# RECEIVED
BEFORE THE 

## JUN 25 2015 

## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF**TRANSPORTATIO~EARING** DOCKET FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRTION 10 WASIDNGTON, D.C.
Inthe matter of AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent-Appellant Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032

APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DECISION OF U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN APPEAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AIRBORNE MAINTENACNE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Pursuant to 13.233(d) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil PenaltyActions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(d), Respondent-Appellant, Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby files this briefin support ofits appeal ofthe Initial Decision ofU.S. Administrative Law Judge I.E. Sullivan, served on May 5, 2015 (the "Initial Decision"). The Initial Decision, inter alia, referenced and adopted a prior Order Granting in Part and Denying in Pattthe FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, served

onAprill, 2015 (the "Aprill, 2015 Order"), in which Judge Sullivan held that there was
no genuine dispute as to any material facts in this case and, therefore, ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") is entitledtojudgment as a matter oflaw. The Initial Decision also referenced and adopted the Judge's prior Order Accepting Respondent's Proffered Stipulation, servedAprillO, 2015, regarding the amount ofthe proposed civil penalty.In accordance with section 13.233(b), AMES appeals the Initial Decision because the record shows that the grant ofthe FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment was not made in accordance with applicable law, precedent andpublic policy, and was otherwise in errorbecause, (i) the Judge inappropriately weighed conflicting evidence in favor of the FAA, (ii) the Judge did not considerthe applicable case law, and (iii) the Judge used

as evidence ofan admission the AMES response to the FAA's Letter ofInvestigation. Further, the Judge made prejudicial errors regarding material facts and the admissibility ofthe AMES outside expertreport in granting the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 29, 2013, the FAAissued a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP") in which it alleged that AMES violated three provisions ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") in connection with main landing gear ("MLG") changes AMES performed on three B-727 aircraft operatedby Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA"). After receiving the FNPCP, AMES requested ahearing in this matter onJune 13, 2013. The FAA filed its Complaint onJune 20, 2013. OnJuly 11, 2013, the case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. TheFAA's Complaint alleged that AMES had violated sections 43.13(a), 43.13(b) and 145.205(a) ofthe FARs in connection with MLGchanges it performed on the three CCIA aircraft in 2009 and 2010, and requesting that an orderbeentered against AMES assessing a civil penalty in the amount of$61,875 for the purported violations. Complaint at 2-3. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that: (1) on or about March 2010, AMES replaced both MLG on CCIA's B-727 aircraft registration no. N287SC, including

2reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors; (2) on or about August 2009, AMES replaced both MLG on CClA's B-727 aircraft registration no. N899AA, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors; and (3) on or about October 2009, AMES replaced both MLG on CCIA's B-727 aircraft registration no. N898AA, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors. Complaint at

### 1[ 4.a.-c. The FA."- claimed with respect to each ofthe MLG changes that the installation and rigging ofthe landing gear doors was not accomplished in accordance with the applicable B-727 Aircraft 1v1aintenance Manual ("AMM"). Complaint at 1[4. d. The FAA claimedthat the landing gear doors were improperly installed and rigged in thatbushings and shims were naissing from the attach fittings and bushings and shims were naisplaced on the attach fittings. Complaint at 1[4. e. On July 18, 2013, AMES answered the FAA's Complaint. In its Answer, A.l\lES denied that its reinstallation and rigging ofthe landing gear doors on the three CCIA aircraft were not accomplished in accordance with the B-727 AMM

**(Answer~** 4.d.) and specifically denied that the doors were improperly installed and rigged in that bushings and shims were naissing from the attach fittings and bushings and shims were misplaced

on the attach fittings, as the FAA alleged in its Complaint.

**Answer~** 4.e. Over the course ofthe next year and ahalf, the parties engagedin extensive discovery and motions practice, which culnainated onJanuary 30, 2015 with each patty filing a motion for summaryjudgment. OnFebruary 16, 2015, AMES filed an Answer in Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment (herein after "AMES Opposition"). The next day, on February 17, 2015, theFAA filed its Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (herein after "FAA

3Opposition"). OnFebmary 26, 2015, each partyfiled a reply in support ofits motion for snmmary. See Reply ofRespondent to FAA's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated Februa1·y 26, 2015 (hereinafter "AMES Reply"); FAA's Reply in Supp011 ofMotion for SummmyJudgment, dated Febmary 26, 2015 (hereinafter "FAA Reply"). OnMmch 13, 2015, the parties participated in telephonic oralmguments

on the cross-motions for summmyjudgment. On March 30, 2015, Judge Sullivan issued an Order Denying Respondent's Cross-Motion for SummmyJudgment finding thatAMES had not met its bnrden ofproof

as the movingpany. Two days later, on April!, 2015, the Judge issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the FAA's Motion for SummmyJudgment (the "April 1, 2015 Order"). In herApril 1, 2015 Order, the Judge held that there was no genuine dispute as to any material facts regarding the alleged violations and therefore the FAA was entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw. 1

1Judge Snllivan found that there were genuine issues ofmaterial fact in dispute regarding the amount ofthe FAA's proposed civil penalty and, therefore, denied this portion ofthe FAA's Motion for SummaryJndgment only. The Judge's April!, 2015 Order also reconfirmed the heming then scheduled for May 5-9, 2015 in Orlando, Florida, for the sole purpose of addressing the parties' dispnte on the amount ofthe proposed civil penalty. On April 7, 2015, in orderto avoid going to a hearing onthis issue only, AMES filed a stipulation in which it stated that ifJndge Sullivan's April!, 2015 Order and her March 30, 2015 OrderDenying Respondent's Cross-Motion for SummmyJudgment me sustained after AMES has exhansted its rights ofappeal, that AMES will not dispute the amount ofthe civil penalty ($61,875) proposed in theFAA's Complaint orthe per aircraft equivalent thereof ($20,625). Respondent's StipulationRegmding the Amount of the FAA's Proposed Civil Penalty or, In Lien Thereof, Partial Withdrawal ofRequest for a Heming on the Amount ofthe Propose Civil Penalty, dated April 7, 2015. On AprillO, 2015, Judge Sullivan issued an Order in which she, interalia, accepted the AMES stipulation regmding the amonnt ofthe proposed civil penalty and cancelled the heming. OrderAccepting Respondent's Proffered Stipulation, Cancelling the Heming, Denying Any Inferred Requestfor Interlocutory Appeal, and Granting Other Relief, datedApril 10, 2015.
4On May 5, 2015, Judge Sullivan issued awritten Initial Decision ofU.S. Administrative Law Judge in which she, inter alia, referenced and adopted the findings ofher April I, 2015 Order granting summaryjudgmentin favor ofthe FAA andher April 10, 2015 Order accepting the AMES stipulation regarding the amount ofthe proposed civil penalty, and assessed &'VIES a total civil penalty of $61,875. On May 6, 2015, AMES filed aNotice ofAppeal ofthe Initial Decision with the FAA Decisionmaker2 STATEMENT OFFACTS AMES is arepair station certified underPart 145 ofthe FARs and is located in Wilmington, Ohio. Complaint at 'l[2; Answer at 'l[2; AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1 (FAA Enforcement Investigative Report, Section B, Page 1). AMES is authorized by the FAA to perform maintenance on CCIA's B-727 aircraft. FAA Enforcement Investigative Report, Section B, Page I. AMES had been contracted by Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA") to replace the Main Landing Gear ("MLG") on three ofits B-727 aircraft- N287SC, N898AA and N899AA. At the time, CCIA was ownedby the same parent corporation as AMES and conducted all-cargo operations under Part 121 ofthe FARs, but CCIA is no longer an operating entity. Complaint at 'l[3; Answer at 'l[3.

2 AMES also filed two Notices ofAppeal on April 7, 2015 regarding Judge Sullivan's March 30,2015 Order denying its Motion for Summary Judgment and Judge Sullivan's April!, 2015 Order granting summaryjudgmentin favor ofthe FAA. In her AprillO, 2015 Order accepting the AMES stipulation as to the arnonnt ofthe propose civil penalty, Judge Sullivan stated, while intended for the FAA Administrator, the Notices ofAppeal ofthe April 1, 2015 and March 30, 2015 Orders appear to be premature under 14 C.F.R. § 13.233 and that, once an Initial Decision is filed, AMES has the right under 14 C.F.R. § 13.233 to file aNotice ofAppeal with the FAAAdministrator. Order Accepting Respondent's Proffered Stipulation, Canceling the Hearing, Denying Any Inferred Requestfor Interlocutory Appeal, and Granting OtherRelief, dated AprillO, 2015 at 4. 5On or about March 2010, AMES replacedboth MLG on CCIA aircraft N287SC;
on or about October 2009, AMES replacedboth MLG on CCIA aircraft N898AA; and on
or about August 2009, AMES replaced bothMLG on CCIA aircraft N899AA. Complaint at 'I[ 4.a.-c.; Answer at 'I[ 4.a-c. Each ofthe MLGchanges on the three B-727 aircraft included reinstalling and rigging the previously installed main landing gear doors (the so-called "flying doors") on the aircraft after the MLGs hadbeenreplaced. !d. CCIAhad a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program ("CAMP") that required the B-727 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ("AMM") to befollowed in performing maintenance on its B-727 aircraft. Complaint at 'I[ 5; Answer at 'I[ 5. The FAA alleged that AMES improperly reinstalled andrigged the landing gear doors because the work
was not accomplished in accordance with the B-727 AMM, which AMES has denied. Complaint at 'I[ 4. d.-e.; Answer at 'I[4.d.-e. Accordingly, the FAA allegedthat each time AMES performed maintenance on the B-727 aircraft, AMES had violated three provisions ofthe PARs: 14 C.P.R. § 145.205(a); 14 C.P.R.§ 43.13(a); and 14 C.P.R.§ 43.13(b). Complaint at 'I[ 6. This resulted in a total ofnine alleged violations (i.e., 3 violations for each ofthe three aircraft). Aprill, 2015 Order at 3. The FAAviewed the situation on a "per-aircraft basis" so thatthere were three alleged violations with respect to each aircraft (as opposed to treating each MLGinstallation as its own act ofviolation) but the FAA argued that since two MLG changes were performed on each aircraft that this is an aggravating factor. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment at 23-24. Accordingly, the FAA sought a civil penalty of$20,625 for each aircraft, or a total civil penalty of $61,875 for all nine

6violations. 3 FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment at 23-24; Complaint at'![ 8; April I, 2015 Order at 3, 29-30. As noted, onMarch 22, 20I0, AMES replacedboth MLG on CCIA aircraft N287SC, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors after the MLGs were changed. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgmentExhibits Wand X. Approximately three weeks later, on Apri116, 2010, N287SC experienced a vibration incident after departing Cincinnati- Northern KentuckyInternational Airport ("CVG") and had to return to the airport. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment Exhibits Y, Z, AA and BB. A vibration inspection was conductedby CCIA, which found "excessive freeplay in [the aircraft's] upper rudder and RMLG outboard gear door actuation rod." FAAMotion for Summary Judgment Exhibits Z. The inspection revealedthat a tubularbearing was missing from the landing gear door actuation rod assembly ofthe aircraft's right-handMLG. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgmentExhibits Z, AA, BB. On May 27, 2010, FAA Aviation Safety Inspector BobbyEvens sent a letter ofinvestigation regarding this incidentto CCIA, to which CCIA sent a written response onJune 8, 2010. FAA Motion for Summary JudgmentExhibits AA andBB. CCIA's June 8, 2010 response advised the

3 TheJudge was notpersuadedbythe FAA's argument that since two landing gear doors were involved on each aircraftthat this should be an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate amount ofthe civil penalty. As noted above, however, on April 7, 2015, AMES filed a stipulation in which it stated that ifJudge Sullivan's April!, 2015 Order and her March 30, 2015 Order Denying Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment are sustained after AMES has exhausted its rights ofappeal, that AMES will not dispute the amount ofthecivil penalty ($61,875) proposed in the FAA's Complaint orthe per aircraft equivalent thereof($20,625). See Respondent's Stipulation Regarding the Amount ofthe FAA's Proposed Civil Penalty or, In Lieu Thereof, Partial Withdrawal ofRequest for a Hearing on the Amount ofthe Propose Civil Penalty, dated April 7, 2015. The AMES stipulation was accepted bythe Judge on AprillO, 2015. See Order Accepting Respondent's Proffered Stipulation, Canceling the Hearing, DenyingAny Inferred Request for Interlocutory Appeal, and Granting Other Relief, dated April!O, 2015.
7FAAthat inMarch 2010, AMES replaced theMLG on N287SC and that the tubular bearing is to be removed and re-installed during the MLGchanges. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment Exhibits BE. CCIA also stated in its response that "no other records couldbe located for the removal ofthis tubularbearing orthe wing door rod" and that "A.M.E.S. maintenance was the last certifying agency signing for the installation ofthe tubularbearing until the aircraft turn backwith the high frequency vibrations on Aprill6, 2010
...." Id. However, as Jeffrey Becker, the AMES Director ofQuality Assurance and Training, explained during his deposition on October 29, 2014, CCIA had sent its June 8, 2010response to the FAAbefore AMES and completedits investigation ofthe matter, the AMES mechanic performing the work specifically remembered re-installing the tubularbearing on N287SC, and an intervening tire change was performed on the outboard tire ofN287SC on March 25, 2010, which very likely may caused the tubular bearingto go missing when the landing gear door was moved out ofthe way to facilitate the tire change. AMES Opposition at 17-21, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 42-49, 124-127); Exhibit 7 (CCIA Aircraft Technical Log ReportDocumenting Tire Change). Subsequently, between May 25-27, 2010, FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector FrankLipinski, and FAAAviation Safety Inspector Charles Gasche conducted an inspection ofCCIA aircraft N287SC,N898AA and N899AA at Toledo International Airport. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibits I and J. CCIA and AMES representatives were also present during a portion ofthe Toledo inspection, including Jeffrey Becker, the AMES Director of QualityAssurance and Training. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgmentExhibits I; AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1 (FAA Enforcement Investigative Report, Section B, Page 2). During the inspection ofthe three

8aircraft, a number ofdiscrepancies were observedbythe FAA inspectors in the area of the main landing gear doors. FAAMotion for Summary Judgment Exhibits, I and J. N287SC and N898AA were ferried from Toledo to the AMES facility in Wilmington, Ohio to address the discrepancies. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibits Sand CC. Some ofthe discrepancies onN899AA were addressed at Toledo and the aircraft proceeded on two revenue flights and was thenreturned to the AMES facility for further repairs. FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit M; AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 3 (Becker Tr. at 52). Itis undisputed that between the time AMES performed the MLG changes on N287SC (March 2010), N898AA (October 2009) and N899AA (August 2009), and the FAA's May 25, 2010 inspection, each ofthe three aircraft were engagedin continuous and extensive flight operations. FAAMotion for Summary Judgment at 3, 5, 9 and Exhibit H; AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit 1 (FAAEnforcement Investigative Report, Section B, Page 3 (stating that all three aircrafthadbeen "operated continuously" and "for many months and cycles" between the time AMES performed the MLG changes and the aircraft were inspectedby the FAA). As AMES noted in its Answer in Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment, during this time, the landing gear on N899AA were extended and retracted 1,568 times (784 complete cycles), the landing gear onN898AA were extended and retracted 1,256 times (628 complete cycles) and the landing gear on N287SC were extended and retracted 344 times (172 complete cycles). AMES Opposition at 7 (citingFAA Enforcement Investigative Report, SectionB, Page 3; FAA Motion for Summary Judgment at 3, 5 and 9, Exhibit H). Each ofthe three aircraft experienced at least the normal level ofwear and tear during the

9substantial period oftime between the MLG changes and the FAA'sMay 25,2010 inspection. In addition, as noted, during this period aircraft N287SC underwent an intervening tire change that likely caused the tubularbearing to go missing (AMES Opposition at 17-22, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. 42-49, 123-127), Exhibit 7(CC1A Aircraft Technical Log Report)), and the othertwo aircraft also likelyhad intervening maintenance that could have caused certain ofthe discrepancies. AMES Opposition at 6- 17. The work that was done to address the discrepancies found on the three aircraft upon their return to the AMES facility was documented on a series of so-called "nonroutine" forms. The non-routine forms for N899AA were attached to the FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment as Exhibit N; the non-routine forms for N898AA were attached to the FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment as Exhibit T; and the non-routine forms for N287SC were attached to the FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment as Exhibit DD. AMES provided a detailed explanation for each ofthe discrepancies as documented on the non-routine forms on pages 8-17 ofits Answerin Opposition to Complainant's Motion for SummaryJudgment. Among otherthings, AMES explainedin its Opposition that some ofthe corrective actions taken were not, in fact, required to be done as the aircraft operator instructedAMES to make the aircraft "like new" and "immaculate" even ifthe AMM did not compel the installation ofnew parts (AMES Opposition at 2, Exhibit !(Becker Tr. at 76, 85-86), upon a more complete inspection,
some ofthe discrepancies initially identified, such as "improperhardware stack up," were found notto be the case (AMES Opposition at 2 and 8-9), and the FAA sought to attribute to AMES discrepancies related to hinge covers (called access doors in the

10AMM) and hinge pins even though the applicable AMM section did not direct the maintenance provider (AMES) to install hinges or otherwise disassemble the doorbythe hinge. AMES Opposition at 2, 10, 12-14, 17. Further, the AMES Opposition noted that Jeffrey Becker, the AMES Director ofQuality Assurance and Training, testified that the corrective actionrequiredto rectify any discrepancy was of a minor nature, such as "blend and treat" type repairs, that can readilybe explained by the obvious impact of normal wear and tear on the aircraft. AMES Opposition at 2, Exhibit 1(Becker Tr. at 86- 88, 102-104). Mr. Becker's position was fully consistent with that ofDaniel J. Hancher, the outside expert who AMES retained inthis matter. The Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher was attached as Exhibit 2 to the AMES Opposition. Mr. Hancher, who reviewed the non-routine forms and the corrective actions taken for each ofthe three aircraft stated thatbased on his review ofthe maintenance records thathe had "no difficulty concluding that the issues requiring attention were ofa 'wear and tear' variety and not the result ofimproper reinstallation ofthe MLGs and flying doors." Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher, dated April 30, 2014, at'![ 5. Finally, AMES explained in its Oppositionthat the FAA chose to focus on the discrepancies that were documented as a result ofthe FAA's initial inspection ofthe three aircraft, and the FAAignoredthe more telling and dispositive evidence as reflected in the non-routine forms' description ofthe corrective actions that were actually taken to address the discrepancies. AMES Opposition at 6-7 (citing Mr. Becker's deposition testimony in which he explained that a discrepancy write up isjust an "initialjudgment." Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 113)).

11On September 30, 2010, InspectorLipinski sent a letter ofinvestigation to CCIA regarding the May 25, 2010 inspections at Toledo and the MLG changes on N898AA, N899AA and N287SC. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment, ExhibitFF. CCIA responded to Inspector Lipinski's letter ofinvestigation on October 25,2010. FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit H. CCIA's October 25, 2010 response attached CCIA Corrective Action Report (CAR)#QAACVG004; CAR#QAACVG005 and CAR#QAACVG006. CAR# QAACVG004 and a related Discrepancy Notice were attached to the FAAMotion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit P and 0,respectively. CAR# QAACVG005 and CAR#QAACVG006 were attached to the FAA Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibits V and EE, respectively. A Discrepancy Notice related to these two CARs was attachedto the FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment at U. Subsequently, on March 3, 2011, Inspector Lipinski also sentAMES a letter of investigation regarding the matter. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit GG. On March 21, 2011, JefferyBeckerresponded on behalfofAMES to Inspector Lipinski's March 3, 2011letter ofinvestigation, which again attached CCIA CAR#QAACVG004, CAR#QAACVG005 and CAR#QAACVG006, and aB-727 MLGDoorTraining Module thatAMES had developed, among other documents. Mr. Becker's March 21, 2011 response was attached to theFAA Motionfor SummaryJudgment at Exhibit HH, and the AMES B-727 MLGDoor Training Module was attached as Exhibit QQ to the FAA's Reply in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Becker's March 21, 2011 response, the CCIA CARs and the B-727 MLG Door Training Module are discussed in detail below in Section I. F.

12STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(b), there are three standards ofreview of an Initial Decision issuedby an Administrative Law Judge, depending on whetherfindings offact, conclusions oflaw, or prejudicial errors are implicated. For findings offact, the FAA decisionmaker determines whether the Administrative Law Judge's findings are supportedby a preponderance ofreliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(b)(l). For conclusions oflaw, the FAA decisionmaker determines whetherthey
were made in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy. 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(b)(2). Finally, the FAA decisionmaker determines whether the Administrative Law Judge committed any prejudicial errors that support the appeal. 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(b)(3). SUMMARYJUDGMENT STANDARD Under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), aparty may file a motion for a decision on the merits when it asserts that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact in dispute and the partymaking the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter oflaw. The party making the motion for a decision has the burden of showing thatthere is no genuine issue of material fact disputedby the parties. Ifsuch a motion is filed priorto the hearing, it is analogous to a motion for summaryjudgmentunder Rule 56 oftheFederal Rules ofCivil Procedure. HorizonAirIndustries, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 1996-24, n. 3 (Aug. 13 1996); StebbinsAviation, Inc., DMS No. FAA-2000-7576-16, n. 3 (Aug. 30, 2004)(Initial Decision). Summaryjudgmentis appropriate where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitledtojudgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P.

1356(a). A fact is "material" ifitis capable of affecting the substantial outcome ofthe litigation. Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A dispute is "genuine" ifthe evidence is such that areasonable trier offact could return a verdict for the non-movingparty. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America, 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012). On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed inthe light mostfavorable to the non-moving party. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, 676 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir. 2012). Further, in ruling on a motion for summaryjudgment, the Court "do[es] not weigh the evidence." Hardwick ex rei. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 434 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied 134 S.Ct. 201, (Oct. 7, 2013) (quotation omitted); see alsoAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) ("Credibility determinations, the weighing ofthe evidence, and the drawing oflegitimate inferences from the facts arejury functions, not those of ajudge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summaryjudgment

or for a directed verdict."). ARGUMENT I. In Ruling on the FAA's Motion for Summary .Judgment, the.Judge Impermissibly WeighedEvidence, Made Prejudicial Errors, and the Decision was Not Made in Accordance with Law, Precedent, and Public Policy. It is well established that in ruling on a summaryjudgment motion, courts should not weigh conflicting evidence in favor ofone party and against the other. Sloban v. Mahoning Youngstown Cmty. ActionP'ship, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928 *10 (6'h Cir. 2015) ("A district court may not weigh evidence at summaryjudgment; rather, the court must determine whetherthere is a genuine issue offact for trial.") (citingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)); Potter v. Synerlink Corp., 562 Fed. Appx. 665,

14*676, fn. 9; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7394, **27 (lO'h Cir. 2014) ("Wedo not, however, weighevidence on summaryjudgment, and when a reasonablejurycouldfind for the nonmoving party, summaryjudgmentis inappropriate."); O'Leary v. AccretiveHealth, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 629; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19321, **11 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Itis not for courts at summaryjudgment to weigh evidence ordetermine the credibility of [awitness's] testimony
...")(quotingBerry v. Chicago TransitAuth., 618 F.3d688, 691 (7th Cir. 2010)). Despite this well established rule, in several instances in her April!, 2015 Order, the Judge improperly weighed evidence in favor ofthe FAAto support grant ofthe FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment. A. The Judge Ignored AmpleEvidence that the Flying Doors Had Only Minor Discrepancies that Were the Result ofNormal Wear and Tear. First, despite evidence to the contrary, the Judge credited InspectorLipinski's testimonythat the damage found on the aircraft was caused byimproper installation and rigging ofthe flying doors and not caused by wear and tear. The Judge noted in her April I, 2015 Order "Inspector Lipinski acknowledgedthat each aircrafthadbeen used after the Respondentperformed the MLG maintenance
... [but] Inspector Lipinski testified thatthe damage andproblems to the MLG on each aircraft were not 'wear and tear' related[]" (April!, 2015 Order at 17) even though he never saw any ofthe three aircraft afterhis initial visual inspection inToledo. On the other hand, the Judge completely dismissedthe proffered testimony ofJeffreyBecker, the AMES Director ofQuality Assurance and Training, that the discrepancies found during the May 2010 inspection

were minor in nature, causedbynormal wear and tear, and notthe result ofimproper installation orrigging ofthe MLG. April!, 2015 Order at 21, 24. The Judge statedthat

15Mr. Becker only "generally speculated" that the damage could havebeen the result of
wear and tear, and that Mr. Becker merely "opined" that the MLG damage had been "minor." Id at 21. Infact, AMES included sworn deposition testimony from Mr. Becker in its Answerin Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment that the corrective actions needed to rectify any discrepancy was of a minornature that required only "blend and treat" type repairs and can be explainedby normal wear and tear on the aircraft. Specifically, Mr. Becker testified with respect to the three aircraft that "when I reviewed the specific nonroutine(s) [forms], again, all I see is wear and tear, blend and treat. You know, fixing nicks. Replacing a warn seal. Again, to me, these are normal operational type wear and tear items." AMES Opposition, Exhibit 1 (BeckerTr. at 86). In addition, with respect to N287SC, Mr. Beckertestified that "[a]ll those [nonroutine] items are either wear and tear or customer requests." AMES Opposition, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 103). Mr. Becker also described whathe meant by "blend and treat" type repairs and to more fully explain the minor nature of such repairs, whichis based on his engineering background.4 AMES Opposition, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 87). AMES also explained in its Opposition that Mr. Becker's position is fully supportedby theExpert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher, which it attached as Exhibit 2 to its Opposition5 AMES Opposition at 2-3, 6, 28. Mr. Hancher stated in his report thathe has "no difficulty concluding that the issues requiring attention were ofa 'wear and tear' variety and notthe

4 Mr. Beckerholds an aeronautical engineering degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. AMES Reply, Exhibit 1 (Declaration ofJeffrey Becker at 'I[ l.A), Exhibit 2 (Becker Tr. at 8). 5 The Judge held that Mr. Hancher's expertreportis inadmissible. Forthe reasons described in Section I. G. below, AMES maintains thatthis ruling was in error. 16result ofimproper reinstallation ofthe MLGs and flying doors." ExpertReport ofDaniel J. Hancher at

**~[** 5. The Judge also suggested that Mr. Becker's testimony that each ofthe three aircraft had only insignificant "wear andtear, blend and treat" type discrepancies was only "based on his personal review ofthe maintenance records." April!, 2015 Order at 24. In fact, in addition to reviewing the maintenance records, Mr. Becker also testified that after the aircraft were returned to the AMES facility "Iwent down and at least on a dailybasis, walked around the aircraft and talked to Charles Working, who was then the director ofmaintenance that was there for Capital Cargo prepping the airplanes and talked to my inspectors." 6 AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 3 (Becker Tr. at 75) Although the Judge noted that Mr. Becker did not have any personal recollection
more than four years later during his deposition ofwhat, if any, "nicks orflaws" hadbeen found on the aircraft (April!, 2015 Order at 23), he clearly testified that he viewed the aircraft on a "dailybasis" when the work was beingperformed and that he talked with the CCIA Director ofMaintenance and the AMES inspectors about the work that was being conducted. Given the testimony thathe viewed the aircraft on a "daily" basis and spoke contemporaneously with the individuals who were supervising the work, Mr. Becker can hardlybe saidto have merely "generally speculated" that the discrepancies were minor in nature andthe result ofnormal wear and tearbased on a review ofthe maintenance records alone. AMES presented substantial evidence, in the form ofMr. Becker's sworn deposition testimony, contradicting Inspector Lipinski's position that the discrepancies

6 Inspector Lipinski never inspected the aircraft after they were flown to AMES' Wilmington facility. AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit 2 (Lipinski Tr. at 203-204); AMES Opposition, Exhibit 3 (Lipinski Tr. at 204).
17were not wear and tearrelated. Inspector Lipinski, on the otherhand, never saw the three aircraft after they were flown to the AMES facility in orderto conduct a detailed inspection ofthe flying doors. AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit 2 (Lipinski Tr. at 203-204); AMES Opposition, Exhibit 3 (Lipinski Tr. at 204). AMES also submitted a sworn declaration from Mr. Becker that was attached as Exhibit 1to the AMES Reply. In paragraph 7 ofhis declaration, Mr. Becker describes in detail the steps undertakenin creating the non-routine forms and emphasizedthat the most important and telling step is the description in the non-routine form ofthe corrective action that was actually undertaken to remedy the situation- not the write-up ofthe initial discrepancy and evaluation portions ofthe non-routine forms as the FAArelied on to support its case. Declaration ofJeffrey Becker at 

### 11 7. Mr. Beckermade the same point during his sworn deposition testimony and which was discussed inthe AMES Opposition to the FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment. AMES Opposition at 7, Exhibit 3 (Becker Tr. at 113) ("Again, regardless ofthe discrepancy, the discrepancyisjust an initialjudgment.") In the corrective action section, the mechanic who is assigned the task details the actual condition ofthe aircraft and the steps, ifany, required to remedy the situation. Declaration ofJeffrey Becker at 

### 11 7. Mr. Becker then gave as an example, the "improper stackup" allegation (pages 9 and 10 ofthe FAA's Opposition) and specifically nonroutine 0003 for aircraft N899AA (FAA ExhibitN, pages 2-7). Mr. Becker explained that while the "Discrepancy" (the initial determination) states "UHMLGFlyingDoor Aft Hinge Has hnproper Hardware Stack Up" and the "Evaluation" reads "Remove and Replace Hardware IA W SB 727-32-234," the "Corrective Action" portion ofnon-routine

180003 states "RemovedLeftMain GearWing Door Verified Hardware IAW 727 S.B. 727-32-0234 R3 Reinstalled and Performed Adjust/Test IAW 727 MM 32-12-11." (Emphasis added.) The Corrective Action description clearly indicates that the left-hand MLGlanding gear door was removed, the mechanic verified that the correcthardware
was inplace, and then the mechanic reinstalled the landing gear door and adjusted and tested it. AMES also made this point at page 2 and pages 8-9 ofits Opposition to the FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment. As Mr. Becker stated in his declaration, onlyby incorrectlyreferring to the discrepancy and the evaluation portions ofthe non-routine forms, and notthe more telling Corrective Action section, can the FAA make the assertion that AMES did not properly rig the flying doors. Declaration ofJeffreyBecker

**at~** 7. AMES made the same point in its Opposition stating "the FAA chooses to focus

on the discrepancies that were documented as a result ofthe FAA's initial inspection of the three aircraft, [but] ignores the more telling and dispositive evidence and that is the corrective actions that were actual! necessary to be taken to address the discrepancies." AMES Opposition at 6. Mr. Becker concluded thathe "consistently asserted that none ofthe corrective action taken by AMES in response to the FAAMay 25, 2010 inspection implicates the original workperformedbyAMES when rigging theflying doors on the three subject aircraft since a careful review ofthe corrective action taken reveals evidence ofwear and tear and not improper rigging ofthe flying doors." Declaration ofJeffrey Becker

**at~** 7; This is consistent with the depositiontestimony given by Mr. Becker and attached to the AMES Opposition. AMES Opposition at 2, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 86-88, 102-104). Further, as noted, Mr. Becker's position was corroborated bythe AMES outside expert

19witness, who has over 700 B-727 landing gear changes inhis background, who stated in his report that "[b]ased on [his] review ofthe corrective actions as documentedby AMES, I have no difficulty concluding that the issues requiring attention were ofa 'wear and tear' variety and not the result ofimproperreinstallation ofthe MLGs and flying doors." AMES Opposition, Exhibit 2 (Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher

**at~~** 2 and 5). Mr. Beckeris well versed and experienced in interpretingand analyzing the nonroutine cards that describe the maintenance work undertaken on the three aircraft. As such, the fact that Mr. Becker's conclusion (which was supported by the AMES expert witness) thatthe damage was minor in nature and the result ofwear and tear was based, in part, on his review ofthe maintenance records should not have been discounted as the Judge did in her decision granting the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. April I, 2015 Order at 24. The Judge, however, stated inherApril!, 2015 Order that "when asked to specificallylook at maintenance repairrecords during his deposition, Mr. Becker was often unable tojustifyhis opinion" and cited two examples from Mr. Becker's deposition testimony regarding non-route forms relatedto the alleged improper installation ofhinge pins on aircraft N287SC and a damaged left-hand flap fairing on N287SC. ldat 24. However, in its Answerin Opposition to Complainant's Motion for SummaryJudgment (pages 6-17), AMES gave for each ofthe three aircraft detailed explanations ofeach of the non-routine forms, andthe corrective actions actually taken by AMES, which included references to the relevantportions ofMr. Becker's deposition testimony. There, regarding the alleged improper installation ofhinge pins on N287SC cited by the Judge, AMES explained thatthere is nothing in the applicable AMM section that

20requires amaintenance technician to insert or securepins in hinge access doors as part of the process ofremoving and reinstalling the flying doors in connection with a main landing gear change. AMES Opposition at 17. Therefore, Mr. Beckertestified that he had "no comment about what they mean by [hinge pins] improperly installed" orwhether AMES "had done that." April!, 2015 Order at 24 (citing Becker Tr. at 101). With respect to the damaged left-hand flap fairing, AMES explained that it appears to be damage from the protruding or loose hinge pin and again noted that the AMM does not include any instructions for installing or securing access door hinge pins. AMES Opposition at 17. AMES also noted that the non-routine form described the damage as minor (i.e., "slight") and that it was repaired by merely blending and treating the area, which is indicative ofnormal wear and tear. /d. The Judge erred by not addressing in her April 1, 2015 Order the detailed, case-by-case explanation ofthe non-routine forms providedbyAMES in its Opposition to the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment and it simplyis not an accurate characterization to claimthat Mr. Becker (or AMES) was often "unable tojustifyhis opinion" that the aircrafthad only insignificant wear and tear, blend and treat items that neededrepair. Even ifthe Judge questionedthe explanations providedby AMES in its Opposition and strength ofMr. Becker's deposition testimony and that ofits expert witness, Mr. Hancher, AMES should nonetheless have been afforded the opportunity to present live testimony from its witnesses at hearing so the Judge could evaluate first-hand the relative strength ofeach party's evidence. Weighing such conflicting evidence is simply not the function to be undertakenby the Judge in disposing of a summary judgmentmotion. See O'Leary v. AccretiveHealth, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 629; 2011 U.S.

21App. LEXIS 19321. **11 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Itis not for courts at summaryjudgmentto weigh evidence or determine the credibility of [a witness's] testimony
...")(quotingBerryv. Chicago TransitAuth., 618

### F.3d688, 691 (7th Cir. 2010)). In any event, to survive a motion for summaryjudgment, the non-moving party must onlypresent evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to it, thatthere is a genuine dispute ofmaterial fact. This AMES has certainly done through the testimony ofJeffrey Becker and the Expert Report of Daniel J. Hancher, both ofwhomtestified that the discrepancies were minor innature and the result ofnormal wear and tear. The Judge was not free to simply dismiss AMES' testimony and expert report as either speculative orunsupportedbythe evidence. B. The Judge Impermissibly Weighed Evidence in Connection with the Missing Tubular Bearing on N287SC. The Judge also impermissibly weighed evidence when consideringthe likelihood that an intervening tire change on N287SC caused a tubularbearingto going missing. The Judge noted that Inspector Lipinski "opined that it was highly unlikely that intervening maintenance had caused the damage." April!, 2015 Order at 17 (citing the Declaration ofFrank Lipinski attached as Exhibit JJ, 7-8, '![ 36-38, to the FAA Opposition). The Judge also stated that "the FAA acknowledgedthat the Respondenthad alleged that intervening maintenance on a tire, performedby someone else, had caused the MLGimproperrigging on BoeingN287SC." April!, 2015 Order at 20. The Judge, however, went on to note that "[t]heFAA submitted a June 8, 2010 Letter that CCIA had sent to FAA Inspector Evans, reporting on its investigation ofthis specific allegation. [FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit BE.] This letter, signed againby CCIA's ChiefInspector, Mr. Buck, stated that CCIAhad examined all the aircraft records for BoeingN287SC, and found (among otherthings) that no intervening maintenance on the

22Boeing N287SC right hand MLG, after the Respondent's MLG installation, couldhave accounted for the missingtubular bearing where the wing door actuation rod attached." !d. This position, however, was directly controvertedby the sworn deposition testimony provided byJeffrey Becker, which was described in detail in the AMES Answerin Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment (pp. 17-22) as well as in the AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment (pp. 20-21), and the Reply ofRespondent to FAA's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (pp. 9-14). Among other things, AMES presented evidence that:

• OnMarch 25, 2010, three days after AMES completed replacing the MLG on N287SC, atire was replaced on the aircraft's right-hand outboard wheel. AMES Opposition at 18, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 42-45), Exhibit 7 (CCIA Aircraft Technical Log Report).

• That outboard tire changes on B-727 aircraft require the landing gear door to berepositioned so that the mechanic can gain access to the wheel, the B-727 AMM contains specific steps for using the actuating rod to move the landing gear door for this purpose, and that in orderto change an outboard tire it is necessaryto reposition the landing gear door further than wouldbe the case by simply opening the landing gear door. AMES Opposition at 18-19, Exhibit 1 (BeckerTr. at45-47).

• That a CCIA representative advised AMES that contrary to the instructions in the B-727 AMM "attimes line maintenance people will removethat bolt that contains the tubularbearing and hold up the flying door out ofthe way as they change the wheel." AMES Opposition at 20, Exhibit I (Becker Tr. at 124).

• That the B-727 AMM cautions mechanics, in aconspicuous notice, not to remove the bolt in this mannerbecause it will damage the hinge cover (AMES Opposition at 20, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 125), Exhibit 5 (B-727 AMM, Section 32-45-01)), and that the actuation rod attachment bolt holds the tubularbearing inplace. AMES Opposition at 20, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 115); FAA Motion for SummaryJudgement, Exhibit C, Figures 401 and 402.

• That almost every aircrafthad some form ofhinge cover damage, which suggests, despite the cautionary note in the B-727 AMM, that when changing outboard tires orwheels mechanics hadremoved the actuation

23rod attachment bolt and manually raised the door above the normal service position thereby causing the damage to the hinge covers. AMES Opposition at 20, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 125).

• Mr. Becker testified that during the AMES' investigation the mechanic who performed the work onN287SC specifically statedthat he recalled putting the tubularbearingback in when rigging the landing gear door after the MLG change.7 AMES Opposition at 20-12, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 125-126).

• AMES performed a gear swing afterreplacing the MLG andrigging the landing gear doors, the doors met all the fair conditions when the gear swing was conducted, and it would have been evident during the functional checkifthe tubularbearing was missing because "there would've been issues or problems withthat door ifthat tubular bearing was missing when it left the AMES facility." AMES Opposition at 21, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 126).

• Finally, Mr. Becker testified that the CCIA VP ofMaintenance advised AMES in an email that N287SC flew perfectly and that no problems were noted after the gear change. AMES Opposition at 21, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 126), Exhibit 8 (E-Mail Correspondence from CCIA VP of Maintenance to AMES Complementing AMES on its Work). Taking all ofthese facts into consideration, Mr. Becker testified during his deposition thathe is "fairly confident that AMES left that tubular bearing in" and thathe

7 AMES included the written statement from the mechanic confirming that he replaced the tubular bearing as Exhibit 6 to the Reply ofRespondent to FAA's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for SummaryJudgment. The Judge upheld the FAA's objection to Exhibit 6 (re-designated as Exhibit 6-R) during the oral arguments on the cross-motions for summaryjudgment, and did not admit or considerthe statement, because Respondent inadvertently failed to produce the mechanic statement in a timely manner during discovery. OrderDenying Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, served March 30,2015, at 5. However, 14 C.F.R. § 13.222(c) specifically allows for the admission ofhearsay evidence during civil penalty proceedings, stating that the fact that evidence submitted by a party is hearsay goes only to the weight ofthe evidence and does not affect its admissibility. Thus, on summaryjudgment, the Judge should still have taken into account that Mr. Beckerprovided hearsay testimony during his deposition regarding the mechanic's statement that he replaced the tubularbearing. Ofcourse, at the hearing on this matter (but not at the summaryjudgment stage) the Judge is permitted as the trier offact to weigh the strength ofsuch evidence.
24"find[s] it hard to believe thatAMES left out that tubularbearing." AMES Opposition at 21, Exhibit l (Becker Tr. at 126). Nevertheless, the Judge dismissed Mr. Becker's explanation regarding intervening maintenance causing the tubularbearing to go missing. The Judge cited Mr. Becker's deposition testimonyin which he described it merely as Respondent's "belief' that the tubularbearing had "fallen out" during an intervening tire change. April!, 2015 Order at 23. TheJudge stated that Mr. Becker only "generally accused" Mr. Buck offailing to do
a "thoroughinvestigation" but did not specify what (ifanything) he believed Mr. Buck had failed to be thorough about. Id at 24. The Judge notedthatMr. Becker had stated thatthere was "apossibility" that an intervening maintenance event couldhave been responsible for the missing hardware on Boeing N287SC, thatMr. Becker merely "assume[d)" that there would have been immediate problems ifRespondent had failed to include the tubular bushing in the door installation, and that, as aresult, Mr. Becker found it "hardto believe" that Respondenthad "left out that tubularbearing." Id at 24. By discounting Mr. Becker's deposition testimony in this way, the Judge was clearly and inappropriately weighing evidence against AMES andin favor ofthe FAA, to support grant ofthe FAA's Motion for SummaryJudgment. C. TheJudgeMade aPrejudicial ErrorRegarding the Timing of AMES' Investigation into the Missing TubularBearing. Perhaps the Judge's dismissal ofMr. Becker's testimony stems, in part, from her confusion over the sequence ofevents. The Judge stated that during his deposition, Mr. Beckerreviewed CCIA's June 8, 2010 letter sentby BenjaminBuckto FAA Inspector Evans, inwhich Mr. Buck stated that no intervening maintenance could accountfor the missing tubular bearing. April!, 2015 Order at 23 (citing FAA ExhibitBB). The Judge

25noted that during his deposition Mr. Becker discounted the letterbecause it had been sent to the FAAprior to the Respondent "completing our investigation" and that Mr. Becker testified that Mr. Buckhad failed to incorporate "the benefit" ofthe Respondent's investigation results into his June 8, 2010 letter. April!, 2015 Order at 23 (citing AMES Opposition, Exhibit I (Becker Tr. at 48-49)). The Judge, however, found this to be "odd testimony, since according to Mr. Becker's ownMarch 21, 2011 Letter to the FAA, the Respondent's investigation hadbeen conducted in conjunction with CCIA, andhad concluded by October 2010." The Judge stated that "[a]ccording to reports submitted to the FAAbybothMr. Buck and Mr. Becker, the results ofthejointinvestigationhadbeen that the Respondent's improper maintenance had caused misrigging on all three aircraft's MLG doors." April!, 2015 Order at 23 (citing FAA Exhibits HandHH). The Judge clearly seems to have confused Mr. Buck's October 25, 2010 letter (FAA Exhibit H), which was referenced in Mr. Becker's March 21, 2011letter (FAA Exhibit HH), with Mr. Buck's prior June 8, 2010 letter (FAA Exhibit BB) regarding the missing tubularbearing on N287SC. Mr. Becker's March 21, 2011letternever referencedMr. Buck's June 8, 2010 letterregarding the missing tubularbearing on N287SC and Mr. Becker'sMarch 21, 2011letter did not address the issue. The Judge appears to have erred on the timing ofthe AMES investigation into the missing tubular bearing, which was not concluded until after Ben Buck's June 8, 2010 letter to the FAA. As a result, the Judge placed undue weight on the veracity ofMr. Buck'sJune 8, 2010 letter, which indicated that no intervening maintenance could account for the missing tubular bearing (which is incorrect as a tire change had been performedthree days after AMES conducted the MLG change)(AMES Opposition, Exhibit 7 (CCIA Aircraft



### 26Technical LogReport), and discounted Mr. Becker's deposition testimony criticizing the June 8, 2010 letter and CCIA's investigation into the missing tubularbearing. The Judge also unfairly criticizedMr. Becker for not explaining in his "deposition testimony what, ifany, additional independent investigation the Respondent had performedbeyond the investigation conductedjointly with CCIA, or what the results of that investigation might have been." April!, 2015 Order at 23. The Judge further criticized Mr. Beckerbecause "[h]e did not specify whatinvestigation 'benefits' Mr. Buck should have considered and mentioned inhis June 8, 2010 Letter or subsequent communications with the FAA." Id. Ifthe case was allowed to go to hearing, Mr. Becker wouldhaveprovided testimonyto clarify the sequence ofevents for the Judge andMr. Becker couldhave expanded on his deposition testimony regarding the AMES investigation into the missing tubular bearing so that the Judge wouldhave abetter understanding ofthe issue. AMES, however, was deniedhis opportunitybecause the Judge apparently misunderstood the sequence ofevents andtherefore inappropriately discounted Mr. Becker's deposition testimony in ruling in favor ofthe FAA on summaryjudgment. D. The Judge Impermissibly Weighed Evidence Regarding the Significance ofConducting a Gear Swing to Determine ifthe FlyingDoors areImproperlyRigged. The Judge also was admittedly confusedregarding the import ofMr. Becker's deposition testimonyregarding the need to conduct a gear swing to conclusively determine ifthe flying doors are improperly rigged. April!, 2015 Order at 23. Mr. Beckertestified as follows at his deposition: "First of all, you can'tcheckthe rig of a door unless you swing the gear. So seeing an airplane, I don'tknow how anybody, including Mr. Lipinski



### 27can look at a door and say, hey it's rnisrigged. You can't do that until you swing it." AMES Opposition at 26, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 7I). The FAA, however, argued that while it is necessary to conduct a gear swing to determine ifthe landing gear doors are properly rigged, it is possible to determine ifthe doors are rnisrigged without conducting a gear swing. FAA Opposition at 16, FAA Exhibit JJ (Declaration ofFrankLipinski at 1]15). Concerning Mr. Becker's testimony, the Judge stated that "[i]t was unclear from this testimony whether Mr. Becker was describing his own limitations, or attempting to discount Inspector Lipinski's statements, or Inspector Gasche's expert B-727 credentials and statement, orMr. Buck's reports, or Mr. Becker's own investigation reports and assertions." April 1, 2015 Order at 23 (citations omitted). Ifthe Judge was "unclear" about the significance ofMr. Becker's deposition testimony about Inspector Lipinski not having seen a gear swing, then the Judge should not have granted summary judgmentin favor ofthe FAA8 Instead, the case should havebeen allowed to go to hearing so the Judge could have heardin-person testimony from Mr. Becker on the gear swing issue so she understoodthe significance. This is yet another example ofthe Judge weighing conflicting evidence in favor ofthe FAA in granting its motion for summaryjudgment.

8 To defeat the FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, the AMES evidence shouldhave been viewedby the Judge in the light mostfavorable to AMES. Rejecting the testimony providedbyMr. Becker, who holds a degree in aeronautical engineering, is but another example ofthe Judge impermissibly weighing evidence. In fact, eventhe FAA agreed that a gear swing was required to determine ifa flying door was properly faired. FAA Opposition at 16, FAA Exhibit JJ (Declaration ofFrank Lipinski at 1]15).

28E. Judge did not Consider the Case Law in Granting Summary Judgmentfor the FAA. In granting the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge did not consider the case law precedent which provides that when there is a substantial period oftime between the alleged violations and their discovery, the circumstantial evidence used to support the alleged violations mustbe closely examined to determine its sufficiency. In Administratorv. Lewis, NTSB OrderEA-1177, 3 NTSB 1241, 1978 NTSB LEXIS 51 (Aug. 17, 1978), the Boardheld that "when the gap in time between the alleged violations and their discovery is as long as 14 months, the record will be carefully scrutinized to insure that the quality ofthe evidence presentedby the Administratoris sufficient to establish the reasonable inference thatthe deficient condition also existed at the time of, and resulted from, the respondent's earlierrepair and/or inspection." Id at 

## *16-17. In Lewis, the Board found that the record provided "only a tenuous and circumstantial connection between respondent's acts and deficiencies noted 14 months later" and concluded that given the substantial amount ofelapsed time "the Administratorhas not borne the burdenby the requisite substantial, reliable, and probative evidence." Id at 16*
.9 Both the Lewis case andthe Florida Propellercase were discussedin detail in the

9 In the Matter of Florida Propeller &Accessories, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 97-32, 1997 FAALEXIS 1280 (Oct. 8, 1997) is another example ofa case that was dismissed where the circumstantial evidence was found to be insufficientto meet the FAA's burden of proof. In that case, the FAA Administrator affirmed the initial decision ofthe Administrative Law Judge dismissing a complaint alleging that FloridaPropeller approved an aircraftpropeller for return to service with blades that were worn too thin. See id at 1. Inthat case, the airplane had logged 125 hours offlight time on approximately 120 flights between FloridaPropeller's overhaul and the discovery ofthe undersized blades, and46 days passed from the date the aircraft owner reinstalledthe propeller on the aircraft after FloridaPropeller's overhaul until the date the owner removed the propeller to have other maintenance performed that resultedin the discovery ofthe undersizedblades. See id at *5, n. 10.

29AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment (pp. 8-11) and the Lewis case was again cited in the Reply ofRespondent to FAA's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (pp. 5-6). Further, in the AMES Answerin Opposition to Complainant's Motion for SummaryJudgment, AMES citedthe Lewis case in connection with its argument that the FAAhad disregarded thatthe landing gear and flying doors had undoubtedly experienced at leastthe normal amount ofwear and tear and, therefore, the FAAhad "ignore[d] the applicable case law requiring the FAA to present sufficient evidence (meeting the standard required by§13.223) to show the alleged deficient condition ofthe three aircraft existed at the time AMES completed the landing gear changes months earlier.
.." AMES Opposition at 7-8. In this case, the FAAInspector admitted that it he did not see any ofthe three aircraft when AMES changed the MLG onthe aircraft on July 31,2009, September 29, 2009 and March 22, 2010. AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 2 (Lipinski Tr. at 202-203); AMES Opposition, Exhibit 3 (Lipinski Tr. at 204-205). TheFAA Inspector also admitted that he did not see the three aircraft until the ramp inspection on May 25, 2010- anywhere from two to nine months after AMES performed the MLG changes. AMES Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit 2 (Lipinski Tr. at 203-204); AMES Opposition, Exhibit 3 (Lipinski Tr. at 204-205). TheFAA Inspectorfurther admittedthat he did not see any ofthe three aircraft after they were returned to the AMES facility for corrective action, that he did not see gear swings conducted on the aircraft (which is necessary to detennine ifthe doors were out ofrig (AMES Opposition, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 71)), and that he did not at any time actually see how the doors faired (i.e., how they actually tucked smoothly into the fuselage structure). AMES

30Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 2 (Lipinski Tr, at 203); AMES Opposition, Exhibit 3 (Lipinski Tr, at 204-205). On the other hand, Mr, Becker, who not only reviewed the maintenance records, but who also had actual knowledge ofthe AMES investigation into the FAA allegations, viewed the aircraft on a "daily basis" when they

were returned to the AMES facility and spoke with the AMES inspectors at the time about the work being performed, testified during his deposition that each ofthe conective actions undertaken was of a nainor nature and only done to remedy the impact ofnormal

wear and tear, AMES Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 3 (Becker Tr, at 75); AMES Opposition, Exhibit I (Becker TL at 86-87) Further, it is undisputed that CCIA conducted many operations with the three aircraft over an extended period oftime between the MLG changes and the time the FAA inspected the aircraft, The three aircraft were operatedbetween two and nine months from the time AMES completedthe MLG changes to the FAA inspected them on May 25, 2010, During this time, as noted above, the landing gear on N287SC were extended and retracted 344 times (172 complete cycles); the landing gear on N898AA were extended and retracted 1,256 times (628 complete cycles); and the landing gear on N899AA were extended and retracted 1,568 times (784 complete cycles), Indeed, even the FAAin its Enforcement Investigative Report stated that all three aircraft hadbeen "operated continuously" and "for manymonths and cycles" between the time AMES performedthe MLG changes and the aircraft were inspected bythe FAA. AMES Opposition at 7 (citing FAAEnforcement Investigative Report, Section B, Page 3); FAA Motion for Summary Judgment at 3, 5, 9, and Exhibit H.

31Despite these facts, the Judge never addressed the Lewis case (or the Florida Propeller case) in her April I, 2015 Order. As noted, the Lewis case calls for the circumstantial evidence presented in cases such as this to be "carefully scrutinized" to
ensure its sufficiency to meet the FAA'sburden to prove the alleged violations with substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. Byrefusing to allow the case to go to a hearing, the Judge can hardlybe said to have "carefully scrutinized" the circumstantial evidence presentedby the FAA. Accordingly, the grant ofsummaryjudgmentin favor of the FAAwas not made in accordance with law, precedent, and public policy (14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(b)(2)) and therefore the decision should be overturned and the case remandedfor

ahearing. F. The Judge's Finding that AMES Admitted to Improperly Rigging the Flying Doors is Contrary to the Evidence. The Judge incorrectly concluded that the AMES response to the FAA's initial Letter ofInvestigation ("LOI") (FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit HH) constituted an admission ofthe charges against the repair station thereby leading her to conclude that onthe question ofwhether there remained a genuine material fact to be tried, there was none. April!, 2015 Order at 27. The FAA had asserted in its Motion for SummaryJudgment, quite wrongly, that AMES admittedthe violations in its LOI response. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment at 16, 19 and 22. In response to this FAA argument, AMES clearly laid out the logic demonstrating why the FAA's contention was wrong at pages 22 to 27 ofthe AMES Opposition. Unfortunately, without a proper examination ofthe contents ofthe LOIresponse or the crediting of testimony ofthe letter's author, the Judge improperly ignored essential facts and ruled for

32the Complainant. The Administrator should reverse the Judge's ruling and find that AMES made no such admission, admissible or otherwise. Beyondthe Judge's error in impermissibly weighing the evidence in the context ofruling on dispositive motions, the Judge's reliance on LOIresponses is bad public policy. Certificate holders, responding to FAA Letters ofInvestigation, want to strike a cooperative stance with the FAA and not treat every inquiryfrom an FAA Inspector as the first step in a contested enforcementproceeding. Letter responses to LOI's are rarely subjectto legal counsel review and the forthright airing ofpositions and reactions to possible violations serves a valuable public purpose that furthers the interest ofair safety. The Judge's ruling would have certificate holders, who are being questioned by the FAA at the preliminary stage ofapotential enforcement action, go into a defensive crouch that will do little, ifanything, to allow for the FAA and the certificate holderto reach a reasonable understanding ofthe facts and a resolution satisfactory to bothparties. The Administrator on appeal shouldtake no action to drill the enforcement resolution process
as would be the case were the Administrator to allow informal LOIresponses to be considered admissions against interests. The Judge concluded that the AMES authorized representative, Mr. Becker, had "expressly adopted the statements and finding that Mr. Buckhad provided inhis October 25, 2010 Letter and in CCIA's CARs." April!, 2015 Order at 26. In making this finding, the Judge went on to state that Mr. Buck, the CCIA ChiefInspector, in his response to a separate FAALOIconcluded that the flying doors had been improperly installed andrigged by AMES. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit H, page 2. In fact, there was no such express adoption ofthe CCIA findings by the AMES

33representative in his letter responding to the LOI directed to AMES. FAA Motion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit HH. What Mr. Becker said in his response was first, the AMES review and actions taken were documented in CCIA's Corrective Action Reports (discussedbelow). Second, he stated, without substantive comment, that the details ofCCIA's investigation (not the AMES investigation) were sent to the FAAbyMr. Buck's letter dated October 25, 2010. Next, he noted that AMES hadput in place with CCIA a corrective action plan

as described in the letter. As canbe observed, AMES never "expressly adoptedthe statements and findings" ofCCIA as found to be the case bythe Judge. April 1, 2015 Order at 26. The CCIA findings were noted as havingbeen sent to the FAA, but there was no "express adoption" byAMES ofthe CCIA findings. There was an agreed corrective action plan, butthis does not constitute an admission by AMES that it misrigged the flying doors. This is so even though AMES produced a training module and detailed work cards for CCIArelated to the MLGremoval and reinstallation process andrigging ofthe flying doors. Bycompiling the training aid, AMES wishedto satisfy any FAA concern and to demonstrate a proper compliance disposition, but certain!y did not agree or concede that its prior actions failed to meet applicable regulatory requirements. Infact, conspicuous byits absence in any ofthe cited CARs is any such admission that AMES did not, in fact, properlyrig the doors. TheFAA should encourage certificate holders to be candid in responding to LOis, but suchresponses will notbe offered in the future ifLaw Judges are free to use statements made to the FAA in preliminary responses to possible violations,

34which are provided even before arespondenthas an opportunity to review the FAA compiled EIR. What AMES did say in its response to the LOI was that the results ofits review and action taken were documented on CCIA's Correction Action Report#'s QAACVG004, QAACVG005 and QAACVG006. So what did these reports say, and do they supportthe Judge's finding that AMES "expressly" adopted the statements and findings ofCCIA? First note that CCIA, the customer ofAMES, created the Corrective Action Records. AMES, for its part, producedDiscrepancy Notices based on the CCIA CARby first, quoting verbatim the CCIA statement ofthe discrepancy, and then second, stating the corrective actionbeing taken. Starting with QAACVG0004 (FAA Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit P), CCIA noted that there was damage to the fairing resulting from a migrating hinge pin. When AMES researched the question it determined that a Boeing Product Standard Process had been published to address hinge pin migration but the Process was not cross referenced in the Boeing publishedAMMinstructions. This was likelybecause, as the AMES witness noted in his deposition, thatnothing in AMM 32-11-00 requires the maintenance provider to remove or reinstall any access door hinge pins. FAAMotion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit C consisting ofAMM section 32-11-00. Nonetheless, AMES, in the interest ofassisting its customers in every possible way, agreed as a corrective action, to provide training in the technique suggested, but not mandated, by the applicable AMM. Athis deposition, Mr. Becker confirmedthatremoval andreplacement ofhinge pins are not part ofthe flying doorremoval and reinstallation instruction. AMES Opposition, Exhibit 1 (Becker Tr. at 101, 144-145). Therefore, AMES cannotbe

35alleged to have failed to follow the AMM based on allegations ofhinge pin migration or related discrepancies. And nor can AMES be said to have admitted it misrigged the flying doors byreference to this CAR in its response to the FAA LOI. Next. AMES responded to the CCIA CARs QAACVG005 and QAACVG006 (FAA Motion for SunnnaryJudgment, Exhibit U). The CCIA-created QAACVG005 (FAA Motion for SunnnaryJudgment, ExhibitV) states that its PMIfound play in the flying door on N898AAthat was subsequently determinedby CCIA to be due to the door being out ofrig, noting that the MLGchange was done months earlierin October, 2009. The CAR also noted thatifthe flying door did not properly fair, this discrepant condition should have been discovered during intervening "A" checks. QAACVG006 (FAA Motion for SunnnaryJudgment, Exhibit EE) offered the same statementbut with respect to N287SC that had its MLG changed in March 2010 noting specifically thatthe condition offlying door shouldhave been discovered during an intervening "A" check. Neither ofthese CAR's directly addressed the original workperformedby AMES but rather the quality ofintervening "A" checks. Under the circumstances, it canhardly be found, as concludedby the Judge, that AMES "expressly" admittedto the underlying allegations ofhaving failed to performthe MLG removal and replacement in accordance with the applicable AMM. In connection with the CCIA CARs, certain other corrected actions taken by AMES were noted. See, for example, QAACVG005, Page 2. FAAMotion for SunnnaryJudgment, ExhibitV. One was the preparation by AMES oftask cards used to carry out the provisions ofAMM 32-001-01 for the removal and replacement ofthe right and leftMLG. The second was the AMES-prepared training module highlighting proper

36AMMprocedures for removing andreplacing the MLG. These task cards were produced byAMES for thebenefit ofit customer, CCIA. FAAMotion for SummaryJudgment, Exhibit V, Page 2. The second slide ofthe training material states that it was "suspected" the flying doors had not been properly rigged. FAAReply, Exhibit QQ. The Judge wrongly converted this statement ofa general suspicion into an express admission by AMES that it failed to complywith the AMM, when no such direct admission was uttered byAMES in any ofthe CAR's on which the Judge referred and relied upon. While it mighthave been appropriate for the Judge to have attributed to AMES the results ofits review oftbe facts as set forth in the cross referenced CARs, one cannot possibly stretch the specific CAR-related corrective actions into an express admission of the allegations ofviolations given the limited scope oftbe CARs themselves. To this degree, the Judge erred in finding !batAMES "expressly adopted the statements and finding" ofCCIA that AMES misrigged tbe flying doors on tbe tbree aircraft since no CARreferred to byAMES in its LOIresponses makes any such admission. Inother words, apart from improperly weighing the evidence, the Judge drew a conclusion that is clear!y not fact based and, therefore, her grant of summaryjudgmentin favor ofthe FAA
was clear andreversible error. G. TheJudgeErred inExcludingtheExpertReport ofDaniel J. Hancher. The Judge also erred in her decision in the April!, 2015 Order that the Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher, the outside expert retained byAMES, was unreliable becausehe was given only limited informationto review to prepare his report and therefore it was inadmissible. April!, 2015 Order at 27-28. Mr. Hancher's Expert

37Report was included as Exhibit 2 to the AMES Answer in Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated February 16, 2015. As stated in his Expert Report, Mr. Hancher has extensive experience with MLG changes on B-727 aircraft, having control or responsibilityfor MLGreplacements on
over 700B-727 aircraft. Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher at 'll 2. Further, in formulating his Expert Report, Mr. Hancherreviewed, among other documents, each of the non-routine forms (i.e., the official maintenance records) created when the three aircraft were returned to the AMES facility after the FAA's May 2010 inspection and which document the workperformed on the aircraft. Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher at 'll 2 (second). Mr. Hancher concluded, based onhis extensive experience with B-727 MLG changes and his review ofthe relevant maintenance records (i.e., the description of the corrective actions taken in the AMES non-routine forms) that "Ihave no difficulty concluding that the issues requiring attention were ofa 'wear and tear' variety and not the result ofimproperreinstallation ofthe MLGs andflying doors." Expert Report ofDaniel J. Hancher at 'll 5. Inherruling, the Judge noted that AMES gave Mr. Hancher two sets of maintenance records and the FAA-compiled Statement ofthe Case in this matter to review. April!, 2015 Order at 27. The Judge stated, however, that since Mr. Hancher's Expert Report "was authored almost one (1) year ago, Mr. Hatcher [sic] did not specifically identify the reviewed maintenance records by adnaitted MotionExhibit number, nor did he identify what documents were in the 'FAA-compiled Statement ofthe Case' he reviewed." 

### I d. The Judge found that "[t]his made it difficult to be certain as to what FAArecords he actually did review." I d.

38First, as the Judge noted, Mr. Hancher's ExpertReport was authored on April 30, 2014 and provided to the FAA on May 1, 2014. This was in accordance with the thenapplicable deadline for the parties to exchange initial expert reports. See Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, servedNovember 7, 2013 (setting May 2, 2014 as the deadline for the parties to exchange initial expert disclosures). 10 Thus, it wouldhave been impossible for Mr. Hancher to identify by the exhibit numbers used in the parties' motions for summaryjudgment, which maintenance records he reviewed to prepare his report. Ifthe Judge found it "difficult to be certain" which documents Mr. Hancher reviewed to draft his ExpertReport, she should have allowedthe case to go to hearing so thatMr. Hancher could take the witness stand and have an opportunityto explain exactly which documents he reviewed as the basis for his report. AMES and its expert witness
were denied this opportunitybecause the Judge ruled Mr. Hancher'sExpert Report inadmissible before the case proceeded to hearing. Further, it should be noted that the FAA chose notto depose Mr. Hancher to question him about his report even though the deposition ofexpert witnesses was provided for in the scheduling order in this case. See Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Exclude, and Granting/Denying OtherMotions, served February 11,2015 at 2 (expressly rejectingthe FAA's argumentthat the parties
never contemplatedtaking expert depositions in this case). The taking ofMr. Hancher's deposition surely would have illuminated which documents he reviewedto prepare his

10 The litigation schedule was subsequently suspended on May 15, 2014 (see Order Granting Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates) and thereafternew deadlines were set for the exchange ofexpert disclosures. See Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the LitigationDates and Procedures, served September 30, 2014 (setting November 19,2014 and December 12, 2014 as the new dates for exchanging initial expert disclosures and expertrebuttal disclosures, respectively). 39report, and AMES shouldnotbe penalizedbecause the FAAchose not to depose AMES' expert witness. The Judge went on in herApril1, 2015 Order to criticize Mr. Hancher's report because he did not review certain documents in this case, includingAMES' June 10, 2010revised B-727 MLG Door Installation Training Program, FAA Inspector Gasche's September 28, 2010 Memorandum, and CCIA's October 25, 2010 Investigation Report, among other documents. April!, 2015 Order at 27. Notably, the Judge criticized Mr. Hancher'sExpert Reportbecause he failed in preparinghis report to review "FAA Inspector Lipinski's February 17, 2015 Declaration (Exh. JJ)
... or Mr. Jeffrey Becker's October 29, 2014 discovery Deposition (Exh. KK)." !d. As noted, however, Mr. Hancher's Expert Report was exchanged on May l, 2014, which was one day before the then applicable deadline for the parties to exchange initial expert reports. Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, served November 7, 2013. Thus, how can Mr. Hancher be faulted for not havingreviewed two documents

- InspectorLipinski's February 17, 2015 Declaration andMr. Becker's October 29, 2014 deposition transcript- which were not even in existence at the time Mr. Hancher's Expert report was required to be due? Even using the revised deadline for the exchange ofinitial expertreports (November 19, 2014), it wouldhavebeen impossible for Mr. Hancher to review InspectorLipinski's Febmary 17, 2015 Declaration since it was not even in existence for another three months. The Judge clearly made prejudicial errors in holding thatMr. Hancher's Expert Report was inadnaissible. Since Mr. Hancher'sExpert Report strongly supports the testimony ofJeffrey Beckerthat the discrepancies found on the three aircraft were minor

40innature and the result ofnormal wear and tear, the April!, 2015 Order granting summaryjudgmentin favor ofthe FAA shouldbe overturned pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(b)(3) and the case remanded for hearing. CONCLUSION AND RELffiF REQUESTED The FAA's Summary JudgmentMotion presented a host offacts, most all of which were disputed by the parties. Despite the serious and well documented nature of the disputes, the Judge improperly weighed the evidence relied upon bythe FAA and failed to draw all inferences in a manner favorable to AMES, the non-moving party. Further, the Judge ignored the applicable case law when the FAA seeks to prove its allegations on thebasis ofcircumstantial evidence alone. The Judge also interpretedthe AMES response to the FAA's Letter ofInvestigation as an admission ofthe violations, when no such inference can be drawn from the response. Moreover, reliance by the Judge on such preliminary responses, particularly, when a respondent lacks a copy ofthe FAA compiled enforcement report, is bad public policythat will diminish the cooperative nature ofthe relationship between certificate holders and the FAA.

41WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Respondent-Appellant Airborne Maintenance andEngineering Services respectfully requests that the Initial Decision of US. Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan, served onMay 5, 2015, bereversed and the
case remanded to the Judge for a hearing.

Dated: June 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERGGOLDMAN, L.L.P. Attorneys for 

### AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND

**ENG~ERING SER~IC#**  By:

# .tLf /.



# ~~ Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. L. Jeffrey Johnson, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

42CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 241h day ofJune 2015, I caused the foregoing Appeal Briefof Respondent-Appellant Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Servicestobe served uponthe following: Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Tel: (202) 267-0377 (original andtwo copies by FedEx) ChristopherR. Stevenson, Attorney Federal AviationAdministration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 SouthernRegion 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Tel: (404) 305-5200 (one copybyFedEx)
JessicaE. Kabaz-Gomez EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Tel: (202) 267-7395 (one copy by FedEx)