### SERVED: APRIL 30, 2012

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

) FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Complainant, ) FAA DOCKET No. CP10SW0020 ) v. ) (Civil PenaltyAction) ) OKLAHOMA SKYDIVING CENTER, ) ) Respondent. ) DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 )

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN


### Found: 1) Respondent violated 14 CFR §§91.405(a), 91.7(a), and 91.13(a) as charged; and 2) Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of$8,000.

I. Background D 

### J·**~l** r"

. .J

Respondent Oklahoma Skydiving Center ("Respondent" or "Oklahoma Skydiving"), is a Part 91 operatorlocated at the Cushing, OK airport. 1 It operates a skydiving service. The instant matter grew out of a ramp inspection conductedby agents ofthe FederalAviation Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") on an aircraft owned and operatedby Respondent.
The agency's Complaint, as amended, asserts that Oklahoma Skydiving violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"): 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a), which requires operators to inspect their aircraft and to have discrepancies repairedbetween inspections in accordance with FAR rules; §91.7(a), whichbars the operation ofa civil aircraft unless itis in an airworthy condition; and §91.13(a), whichprohibits a person

1 Exh. A-3. Complainant's exhibits will be designated "Exh. A-" and Respondent's as "Exh. R-." Complainant's Briefwill be "Compl. Br.," Respondent's, "Resp. Br.," and Complainant's Rebuttal Brief, "Compl. Rebut."2

from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endangerlife and property. The agency seeks a civil penalty of $8,000. Respondent denied the allegations.
A hearing on the charges was held onJanuary 10,2012, in Oklahoma City, OK I determined that a written decision was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances (Tr. 312). The parties have filed briefs and the matter now is ready for decision.
The burden ofproofrests with the agency. To prevail itmust establish proofby a preponderance ofthe reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 14 C.F.R. §§13.223 and 13.224; 

### Toyota MotorSales, FAA Order No.**94~28,** pp.**6~7,** 1994 FAA Lexis 275, p.lO (September 30, 1994). Complainant also bears theburden ofjustifying the amount ofthe civil penalty it seeks. 

### Phillips BuildingSupply, FAA Order No.**2000~**20, p. 8, 2000 WL 33125266, p. 4 (August 11,2000). The burden shifts to Respondent to prove any affirmative defenses itmay assert. 

### ContinentalAirlines, Inc., FAA Order No.**98~6,** p. 5, 1998 WL 231441, p. 8 (April?, 1998).
I holdthat the facts and circumstances ofthis casejustify findings ofviolations of each count andwarrant an assessment against Respondent of $8,000.



### II. The Evidence

A. The Ramp Inspection and Aftermath
The ramp inspection triggering this case tookplace on the morning ofJuly 11, 2009, at Respondent's hangar facility in Cushing, OK. Itwas a busy Saturdaymorning. The aircraft in question, a Cessna 206, was being readied to carry skydivers. People were milling about. Some were getting ground instruction; others were donning parachutes (Tr.156).
A

vtation safety

### insp~ctors Lana Boler (then Lana West) and Robert Terry of FAA's Flight Standards District Office ("FSDO") in Oklahoma City, OK carried out the inspection (Tr.**24~**25, 28, 66, 68,**151~53,** 191; Exhs.**A~**3,**A~9).** Each inspector testified for Complainant. They statedthat their examination uncoveredfour discrepancies. These formed the basis for the agency's Complaint.


### The first alleged discrepancyinvolved the seat stops installedon the pilot's seat rails. This type of aircraft has two such stops. The inspection disclosed that they were heldbybolts withlocknuts. This was an incorrect way to secure the seat, the inspectors stated. The methodused didnot conform to the aircraft's type design. The seat stops required a Cessna seat stop pin and cotterpin. Moreover, the installed seat stops were unsafe, the agency claimed; they presented a "significant" safety risk for the pilot. It was explainedthat seat stops prevent seats from slidingbackward at critical times offlight, such as rotation. Seat sliding at such a time couldlead to a stall spin and3

result in an accident. The installation ofincorrect seat stops has resulted in "numerous" accidents, inspector Boler testified (Tr. 46/47,52/53,60/61,78/79,122/23,131,133/34, 158; Exh. R/K).


### A second asserted discrepancy concerned a hole that hadpunctured the left flap. The inspectors observed the head ofa screw poking through the lower skin ofthe flap. The flap skin was torn around the screwhead. The puncturedflap, they concluded, did not conform to the type design ofthe aircraft. Additionally, this condition riskedjamming the flap. "Asymmetrical flap" couldresult// a "significant" problem ofcontrollability, the FAA inspectors stated. Inspector Terry elaborated that, if one flap came down and the other didnot, a controllability issue would obtain at slow air speeds // possiblyleading to a "very dangerous situation" approaching stall speed. With a condition ofasymmetrical flap, inspector Terry stated, "you could verywell be asking for trouble

..." (Exhs. A/3, A/5; Tr. 33,43/44,53/54,61,97,143/44, 158/63).


### The third charged discrepancyinvolved the underside ofthe center area of the rightflap. Inspector Boler noticed thatithad multiple cracks in the lower skin. Cracks in the flap do not conform to the type design ofthe aircraft, she testified (Tr. 37/ 41, 53, 61,100/01, 103; Exh. A/7).


### The fourth and final alleged discrepancy concerned the left side window. The window was broken in half. The inspectors observed duct tape covering two crossing cracks // a vertical crack which had split the windowin two, and a horizontal crack that extendedhorizontallyfrom that crack aft.
A crackedwindow did not meet the aircraft type design, inspector Boler stated. Nor is duct tape considered an accepted or approved method ofrepair. The witness asserted that a crackedwindow is a potential safetyhazard - a risk for impact with the horizontal stabilizer, the vertical stabilizer, or the rudder during flight. Such impact could cause loss ofcontrol. InspectorTerry wondered ifthe duct tape was strong enough to hold. Couldpart ofthe window fly back and hit a control surface, possibly rendering the aircraft uncontrollable? The inspectors concluded that the operator unacceptably riskedthe safety ofthe aircraft in this condition (Exh. A/6; Tr. 51/53, 105/ 06,109/12,137,144,157/58, 161).

Following the inspection, inspector Boler metwith Oklahoma Skydiving's owner, Mr.Jack Reeves. She explainedthe inspectors' findings to him. Mr. Reeves insisted that the asserted discrepancies failed to render the aircraft unairworthy. More specifically, he claimed that the bolts he hadinstalled were stronger than Cessna's seat/stop specifications (Tr. 77,164,166,179,288, 299).
Before the inspectors left, inspector Boler issued to Oklahoma Skydiving an Aircraft Condition Notice ("Condition Notice") (Tr. 54, 57, 164; Exh. A/8). The Condition Notice warned that the four discrepancies therein listed (and, as noted, the basis for the charges in the Complaint) presented an imminent hazard to safety; the4

Condition Notice also warnedthat operation ofthe aircraft prior to correction wouldbe contrary to the FARs (Exh.**A~8;** Tr. 112, 297). The FAA witnesses elaborated that the discrepancies made the aircraft unairworthy because 1) they didnot meet the type design ofthe aircraft; and 2) rendered the aircraft unsafe to fly (Tr. 57,**176~77,** 183, 191).
Itis not disputed that Mr. Reeves said, andrepeated, thathe would operate the aircraft and take skydivers thatday despite the inspectors' warnings. A short time later the inspectors, whohadleft the facility, observed the Cessna take off. They soon saw two passengersjump out ofthe aircraft (Tr.**58~60, 142~43,** **164~65, 167~68,** **298~99;** Exh.**A~9).** Oklahoma Skydiving performedprobably 35 cycles that weekend, Mr. Reeves acknowledged. About one hundred skydivers parachuted out (Tr. 301, 306).
The discrepancieswereproperly addressedbyJuly 17,2009. The Cessna's tachometer showedthat 19.7 hours had elapsed following the ramp inspection (Tr. 100, 112,212, Exh.**A~10).** Mr. Reeves statedthathe had taken the Condition Notice and aircraft to his mechanic the Monday following the inspection Quly**13th)~~** operating it without obtaining the requiredferry permit

- andreceived the properly repaired aircraft four days later, on the 1th (Tr.**299~300,** 309).

B. Findings and Conclusions


### 1. Section 

### 91.405(a)
This provision obligates regulated entities such as Respondent to fix (or appropriately defer) unresolved discrepancies before operating. A discrepancy unaddressed or improperly addressed renders an aircraft unairworthy. 

### Delaware Skyways, LLC, FAA Order No.**2005~6** (March 18, 2005), p. 5. Complainant proved that Oklahoma Skydiving violated this section. Respondent asserts in its defense that the agency failed to show that the inspectors' examination ofthe Cessna 206 onJuly 11,2009 haduncovered any discrepancies. Itpoints out that the inspectors did nothave any source material with them, such as a manual or type certificate data sheet, to confirm theirbeliefs: Respondent argues that observation alone is an inadequate basis for finding discrepancies (Tr.**82~83).** Additionally, the inspectors never consultedrelevant maintenance records to determine ifthe supposed discrepancies they had observed had infact already beenproperly addressed. Oklahoma Skydiving also asserts that the alleged discrepancies were matters too insignificant to affect the airworthiness ofthe aircraft.
These arguments are rejected. I find that Complainant showedthat each ofthe four instances under review constituted a discrepancy. Initially, it is found that the inspectors were trustworthy. Their testimony was credible. That finding, coupledwiththeir expertise, constitutes sufficient groundfor upholding their determination that discrepancies were presentbased solely on their scrutiny ofthe aircraft. The inspectors testified that each ofthe four issues they5

uncovered constituted an improper deviation from the aircraft's type design; they additionally stated that the matters risked the safety offlight to an unacceptable degree. Their testimony was persuasive. Either ofthese conclusions, concerning any ofthe four matters, wouldrender the aircraft unairworthy.
Itis true that, as Respondentpointed out, not every nick or scratchrenders an aircraft unairworthy. Not every departure from factory condition constitutes a discrepancy (Tr. 61, 144). But it was the inspectors' consideredview that the matters addressed in the Condition Notice

- and confirmedby their subsequent review ofthe aircraft's type certificate data sheet (Tr. 

### 133) -eitherdiverged from factory or otherwise approved or acceptedconditions, or affected safety, orboth, in sufficient degree to compel the conclusion that the aircraft was not airworthy (Tr. 61). The inspectors' expertise and experience**warran~s** the conclusion that theyproved their points. No persuasive evidence suggesting a contrary conclusion, moreover, came to light. Against this background, I find that the four issues each constituted a discrepancy.
Itwas not Complainant's duty to confirm or bolster the inspectors' findings by initiating an examination ofany documents to which Respondent may have had access touching onmaintenance. When the inspectors notified Oklahoma Skydiving oftheir findings following their ramp inspection, the burden ofproduction shifted to Respondent. Respondent, after all, was in the bestposition toknow where pertinent records might be located andwhat those records contained. To ask the agency to assume the burden oflocating maintenance records under these circumstances wouldbe unreasonable andunfair as well as illogical. It was Oklahoma Skydiving's obligation to inform and turn over to the FAA any records demonstrating maintenance complianceto, in effect, mountits affirmative defense. As such, an inference that the required maintenance had notbeen performed may be drawn from the failure of Respondent to do
so (seeTr. 64).
The evidence in fact showedthat inspectorBoler had asked to see Respondent's logbooks. But they were notproduced (T r. ll6). Respondent's owner, Mr. Reeve'S, maintained at the hearing that the logbooks were off site and effectively unavailable (Tr.**302~03).** Nonetheless, the ipspectors couldhave been directed to the logbooks- or any documents touching onmaintenance**~~** then orlater. They were not. In these circumstances the agency was entitled to presume that neither the logbooks, nor any other documents in Respondent's possession or control, contained any information tending to absolve Respondent ofthe discrepancies the inspectors hadnoted. 2
Maintenance records, as the Administrator often has stated, are the linchpin of the agency's enforcement efforts. The agency is permittedto rely on themin determining whetherrequired maintenance has been performed. 

### WattsAgriculturalAviation

### d!b/ a GrowersAirService, FAA Order No.**91~8** Quly 5, 1991),**pp.15~16,** 

### review den. sub. nom. Watts

2 In a similar vein, see California Helitech, FAA OrderNo. 2000-IS (August II, 2000), in which the Administrator stated that a counterargument that discrepancies asserted by the agency were nonetheless within limits "would be an affirmative defense on which [Respondent] would have the burden ofproof" (p. 7, n. I2).6


### AgriculturalAviation v. 

### Busey, 977 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir.1992). The FAA, then, may sustain its burden ofproving that the requiredmaintenance has not beenperformed by relying on the absence ofwritten maintenance entries. See, e.g., 

### Delaware Skyways, LLC, FAA Order No.**2005~6** (March 18, 2005).

2. 

### Section 91.7 Complainant showed that Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §9l.7(a) by operating the aircraft in anunairworthy condition.
To be airworthy, inspector Boler testified, an aircraft must 1) conform to its type design orproperly altered condition and 2) be safe for flight (Tr. 57, 61). This is the Administrator's test. See, e.g., 

### Delaware Skyways LLC, FAA Order No.**2005~6** (March 8, 2005), p. 2; 

### California Helitech, FAA Order No.**2000~**18 (August 11, 2000), p. 3 n. 7. Both parts ofthe test mustbe satisfiedbefore an aircraft may be considered airworthy. Complainantproved that Respondent's aircraft was not airworthyunder either prong ofthe test. As the discussion above concludes, the evidence showed that each of the discrepancies caused the aircraft to fail to conform to its type design. That circumstance itselfcreated an unairworthy aircraft. Further, three ofthe four discrepancies rendered the aircraft insufficiently safe for flight, thus failing the second, independentprong ofthe test. 3 Respondent acknowledged that its Cessna 206 operatedwithout addressing the inspectors' asserted discrepancies. 4 Against this background, I find and conclude that Respondentviolated section 9L7(a) ofthe FARs as charged.


### 3·

. 

### Section 91.13(a)
I find and conclude that this allegation was· also proved.
In the absence ofextraordinary circumstances, careless orreckless operation of an aircraft follows as a residualviolation once Complainant has established operation of
anunairworthy aircraft. Ace

### Pilot Training, FAA Order No.**2005~12,** 2005 WL 2214609 (August 17, 2005), p. 9; 

### USAir, Inc., FAA Order No.**1992~70** (December 21, 1992), p. 6. The recordin this case does not show any extraordinary circumstancesjustifying a finding

3 Complaina,nt was not required to show that the described conditions were unsafe in fact. It was enough to demonstrate that the conditions carried the potential for harm. PolynesianAirways, FAA Order No. 1994- 40 (December 9, 1994); David H. Mayer, FAA Order No. 1997-12 (February 20, 1997). This Complainant did so. 4 With one exception. Mr. Reeves testified that he had installed one ofthe two required Cessna-authorized· seat stops before the inspectors left the hangar. He also stated that he had installed the second one after they left, having told them that he would do so. See Tr. 80-82, 166, 177-79, 295-300, 310. The inspectors, however, neither recalled that he had installed a seat stop in their presence nor recalled that he had promised to install the second one prior to operating. 

### Mr. Reeves supplied no independent proof, such as maintenance records, ofhis statements or his purported action. The evidence, I fmd, failed to prove either ofRespondent's claims.J 7

that Oklahoma Skydiving did not violate l4 C.F.R. §9l.l3(a) as well. The evidence in fact plainly demonstrates the elements ofthe violation. It shows that, by operating in the face ofthe inspectors' findings andwarnings, Respondent put the safety ofits pilots and its customers, the skydivers, atunacceptable risk. By its actions Oklahoma Skydiving endangeredlife and property to an unacceptable degree. Complainant thus proved a violation of§91.13(a). Respondent's principal witness, a pilot and mechanic holding A & P and flight engineer certificates, testified that the inspectors' conclusions were incorrect. The matters they identified could notproperlybe labeled as discrepancies, he stated. Nor did the alleged discrepancies render the aircraft unairworthy.
The witness' expertise, however, was limited. Additionally, his conclusions often were significantly, ifnot fatally, qualified. In sum, his testimony was unpersuasive. I give it very little weight. It does not appreciably affect my findings and conclusions. I discuss the witness' testimony in greater detail below. · After the witness asserted that Respondent's seat/rail securement was acceptable, he acknowledged thathe did notknow ifit conformed to the aircraft's type design (Tr. 243/44). He had notlooked at any data (Tr. 263). He also statedthat he believed that the screwpoking through the skin wouldneither create an imminent hazardnor take the aircraft out ofits type design (T r. 246, 249); buthe acknowledged thathe hadrelied only on the photograph in evidence and was not sure what the photograph in fact showed. Nor hadhe consulted the relevant manual (Tr. 249/50). Further, after initially asserting that the windowrepair appeared acceptable (Tr. 252), the witness again admitted thathe hadfailed to review the manual; indeed, he didnot "have enough data to go on right now" (Tr. 255). Nor did he knowwhether the cracks near the rivets presented an imminentflight hazard, because he had not consulted relevant manuals (Tr. 256). Indeed, thewitness acknowledged that he did notreview any ofthe pertinentmaintenance manuals (Tr. 270).
Additional testimony further threw the witness' conclusions into doubt. He statedthat he has never has__returned a Cessna to service (Tr. 261/62). Indeed, he has never looked at a Cessna 206 maintenance manual (Tr. 275). (He has flown one "once or twice" (Tr. 234)). The witness did not actually see the alleged discrepancies (Tr. 273). Nor did he see the aircraft, let alone inspect itfor the conditions cited (Tr. 239). The witness didlittle more than review the Enforcement Investigative Report and study the photographs and other exhibits (Tr. 237/41).
The circumstances surrounding the witness' testimony, I conclude, severely undermined its persuasiveness. For that reason I largely discredit it. Finally, I reject any notion that the conduct ofany ofthe agency's enforcement personnel is germane to any questions underreview. Any suggestion that inquiry into Complainant's adherence to a guidebook ormanualfor agency investigators is pertinent is rejected. This proceeding is concerned with whether Respondent violated the allegations set outin the Complaint. Whether and to what extent any agency8
investigator followed any guidelines simply**~sa** distraction. 5

In view ofthe foregoing, I find andconclude that Respondent violated FAR§§ 9l.405(a), 91.7(a), and 9l.l3(a) as set outin the Complaint. 6



### III. Penalty The agency has asked for a total civil penalty of $8,000. It argues that this amount is reasonable andjustifiedby the circumstances (Compl. Rebut., p. 27). Respondent takes exception. It asks that no violation be found andthat no civil penalty be assessed (Resp. Br., p.17).
I conclude that the proofwarrants a civil penalty in the amount of $8,000.

A. Issues Complainant is obligated to consider the following factors when determining the civil penalty amount: (1) the nature and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the respondent's degree ofculpability; (4) the

. respondent's history ofpriorviolations, 

### ifany; (5) therespondent's ability topay the civil

penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stayinbusiness; and (7) other matters as justice may require. 

### See, e.g., Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No.**2008~**11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. The determination weighs whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate, the private orpublic character ofthe violation, andthe attitude ofthe violator. The agency also considers the respondent's size, particularly in determining the offender's ability to absorb the sanction. An appropriate civil penalty mustreflect the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations (Tr.**110~**11, 117; 

### Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No.**2008~11** (November 6, 2008), p.12; 

### EasternAirCenter, Inc., FAA Order No.**2008~3** Qanuary 28, 2008)). A civil penalty shouldhave deterrent as well as punitive purposes. 

### CaliforniaHelitech, FAA Order No.**2000~18,** (August 11, 2000), p.ll. It should provide sufficient incentive to deter therespondent and**similarly~situated** entities from future violations. 

### Folsom's**A~r**Service, 

### Inc., Id., p. 20.
The agency has issued enforcement guidelines for its employees to follow in recommending appropriate sanctions. The guidelines also advise the public ofthe sanction policy that the Administrator intends to abide by in adjudicating individual
cases. 

### Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No.**2008~**ll (November 6, 2008), p. 13. (A relevant excerptwas admitted as Exhibit**A~**2. Itis also found atwww.airweb.faa.gov). The guidelines set outpenaltyrecommendations within three ranges of amounts

- designated minimum, moderate, andmaximum

- to bestreflect the nature and

5 I note, moreover, that inspector guidelines in evidence in this proceeding, Order 8900.1, appear to apply only to matters in thejurisdiction ofthe National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"). See Exh. R-C; Tr. 124-26. Respondent also relied on excerpts from Order 8900.1 in its brief. See, e.g., Resp. Br., pp. 13-14. The NTSB, ofcourse, is a different agency with a different enforcement framework and responsibilities. NTSB materials, while often persuasive, simply are not applicable in FAA proceedings. 6 I have considered all other arguments advanced by Respondent and reject them without comment. \,, 9

circumstances ofeach violation. Mitigating and/or aggravating factors are also part of the calculus. Complainant states that its civil penalty determination followed the guidelines (Com pl. Br., p. 31; 

### see Exh. A-2). Under them, among other things, an unairworthy aircraft having an actual orpotential adverse effect on safe operation warrants a civil penalty in the moderate-to-maximumrange. The agency concluded that, in view ofthe guidelines' recommendations and 

### all the factors pertinent to this case, a civil penalty in the amount of $8,000 isjustified.
B. Decision
In weighing all the facts and circumstances, I find and conclude that a civil penalty assessment of $8,000 is appropriate. It is commensurate with the nature and extent ofthe violations, while accounting in suitable measure for mitigating and aggravatingfactors.
Therecord shows that Respondent's aircraft was flown approximately 35 times, carrying about 100 passengers, over two days withoutresolving four known discrepancies. These actions unnecessarily reducedthe aircraft's margin of safety. The aircraft was operated continually outside the specifications ofits type certificate and in an unsafe condition. Moreover, the aircraft was flown in defiance ofwarnings thatit was not fit to operate and that operation wouldunacceptably risk the safety ofthe pilot and skydivers. This circumstance constitutes an aggravating factor in the calculus. The aircraft also was flown to be repaired without seeking or obtaining a Special Flight Permit requiredfor a ferry flight. While this fact was not cited as a violation, it also constitutes an aggravating factor. Respondent's actions, I find, warrant a significant penalty.
The sanction amount of $8,000, I conclude, suitably accounts for the totality of the circumstances ofthis case. It is substantial. It also is within the guidelines' moderate-to-maximumrange of suggested penalty amounts. I find also that the penalty has sufficient "'bite," or deterrent effect. 

### See Toyota MotorSales, Inc., FAA Order No. 94-28 (September 30, 1994), p.ll.
I note also that a civil penalty in the same amount has been levied in roughly similar circumstances. Ace Pilot Training, a Part 141 flight school, was assessed a civil penalty of $8,000 for operatingfour aircraft in violation oftwo FARs: 14 C.ER. §39.3, whichprohibits operation ofaircraft when Airworthiness Directives are incomplete, and (as a residual violation) 14 C.F.R. §91.13(a). 

### AcePilot Training, FAA Order No. 2005-12 (August 17, 2005).10

Oklahoma Skydiving Centeris hereby assessed a civil penalty of $8,000 for violations of FAR §§91.405(a), 91.7(a) and 9l.l3(a) as describedin this Initial Decision. 7

Attachment

- Service List

7Any appeal from the Initial Decision to the Administrator must be in accordance with section 13.233 of the Rules ofPractice, which requires 1) that a notice ofappeal be filed no later than 10 days (plus an additiona15 for mailing) from the date ofthis order and 2) that the appeal be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus 5 for mailing) from the date ofthis order. Each is to be sent to the Appellate Docket Clerk, Room 924-A, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, and to agency counsel. Service upon the presidingjudge is optional.



# ____________________

# ...........

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Bret A Glenn, Respondent's Counsel Bret A Glen, Attorney at Law. P.C. 414 N.W. 4th Street, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 TEL: 405-702-4980 FAJ(: 405-702-4984 

### ONE COPY

Gregory S. Lander, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region Federal Aviation·Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 633 Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5083 FAJ(: 817-222-5945
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 ,, U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E., Room (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121Staffi Assistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FAA Docket No. CP 1 OSW0020 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.