rol l spoiler s were : lef

t win g rol l spoile

r No . 3 , lef t win g rol l spoile r No . 5 , righ

t win g roll spoile

r No . 3 , an drigh t win g roll spoile

r No . 5 . The Complain

t doe s not indicat e wha t causedrigh

t win g roll spoiler s No . 3 an

dNo . 5 t o becom e inoperative . ^Ud.fU-l3 . ^^W.^n-17,n-18 . "W . ^11-18 . ^ Motion to Dismis s a

t 1 -2 . ^ ' Id . a t 2 . ""Id . ^'Id .

- 4durin g amaintenanc e operatio n conducte da t th e instructio n o f

th e aircraft' s subsequen t lessee.^ ^ Responden t

assert s that

"non e o f th e wor k ordere db y [Respondent ] woul dhav e require dth e spoiler s t o b e move dint o maintenanc e mode , an dnon e of [Respondent's ] wor

k instruction s authorize dshiftin g th e spoiler s int o maintenanc e mode."^ ^

I LDISCUSSIO N Sectio n 13.208(c ) of

FAA' s Rule s an dPractic e set s ou t th e standar dfor

adequac y of

a Complaint : " A complain t shal l se t fort hth e fact s alleged , an y regulatio n allegedl y violate db y th e respondent , an dth e propose dcivi l penalt y i n sufficient detai l t o provid e notic e of an y factual o r lega l allegatio n an dpropose dcivi l penalty. " A motio n t o dismis s for

insufficienc y ma y b e grante dif i t i s shown

- "tha t th e complain t

fail s t o stat e aviolatio n of aprovisio n o f

th e Federa l aviatio n statut e liste di n th e firs t

sentenc e i n 4 9 U.S.C . 46301(d)(2 ) o r i n 4 9 U.S.C . 47531 , o r any implementin g rule , regulation , o r order , o r aviolatio n o f

th e Federa l hazardou s material s transportatio n statute , 4 9 U.S.C . 5121-5128 , o r an y implementin g rule , regulatio n o r order."^ ^ Responden t

argue s tha t

four of th e claim s allege di n th e Complaint , rea di n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o Complainant , ar e insufficien t becaus e the y alleg e lega l conclusion s instea dof facts.^ ^ Responden t

cite s Cleg g v . Cul t

Awarenes s Network

i n support

o f th e propositio n tha t allegin g solel y lega l conclusion s i s insufficien t i n notic e pleading . ^

^ Yet , a s th e Complainan t

''Id . ''Id . ^ ° 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.208(c) ; Cit y ofPhila. , FA A Docke t

No . CP08EA0009 , FDM S No . FAA-2008-0510 , Administrativ e La w Judge' s Orde r Grantin g i n Par t

an dDenyin g i n Par t

Motio n t o Dismis s th e Complain t at 3 (Au g 5 , 2008) . ^ ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(1) . ^ ' Motio n t o Dismis s at

3-8 . Th e four

allegedl y insufficien t

claim s ar e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2) . " Id . at 3 (citing generall y Cleg g v . Cul t Awarenes s Network , 1 8 F.3 d752 , 754-5 5 (9th Cir. 1994)) .

- 5

-notes^^ , Cleg g was acas e betwee n privat e litigant s i n whic hth e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e wer e controlling . In a

n administrativ e proceeding , acomplain t "i s sufficien t

if th e responden t 'understoo dth e issue ' an d'wa s afforde dfull opportimity ' t o justif y it s conduc t

durin g th e cours e of th e litigation. ' O n amotio n t o dismiss , th e complaint' s allegation s ar e accepte da s true . Accordingly , w e evaluat e th e sufficienc y of th e Complain t

unde r thi s standard . A . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b ) Claim s Responden t

contend s that

"[i] n orde r

t o prov e aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) , th e Administrato r

mus t alleg e [ ] that

th e Responden t

ha s use dcertai n methods , techniques , o r practices... " an dtha t

"a n integra l elemen t

t o a43.13(b ) clai mi s [an ] allegatio n tha t th e Responden t

performe dth e maintenance."^ ^ Responden t argue s that , sinc e th e Complain t fail s t o alleg e that

Responden t

performe dth e maintenanc e a t issue , o r tha t th e maintenanc e wa s performe dunde r

Respondent' s mstruction , th e claim s shoul db e dismisse dfor insufficiency . Complainan t

respond s that

i t i s irrelevan t

whethe r th e maintenanc e wa s performe dby , o r imder th e directio n of

. Respondent."^ " "Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363 , th e Responden t i s primaril y responsibl e for

th e performanc e of

th e maintenanc e of

it s aircraf

t .. . [an dthis ] regulatio n doe s not

allo w ai r carrier s t o evad e thei r

primar y responsibilitie s b y delegatin g thei r maintenanc e obligation s t o thir dparties."'^ ^

^ * Answe r t o Motion a

t 5 n.3 . ^ ' Se e Clegg a t 75 4 (cas e reviewedunde

r FRCP 12(b)(6)) . ^ * AlohaAirlines . Inc . v . Civil Aeronautic s Bd. , 59 8 F.2d250 , 26 2 (D.C . Cir . 1979)(quotin g NLR B v . Macke

y Radi o & Tel . Co. , 30

4 U.S . 333 , 35 0 (1938)) ; Flying FoodGrroup, Inc . v . NLRB , 47 1 F.3 d178,18 3 (D.C . Cir . 2006) . ^''Riverdal e Mill s Corp. , FA A Orde r No . 2000-2 5 a

t 1 (De c 21 , 2000) (citing , generally . Unite dState s v. Gaubert , 49 9 U.S . 315,327(1991)) . ' * Motion t

o Dismis s a

t 4,5 . ''Id . '" ' Answe r t o Motion a

t 6 . * ' I d(citing Alask

aAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2004-8 , a

t 6 (Sept 30,2004)) . 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 provides : (a ) Eachcertificat

e holde r i s primaril y responsibl e for

~ (1 ) The airworthines s o

f it s aircraft , including airframes , aircraf t engines , propellers , appliances , an dpart s thereof

; an d - 6 -In Alask aAirlines , Inc. , a n ai r carrie r was hel dt o b e not

responsibl e for

th e maintenanc e deficiencie s performe db y it s independen t contractor s becaus e th e airlin e neithe r kne w no r

ha d reaso n t o kno w o f

th e maintenanc e deficiencies.'* ^ O n appeal , th e Administrato r reversed.'*' ^ Accordin g t o th e Administrator , 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 "doe s no t allo w ai r carrier s t o evad e thei r primar y responsibilitie s b y delegatin g thei r maintenanc e obligation s t o thir dpartie s ... . Th e court s an dth e Administrato r . . . hav e indicate drepeatedl y i n pas t case s tha t

an ai r carrier' s duties , whic hinclud e astatutor y dut y t o exercis e th e highes t possibl e degre e o f

care , ar e non delegable."'*' * Unde r

§ 121.363(b) , "arrangin g maintenanc e withsomeon e els e doe s no t reliev e th e ai r carrie r o f it s primar y responsibilit y fo r airworthines s an dmaintenance."'* ^ Th e Administrato r

als o pointe dt o a

n FAA-issue dguidanc e emphasizin g ai r carriers ' responsibilit y for maintenanc e performe db y independen t contractors.'* ^ Accordingly , w e fin dtha t th e Complain t

allege s sufficien t

fact s which , if

proven , woul dsupport

aconclusio n tha t

Responden t violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b) . Th e Complain t

allege s tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) whe n i t performe d maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t withou t usin g th e methods , technique s an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e mzinua l for th e aircraft."* ^ Th e Complain t further claim s tha t Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b ) whe n Responden t di dno t perfor mth e maintenanc e i n (2 ) Th e performanc e o f

th e maintenance , preventiv e maintenance , an dalteratio n o f it s aircraft , includin g airframes , aircraf t engines , propellers , appliances , emergenc y equipment , an dpart s thereof , i n accordanc e with it s manua l an dth e regulation s o f thi s chapter , (b ) A certificat e holde r may mak e arrangement s wit h anothe r

perso n for

th e performanc e o f

any maintenance , preventiv e maintenance , o r alterations . However , thi s doe s no t reliev e th e certificat e holde r o f th e responsibilit y specifie di n paragrap h (a ) o f thi s section . " ^ FA A Docke t

Nos . CP02NM0001 , CP02NM0002 , an dCP02NM0003 , FDM S Nos . FAA-2002-11411 , 11412 , an d 11413 , Orde r

Grantin g Respondent' s Motio n for Decisio n at

3 (Ja n 10 , 2003) . '* ' Alask aAirlines , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2004- 8 at

1 (Octobe r

4 , 2004) . " ^ Id . a t 6 . * ^ Id . (emphasi s i n original) . '^ ^ Id ; Fligh t

Standard s Handboo k

Bulleti n fo r

Airworthiness , HBAW-1996-05 B at 2 (1996) : eac h airlin e i s "responsibl e fo r

th e performanc e o f

al l element s o f

it s continuou s airworthines s maintenanc e program. " '^ ^ Se e Complain t

n 11- 4 t o II-8 , in-(c) . - 7 -amanne r

tha t resulte di n th e conditio n of th e aircraf

t bein g a t leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r properl y altere dcondition . Unde r Alask aAirlines , Inc. , Responden t wa s responsibl e for

th e maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft.'* ' Althoug hResponden t claim s tha t

i t di dno t orde r th e maintenanc e procedure s that cause dth e spoiler s t o b e lef t i n maintenanc e mode . Responden t admit s tha t

th e aircraf

t was imde r leas e t o Responden t

whe n Responden t

sen t th e aircraf

t fo r maintenance^" , an dth e Complain t allege s tha t

Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t o n th e fligh t

afte r maintenanc e wa s performed.^ * A s th e ai r carrie r operatin g th e aircraft . Responden t wa s responsibl e fo r

th e aircraft' s maintenance , howeve r

th e maintenanc e wa s ordered . Moreover , th e fact s allege dare sufficien t t o support

th e clai mthat

th e maintenanc e wa s improperl y conducted . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t o n th e flight.^^ Prio r

t o th e flight , th e aircraf

t underwen t

maintenance.^" * A s aresul t o f tha t maintenance , th e aircraft' s spoile r serv o actuator s for

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e wer e allegedl y lef

t i n maintenanc e mod e for th e duratio n o f

th e flight , contrar y t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l for

th e aircraft . Further , th e aircraft' s ME Lallegedly proscribe s dispatchin g th e aircraf

t whe n tw o o r

mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n an inoperabl e condition,^ ^ Sinc e bothth e aircraft' s maintenanc e manua l an dth e ME Lallegedly warne dagains t leavin g th e win g rol l spoiler s i n maintenanc e mod e durin g th e flight , th e Complain t allege s

•* * Se e id . ffl n-4 , II-5 , H-S , ni-(d) . " ' Se e Alask aAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2004- 8 a

t 5-7 (Oct 4 , 2004) : Unite

dParce l Service , FA

A Docke t No . CP08SO0007 , FMD S No . FAA-2008-0384 , Administrative La w Judge' s Initia

l Decision a

t 2 n. 5 (Nov 13 , 2008) . ^ ° Se e Motion t o Dismis s a

t 1- 2 (the aircraf

t "was sen t t o arepair station fo r overhaul befor

e being returnedt

o th e lessor") . ^ ' Complain

t \II-3 . Responden

t doe s not den y tha t it operatedthe aircraf

t on th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight an d the Motio n t o Dismis s merel

y state s tha

t the "aircraf

t was flown on amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight." ^ ' Se e Alask aAirlines , Inc. , a

t 2,5-7 . " Compl . 1 n-3 . 

### '*w.^n-4 . " Id . MII- 4 t

o II-6,11-12 , n-13,11-15 , n-16 . '* M ^11-14 . - 8 -sufficien t

fact s t o conclud e tha t

th e maintenanc e was conducte dcontrar y t o th e methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manual , i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a).^ ^ Th e Complain t

als o allege s sufficien t

fact s t o conclud e tha t

maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t was conducte di n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b) . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

bothth e aircraft' s ME Lan dth e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l warne dagains t dispatchin g th e aircraf

t with inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers.^ ^ Th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l allegedl y warn s tha t "i f th e spoiler s ar e lef

t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s wil l cause d[sic ] unwante d movemen t

o f th e spoilers."^ ' Moreover , th e ME Lallegedl y wam s tha t an aircraf

t ma y no t b e dispatchedwithtw o o r

mor e spoiler s i n an inoperabl e condition . Despit e thes e warnings , afte r maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraft , th e aircraf t wa s allegedl y operate dwithfou r inoperabl e spoilers.^ ' Thos e allege dfact s suppor t th e conclusio n tha t

Responden t

di dnot performth e maintenanc e i n suc hamanne r tha t th e conditio n o f

th e aircraf

t was at leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dcondition . Accordingly , Respondent' s allege dviolation s of 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b ) ar e sufficientl y pleade di n th e Complaint . Th e motio n t o dismis s thos e claim s i s denied .

B . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a ) Claim s Responden t

contend s tha t

i n orde r t o violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) , th e aircraf t mus t hav e bee n operate deithe r "(1 ) i n an unairworth y conditio n o r (2 ) i n amanne r

tha t fail s t o mee t th e applicabl e airworthines s requirement s o f Chapte r 1 o f th e C.F.R . Similarly , Responden t

"W . Mn-6,II-14 . ''Id . 5 9 M^II-6 . W . ^11-1 4 M 1511- 5 ^ ' Motion t o Dismis s a

t 6 . *'W. ^ 11-14 . * ' M MII-5 , n-12,11-13,11-15 , n-16 .contend s that t o violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) , th e aircraf t mus t hav e bee n operate di n a

n unairworth y condition . ^

^ Responden t

argue s that

thos e claim s shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e th e Complain t

fail s t o describ e th e airworthines s standar dtha t th e aircraf

t faile dt o meet , cit e a requiremen t

o f th e aircraft' s typ e desig n tha t di e aircraf

t faile dt o meet , o r

describ e aconditio n tha t mad e th e aircraf

t unsaf e t o fly . Despit e Respondent' s concerns , th e Complain t allege s fact s sufficient t o support

afindin g tha t

tha t Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d 91.7(a) . Th e airworthines s standar di s clear : "T o b e airworthy , an aircraf t must : (1 ) conformt o atyp e desig n approve dimde r

atyp e certificat e o r

supplementa l typ e certificat e an dt o applicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d(2 ) b e i n aconditio n for saf e operation."^ ^ Th e Complain t

contain s fact s allegin g tha t Responden t

violate dbot hprong s of

thi s standard . First , th e Complain t

allege s that

th e aircraft' s conditio n durin g operatio n violate dth e aircraft' s MEL.^^ Operatin g a

n aircraf t whos e instrument s o r

equipmen t

ar e not i n conformity withth e aircraft' s ME Lma y b e sufficient t o dee mth e aircraf

t ou t of conformity withit s typ e design.^ ^ Th e Complain t

als o contain s fact s allegin g tha t th e aircraf

t was not i n aconditio n fo r

saf e operation . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

durin g th e flight . Responden t operate dth e aircraf

t with tw o lef t win g rol l spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode , contrar y t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manual . Moreover , Responden t

allegedl y operate dth e fligh t withatota l o f

four inoperabl e win g rol l

"W . at7 . *^W . at7,8 . " Del . Skyways LLC , FA

A Orde r No . 2005- 6 a

t 2 (Ma r 8 , 2005) ; Cal . Helitech , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 8 a

t 2 n. 7 (Au g 11,2000) . * * Se e Compl . f l 11-14,11-15 . The ME Lallegedl y indicate s tha

t th e aircraf t cannot b e dispatchedwhe

n two o r mor e spoilers o n eithe r win g ar e i n a n inoperable mod

e an dth e Complain

t allege s that , during di e flight, fou r win g roll spoilers (two the lef

t win g an dtwo on the righ

t wing) wer e inoperative . * ' Se e DeltaAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 97-2 1 a

t 1 (Ma y 28 , 1997 ) ("I

t ha s long bee

n the agency' s positio n tha

t withou t a n applicable provision i

n the Minimu

mEquipmen

t List , i f a n instrumen

t o r piec e o f equipmen t i s inoperable , die

n the airworthines s certificat e fo r th e akcraf t i s ineffective.") . 

### * * Compl . n n-6 , n-12 , n-13 , n-is , n-i6 . -10

-spoilers ; and , accordin g t o th e aircraft' s MEL , th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n an inoperabl e condition . Finally , th e Complain t allege s tha t becaus e of

th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers , th e aircraft' s lef t win g ti p mad e contac t

withth e runwa y durin g th e aircraft' s firs t landin g attempt , causin g th e landin g attemp t t o b e aborted.^ ° Th e Complain t

assert s tha t

tli e aircraf

t wa s operate di n an unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a) ; an dth e fact s allege di n th e Complain t woul dsupport aconclusio n tha t

operatin g th e aircraf

t wit hfou r

inoperativ e win g rol l spoiler s cause dth e aircraf t t o b e operate di n an unsaf e condition.^ * Accordingly , Respondent' s allege dviolation s of 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a ) ar e sufficientl y pleade di n th e Complaint . Th e motio n t o dismis s thos e claim s i s denied . C . Mor e Definit e Airworthines s Standar d In th e alternative . Responden t request s tha t

w e orde r Complainan t

t o "stat e th e fact s an d objectiv e standard s tha t

support " th e claim s tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a).^ ^ Th e Rule s of Practic e fo r

FA A Civi l Penalt y Proceeding s provid e tha t "[a ] party ma y fil e amotio n fo r

mor e definit e statemen t

o f an y pleadin g whic hrequire s arespons e unde r thi s subpart. " Responden t argue s tha t

th e Complain t

fail s t o provid e adequat e notic e o f "wha t objectiv e standard s th e FA A i s usin g t o judg e th e airworthines s conditio n o f th e aircraft."'' * A s note dabove , th e airworthines s standar di s clear . Indeed , th e Motio n t o Dismis s indicate s tha t

Responden t

i s awar e of

th e airworthines s standard , stating : "Th e ter m'airworthy ' ha s bee n define db y th e Administrato r an dth e court s t o mea n tha t th e aircraf

t meet s it s typ e *'w.Mn-i4,n-i5 . TMW.1 [ 11-17 , n-18 . ^'MH[n-19,in-(a),in-(e) . ' ^ Motion t o Dismis s a

t 7 , 8 . "14C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(3) . ' " Motion t o Dismis s a

t 7 . " Del . Skyways LLC , FA

A Orde r No . 2005- 6 a

t 2 (Ma r 8 , 2005) ; Cal . Helitech , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 8 a

t 2 n. 7 (Au g 11,2000) . -11

-desig n an di s i n aconditio n for saf e operation."'' ^ Moreover , Responden t employ s th e airworthines s standar di n settin g ou t it s argumen t

that th e Complain t

faile dt o mak e out

aprim a faci acas e tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2).^ ^ Thus , th e Complain t wa s clear enoug hfor

Responden t

t o frame aresponsiv e pleading , an dComplainan t i s not require dt o provid e amor e definit e statemen t of airworthiness . ^

^ D . Complainant' s Motio n t o Strik e th e Surrepl y 7 Q Respondent' s Surrepl y contends tha t th e standar dfo r

sufficienc y i n administrativ e pleading s a s propose db y th e Complainan t i n it s Answe r

t o th e Motion i s overl y lenient . Th e Surrepl y als o contend s tha t FA A regulation s d o no t

hol dapart y liabl e for

regulator y violation s that wer e not committe db y th e party , an dtha t th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e tha t

Responden t o 1 performe dth e deficien t

maintenance . Finally , th e Surrepl y argue s that th e Complain t

onl y allege s lega l conclusion s unsupporte db y prope r allegation s o f

fact.^ ^ Complainant' s Motio n t o Strik e respond s b y arguin g tha t di e Surrepl y shoul db e stricke n becaus e i t i s redundan t

an d because , unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218 , asurrepl y ma y not b e file di n respons e t o aComplainant' s answe r t o aRespondent' s motion . Respondent' s Oppositio n t o th e Motion t o Strik e contend s tha t 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 8 doe s no t proscrib e th e Surrepl y an dtha t th e Surrepl y "i s avaluabl e expansio n of

th e record , an dshoul db e allowe din." ^

^ * Motion t o Dismis s a

t 6 (citing Am

. Ai r Network , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2008-1 0 a

t 1 1 n.3 5 (Oct

07,2008)) . ^ ^ Id . ( " .. . the Administrato r must alleg e tha t the aircraf t (1 ) faile dt o mee t a n airworthines s requiremen

t in the regulations , o

r (2 ) faile dt o mee t the requirement s o

f it s typ e design , o

r (3 ) wa s not in acondition fo

r saf e operation") . ^ See supr anot

e 70 . " " The Surrepl

y refers t o the Complainan

t a s "Administrator " i

n thi s proceeding , althoughthe Complainan t is , in fact, the FA

A Actin g Regiona l Counsel . Sinc e the Administrato r review s A U decision s i

n thes e proceedings , h e i s no t apart y in thi s proceeding an

dcannot b e involvedi

n the prosecution o

f thi s case . ^"^e e Surrepl

y a t 1 . * ' Id . a t 2 *^W . at3 . * ^ Motio n t o Strik e a t 2 . ^ Opposition t

o Motion t o Strik e a t 2 . -12

-Th e Rule s of Practic e for

FA A Civi l Penalt y Proceeding s provid e tha t "[a]n y part y may mak e amotio n t o strik e an y insufficien t allegatio n o r

defense , o r

an y redundant , immaterial , o r Q C inelevan t matte r i n apleading. " I n Warbelow' s Ai r

Venture , Inc. , w e accepte dasurrepl y tha t presente dargument s that wer e not mad e i n th e party' s prio r filings . Unlik e tha t

proceeding , th e Surrepl y her e merel y reframe s argument s Responden t mad e i n it s Motion t o Dismiss . First , th e Surrepl y contend s tha t th e standar dfo r

sufficienc y i n administrativ e pleading s a s propose db y th e Complainan t i n it s R 7 Answe r t o th e Motio n t o Dismis s i s overl y lenient . Accordin g t o th e Surreply , th e Complain t R R mus t alleg e facts , not

merel y lega l conclusions . Thi s essentiall y reiterate s Respondent' s argumen t i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s tha t "[a]llegin g lega l conclusions , rathe r tha n allegin g facts , o n i s insufficien t

i n notic e pleading. " Th e Surrepl y goe s o n t o conten dtha t FA A regulation s d o no t hol dapart y liabl e for

regulator y violation s tha t wer e not committe db y th e part y an dthat th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e tha t

Responden t

performe dth e deficien t

maintenance.^ ° Thi s argumen t mirror s Respondent' s argumen t i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s tha t th e Complaint' s failur e t o stat e fact s linkin g th e Responden t t o th e deficien t

maintenanc e "represent s afailur e t o stat e avita l elemen t i n th e caus e of

action."^ ' Finally , th e Surrepl y reiterate s Respondent' s argumen t tha t th e Complain t

onl y allege s lega l conclusion s unsupporte db y prope r allegation s of

facts.^ ^ Sinc e th e

* ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(4) . C f Cit y o f Chi. , FA A Docke t

No . CP05GL0014 , DM S No . FAA-2005-22671 , Orde r Denyin g Motio n t o Dismis s 1 (Fe b 17 , 2006 ) (denyin g Motio n for Leav e t o Fil e Repl y t o Answer , a s wel l a s Reques t fo r Respon dt o Repl y t o Answer , becaus e "nothin g i n th e Rule s permit s suc h areply , an dnothin g i n th e repl y convince s u s tha t

it shoul db e received") . ' ^ Se e Warbelow' s Ai r

Venture , Inc. , FA A Docke t No . CP00AL0002 , DM S No . FAA-2000-7215 , Orde r o f Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e at 3 (Jun e 14 , 2005) . ^ ^ Surrepl y at

1 . ' ' Id . at 3 ("[m]erel y statin g th e lega l conclusions , withou t factual support , i s insufficient") . ' ' Motio n t o Dismis s at

3 (citing Cleg g v . Cul t

Awarenes s Network , 1 8 F.3 d752,754-5 5 (9th Cir. 1994)) . ' ° Surrepl y at

2 " Motio n t o Dismis s at

4 . ' ^ Surrepl y at

3 . Se e Motio n t o Dimis s at 3-7 . -13

-

1 ^ :i .Surrepl y merel y reiterate s argument s alread y presente db y th e Responden t i n it s Motio n t o Dismiss , i t

i s redundant . Accordingly , th e Motio n t o Strik e i s granted . III . CONCLUSIO N Accordingly , w e conclud e that th e Complain t

allege s sufficien t

fact s an dI T I S ORDERE D THAT . (1 ) Respondent' s "Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfor aMor e Definit e Statement " i s denied ; (2 ) Complainant' s "Motio n t o Strik e th e Respondent' s Surrepl y t o Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfor

aMor e Definit e Statement " i s granted . (3 ) Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(2)(ii) , Responden t shal l serv e an dfil e an answe r not late r tha n 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f

thi s order . ^

^

S O ORDERED .

li e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' ^ 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(2)(ii) state s tha t "[i] f the motion t

o dismis s i s not

granted , th

e responden

t shall file a

n answe r an dshal l serve acop

y o f the answe r o n eachpart

y not late r tha n 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f the administrativ e la w judge' s ruling o

r orde r o n th e motion t o dismiss. " -14

-FA A Docke t No . CP09EA000 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000^' *

ON E COP Y Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC , an dth e La w Office s of Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W. , Ste . 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 TEL : (202 ) 628-677 6 FAX : (202)628-894 8 Davi dM . Cohen , Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : (718 ) 553-327 0 FAX : (718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Rormi e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mE12-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202)366-753 6

'' * Servic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier , us e th

e followin g address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 15

-