CERTIFIE D MAIL-RETUR N RECEIP T REQUESTE D CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E I certif y that th e foregoin g Amende dMotio n to Dismis s ha s bee n place dthi s dat e i n th e Cf\f ^ ^ ^ Unite dState s mail , postag e prepaid , b y Certifie dMail-Return Receip t Requeste d addresse da s follows : ORIGINA L& ONEX:OP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S.W . Washingto n D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building

- Roo m201 4 ON ECOP Y Zachary M . Berman , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counci l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Rockawa y Boulevar d Jamaica , N.Y . 1143 4 Tel : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-556 9 ! 1 C O C 3 

### 0

Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6 

## Date: \V-^0

- V\

^ EugerT

e K . McDwnoug h President , Millio n Ai r

Richmon d 40 0 Portuge e Roa d Richmon dIntl . Airport Virgini a23250-241 7 Tel : 804-222-370 0 FAX : 804-222-404 4I n th e Matte r o f Carolin aBlue Air . LL C FA A Docke t

N . CPIOEAOOI

O FDM S No . FAA-2010-097 2 • ' t

AMENDE D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S N o violatio n occurre dan dn o fin e i s appropriat e

STATEMEN T O FUNDISPUTE D FACT S 1 . Undispute d 2 . Undispute d 3 . Undispute d 4 . Undispute d 5 . Undispute d 6 . Undispute d 7 . Dispute d

ARGUMEN T 1 . N o argumen t 2 . N o argumen t 3 . N o argumen t 4 . Th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e A D applie dt o th e initial complianc e in 1998 . 5 . Durin g th e FAA' s inspectio n o f Marc h21 , 2010 , alogboo k entry o f Augus t 20 , 200 9 wa s reviewed . Th e Augus t 20 , 200 9 dat e indicate s th e en do f th e work-scop e an di s incidenta l t o whe n th e aircraf t wa s las t subjec t t o th e require dinspection . Th e aircraf t entere damaintenanc e even t o n Augus t

1 , 2009 . Th e practicalit y i s th e A D may hav e bee n accomplishe dsom e week s prio r t o th e lo g entry date , a s part o f alarge r work

scope . It woul db e pruden t

t o expec t that recurren t AD s woul db e accomplishe din th e first few days , allowin g an y anomalie s t o b e discovere dearl y enoug hno t t o affect a delivery date . A logboo k

dat e [FA R43. 9 (a ) (2) ] doe s no t indicat e whe n th e A D wa s accomplishe dno r

whe n th e aircraf

t wa s returne dt o service , tw o majo r an dvery different elements . It

i s not asubstitut e fo

r th e effectiv e dat e o f

a n AD .6 . N o argumen t

7 . Th e tex t

that i s paraphrase di n Complainant' s Motio n fo r Decisio n i s irrelevan t

t o th e issu e a t hand . Thi s paragrap ho f th e Airworthines s Manua l (hereinafte r th e "ADM" ) refer s t o th e initial complianc e times , no t th e recurren t

thresholds . (AD M Pag e 54 ) Th e paragrap hprio r

t o th e on e quote din th e Motion , albei t stil l applicabl e t o initial compliance , state s (AD M Pag e 53) : c . Calenda r

Time s an dDates . (! ) Calenda r

time s (e.g. , "withi n si x month s afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f

thi s AD" ) ma y b e use d t o expres s complianc e time s whe n adirec t relationshi p betwee n calenda r tim e an dairworthines s (includin g corrosion ) ca n b e established ; a n aircraft' s utilizatio n rat e varie s greatl y throughou t th e fleet ; o r

logistica l suppor t

consideration s (part s availability , repai r facilit y availability ) dictat e tha t

complianc e b e on e o n a n attritio n basi s withacalenda r deadlin e establishe dt o minimiz e impac t

o n operator s (tha t

is , avoi dunnecessar y groundin g o f aircraft) . Conside r th e followin g analogy : E.xample : A

n aircraf t ha s an A D visua l inspectio n du e befor e th e nex t fligh t an d recurren t withi n thre e day s thereafter . I t i s accomplishe da t

100 0 on Monda y morning . I s i t du e agai n by 100 0 Thursday mornin g o r b y midnigh t

Thursday ? If th e additiona l hour s o f

th e day were consequentia l an dth e intentio n wa s t o hav e it accomplishe do n o r

befor e Thursda y a

t 1000 , it woul dhav e bee n state din th e tex t o f th e AD "du e eac h7 2 hours " no t du e withi n thre e days . Th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e AD o r

th e initia l complianc e dat e ha s n o relevanc e o n recurren t thresholds . Th e controllin g facto r o f th e A D in thi s cas e i s not th e day o f

th e mont hth e las t recurren t inspectio n lo g entry wa s entered , no r th e tim e o f

day it wa s performed . Th e A D di dno t specif y consecutiv e months , uni t months , o r

calendar months . It

di dno t stat e "eac h18 0 days" . N o violatio n occurre dprovidin g th e recurren t inspectio n was accomplishe din February o r th e aircraf

t wa s no t operate di n Marc h201 0 unti l it was . There i s aparagrap hin th e AD M fo r recurren t thresholds . Accordin g t o th e ADM , o n Pag e 5 6 i n th e sectio n Repetitiv e Complianc e Time , th e followin g i s stated : /. Repetitiv e Complianc e Time . (1 ) Whe n a n initia l inspectio n i s followe db y repetitiv e inspection s a t periodi c intervals , tli e followin g statemen t

may b e used , bu t

it shoul db e include din th e instructio n itself , no t a s aseparat e complianc e paragraph : Withi n th e next [2 5 hours ] time-in-servic e (TIS ) after th e effectiv e dat e o f

thi s AD , unles s alread y don e within th e las t [7 5 hours ] TIS , an dthereafte r a t interval s no t

t o excee d[10 0 hours ] TIS fro mth e las t inspection , inspect.. . (2 ) Th e phras e "unles s alread y don e within th e las t 7 5 hour s time-in-service " account s fo r an operato r

tha t ha s mad e a n inspectio n before th e effective dat e o f thi s AD . I f

th e complianc e tim

e fo r th e initia l inspectio n i s th e sam e a s tha t fo r th e repetitiv e intervals , th e followin g statemen t ma y b e used : Compliance : Require dwithi n th e nex t [2 5 hours ] time-in-servic e (TIS ) afte r th e effectiv e dal e o f thi s AD , an dthereafte r

a t interval s no t

to excee d[2 5 hours ] TI S fro mth e las t inspection . (3 ) Again , th e complexity o f th e statemen t

wil l determin e whethe r

i t i s bes t issue da s par t o f th e complianc e a s par t

o f th e inspectio n instruction . Th e AD M i s obviou s in it s instructions : (3 ) D o no t

us e calenda r

time Jus t becaus e it

ensure s tha t

th e AD i s complie dwit

ha t acertai n tim e (Pag e 54 , ADM ) Th e Motion for

Decisio n acknowledge s that exceedin g thre e hundre dhour s i s immaterial . Th e AD M distinctl y advise s agains t usin g dates a s acomplianc e threshold . Th e Motion fo r Decisio n i s base do n aselectiv e an dimprope r interpretatio n o f

th e ADM .In th e Matte r o f Carolin aBlu e Air . LL C FAA Docke t

N . CPIOEAOOI

O FDM S No . FAA-2010-097 2

AMENDE D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S N o violatio n occurre dan dn o fine i s appropriat e

STATEMEN T O FUNDISPUTE D FACT S 1 . Undispute d 2 . Undispute d 3 . Undispute d 4 . Undispute d 5 . Undispute d 6 . Undispute d 7 . Dispute d

ARGUMEN T 1 . N o argumen t 2 . N o argumen t 3 . N o argumen t 4 . Th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e A D applie dt o th e initial complianc e in 1998 . 5 . Durin g th e FAA' s inspectio n o f Marc h21 , 2010 , alogboo k entr y o f Augus t 20 , 200 9 wa s reviewed . Th e Augus t 20 , 200 9 dat e indicate s the en do f th e work-scop e andi s incidenta l t o whe n th e aircraf t was las t subjec t to th e require dinspection . Th e aircraf t entere damaintenanc e even t o n Augus t

1 , 2009 . Th e practicalit y i s th e AD ma y hav e bee n accomplishe dsome week s prio r t o th e lo g entr

y date , a s part

o f alarger work

scope . It woul db e pruden t

t o expec t that recurren t AD s woul db e accomplishe din th e first fe w days , allowin g any anomalie s t o b e discovere dearl y enoug hno t t o affect a delivery date . A logboo k

dat e [FA R43. 9 (a ) (2) ] doe s no t indicat e whe n th e A D wa s accomplishe dno r

whe n th e aircraf

t was returne dt o service , tw o majo r an dver y different elements . It

i s no t asubstitut e for

th e effectiv e dat e o f

a n AD .6 . N o argumen t

7 . Th e tex t

that i s paraphrase din Complainant' s Motio n for Decisio n i s irrelevan t

t o th e issu e a t hand . Thi s paragrap ho f th e Airworthines s Manua l (hereinafte r th e "ADM" ) refer s t o th e initial complianc e times , no t th e recurren t

thresholds . (AD M Pag e 54 ) Th e paragrap hprio r

to th e on e quote din th e Motion , albei t stil l applicabl e t o initial compliance , state s (AD M Pag e 53) : c . Calenda r

Time s an dDates . (1 ) Calenda r

time s (e.g. , "withi n si x month s afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f

thi s AD" ) ma y b e use d t o expres s complianc e time s whe n adirec t relationshi p betwee n calenda r tim e an dairworthines s (includin g corrosion ) ca n b e established ; a n aircraft' s utilizatio n rat e varie s greatl y throughou t th e fleet ; o r

logistica l suppor t

consideration s (part s availability , repai r facilit y availability ) dictat e tha t

complianc e b e on e o n a n attritio n basi s withacalenda r deadlin e establishe dt o minimiz e impac t

o n operator s (tha t

is , avoi dunnecessar y groundin g o f aircraft) . Conside r th e followin g analogy : Example : A

n aircraf t ha s an A D visua l inspectio n du e before th e nex t fligh t an d recurren t withi n thre e day s thereafter . I t i s accomplishe da t

100 0 on Monda y morning . I s it du e agai n b

y 100 0 Thursday mornin g o r b y midnigh t

Thursday ? If th e additiona l hour s o f

th e da y were consequentia l an dth e intentio n wa s t o hav e i t accomplishe do n o r

before Thursda y a

t 1000 , it woul dhav e bee n state din th e tex t o f th e A D "du e eac h7 2 hours " no t du e withi n thre e days . Th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e A D o r

th e initial complianc e dat e ha s n o relevanc e o n recurren t thresholds . Th e controllin g facto r o f th e A D in thi s cas e i s not th e day o f

th e monthth e las t recuixent inspectio n lo g entry was entered , no r th e tim e o f

day it was performed . Th e A D di dno t

specif y consecutiv e months , uni t months , o r

calendar months . It

di dno t stat e "eac h180 days" . N o violatio n occurre dprovidin g th e recurren t inspectio n wa s accomplishe di

n February o r

th e aircraf

t wa s no t operate din Marc h201 0 unti l it was . Ther e i s aparagrap hin th e AD M fo r recurren t thresholds . Accordin g t o th e ADM , o n Pag e 5 6 i n th e sectio n Repetitiv e Complianc e Time , th e followin g i s stated : /. Repetitiv e Complianc e Time . (t ) Whe n an initia l inspectio n i s followe db y repetitiv e inspection s a t periodi c intervals , th e followin g statemen t

ma y b e used , bu t

i t shoul db e include di

n th e instructio n itself

, no t a s aseparat e complianc e paragraph : Withi n th e next [2 5 hours ] time-in-servic e (TIS ) after th e effective dat e o f

thi s AD , unles s alread y don e withi n th e las t [7 5 hours ] TIS , an dthereafte r a t interval s no t

to excee d[10 0 hours ] TI S fro mth e las t inspection , inspect.. . (2 ) Th e phras e "unles s alread y don e withi n th e las t 7 5 hour s time-in-service " account s fo r a n operato r

tha t ha s mad e an inspectio n before th e effective dat e o f thi s AD . I f

th e complianc e time fo r

th e initia l inspectio n i s th e sam e a s tha t fo r th e repetitiv e intervals , th e followin g statemen t ma y b e used : Compliance : Require dwithin th e nex t [2 5 hours ] time-in-servic e (TIS ) afte r th e effectiv e dal e o f thi s AD , an dthereafte r

a t interval s no t

to excee d[2 5 hours ] TI S fro mth e las t inspection . (3 ) Again , th e complexity o f th e statemen t

wil l determin e whethe r

i t i s bes t issue da s par t o f th e complianc e a s par t

o f th e inspectio n instruction . Th e AD M i s obviou s in it s instiuctions : (3 ) D o no t

us e calenda r

timejus i becaus e I

t ensure s that

th e AD i s complie dwit

ha t acertai n time (Pag e 54 , ADM) Th e Motio n for

Decisio n acknowledge s that exceedin g thre e hundre dhour s i s immaterial . Th e AD M distinctl y advise s agains t usin g dates a s acomplianc e threshold . Th e Motio n fo r Decisio n i s base do n aselectiv e andimprope r interpretatio n o f

th e ADM .

^»fe. .