SERVED: September 6, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-1322 

EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Respondent 

Case No. 20 15NM730008 

ORDER FINDING GOOD CAUSE, ACCEPTING ANSWER, 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On July 3, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and 

Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. 

Approximately two months later, on September 1'1, 2015, 1 the FAA filed the Agency's 

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and for a Decision Regarding the Violations ("Motion"). 

One month later, on October 7, 2015, the FAA filed the Agency's Report Regarding 

Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties. 

One day later, on October 8, 2015, the prose Respondent, Extreme Energy Solutions, 

Inc., filed a Motion to Postpone Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing the 

Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan; and a Response to Agencies 

[sic] Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties; and Joint Motion to Postpone Matter. Among other 

things, the Respondent requested that the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for 

October 15,2015, be postponed to February 2016, in part because of a separate litigation in 

which the Respondent was involved. 

1 The FAA's Motion was date-stamped received by the Court on September II, 2015. As provided in the July 31, 

2015 Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Conference, documents in this litigation are referenced by the date they are 

date-stamped received at the Office of Hearings. (July 31, 2015 Order, 2 ~ 4.) 
Later that same day, on October 8, 2015, the FAA filed an Addendum to Report 

Regarding Rule 26( f) Meeting of the Parties [sic]. The FAA agreed to continue the Rule 16 

Litigation Scheduling Conference to November 17, 2015. 

On October 14, 2015, an Order Continuing the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference, and Deferring the Rule 26( f) Jointly Proposed Discovery Plan was filed, which 

granted a continuance of the Rule 16 Conference to November 17, 2015. 

On October 19, 2015, an Order Reserving the Respondent's Motion for a Stay of 

Proceedings and Granting/Denying Other Relief was filed. 

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, the FAA and the Respondent convened by telephone 

for a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. During this Conference, the Court explained the 

rule for filing a timely answer to the Complaint, and the requirement of good cause showing for 

any untimely answer. The parties orally agreed to a pleadings schedule on the FAA's September 

11, 2015 Motion. 

On November 18,2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and 

Show Cause, and Ruling on Other Relief was filed. 

On December 15, 2015, the prose Respondent, Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc., filed the 

following: a) Respondent's Answer to FAA's September 11,2015 Motion ("Response"); b) 

Respondent's Answer to FAA's June 9, 2015 Complaint ("Answer"); c) Motion for Request for 

Discovery of Oath of Office ("Motion for Discovery"); and d) Notice of Acceptance of 

Constitutions and of Oath of Office ("Notice of Acceptance"). 

On December 17,2015, an Order Reconfirming the FAA's Reply Deadline, Providing 

Direction on Proper Service, and Denying the Respondent's Motion to Supplant the Court was 

filed. 

On January 4, 2016, the FAA filed a Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Answer to 

FAA's September 11,2015 Motion ("Reply"). 

Page 2 of 13 
I. INTRODUCTION 

A. FAA Rules of Practice- Timely Answer or Good Cause Showing Required 

The FAA's Rules of Practice require a respondent to file a timely answer after service of 

the FAA's complaint. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.209. At the most, a responding party has 35 days to file a 

timely answer after service of a Complaint.2 If an answer is filed beyond the 35 day period, the 

responding party who has filed a late answer to a Complaint may petition for relief from a 

default action. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), in support of its request for relief from a 

default action, the responding party must demonstrate good cause grounds. "A showing of good 

cause is mandatory. Without it failure to file an answer by the deadline may not be excused." 

Global Peace Initiative, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quoting Atlantic 

World Airways, FAA Order No. 1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995). 

B. Undisputed- Respondent Failed to File a Timely Answer 

The FAA asserts that it served the Respondent on June 9, 2015 at its address of record, by 

certified mail, with its Complaint. (Mot. 1.) The Complaint was enclosed with a three-page 

Letter, dated June 9, 2015. In this Letter the FAA attorney outlined a history of attempted 

interactions with the Respondent after both service of the Proposed Notice of Civil Penalty 

(Mot., Ex. B, 1-2), as well as after service of a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (Mot., Ex. 

B, 2). The FAA referenced the Complaint in this Letter, but also encouraged the Respondent to 

engage in informal resolution of the case. (Id.) 

According to the FAA, this combined certified mailing of both the June 9, 2015 Letter 

and the Complaint was accepted on behalf of the Respondent by a "Joe Mel" on June 19,2015. 

(Mot., Ex.B.) The FAA asserts that July 14,2015, was the last day the Respondent could have 

filed a timely Answer. (Mot. 2.) The FAA requests in its September 11, 2015 Motion that "each 

allegation in Sections I and II of the complaint" be deemed admitted, for failure of the 

Respondent to file a timely Answer to the Complaint. (Mot. 1.) Although the FAA has proposed 

2 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a respondent is allowed 30 days after service of the complaint to file a written 

answer to the complaint. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.21l(e), five additional days are added to the 30 day time period 

whenever a complaint is served by mail. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date of service is not included in the 

calculation of time. 

Page 3 of 13 
a total civil penalty amount of $19,400 in its Complaint (Compl., 8, ~ IV), it has not requested a 

default finding on that portion of the allegations. 

In its December 15, 2015 Res~onse, the prose Respondent did not dispute that "Joe Mel" 

was an individual authorized by it to accept mailings, or that it had received the Complaint on 

June 19, 2015. The Respondent also did not dispute the FAA's assertion that July 14, 2015, was 

the last day to file a timely Answer. 3 Instead, as part of its December 15, 2015 Response, the pro 

se Respondent filed an Answer to the FAA's June 9, 2015 Complaint, and multiple reasons for 

its untimely Answer. 

C. Issue- Has Respondent Demonstrated Good Cause for Untimely Answer 

Based on the parties' subrHi'ssions, the issue in this particular case is whether the 

Respondent has presented good ~ause for its failure to file a 'timely Answer to the FAA's June 9, 

2015 Complaint. If the Respondent does not demonstrate good cause, then the merits of the 

dispute may not be reached, and\ each allegation contained in the Complaint shall be deemed 

admitted. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f):· · 

D. Good Cause Standard· 

As the FAA recognized in its Reply, good cause is a "nebulous" standard. (Reply, 3.) See, 

21A Fed. Proc. L.Ed. § 51:64 (20'1~). It is an evaluation that rests within the discretion of the 

trial court, since there is a prefere't'l'c-e for deciding cases on their merits. 1 OA Charles Alan 

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2693 (3d ed. 2014); See, e.g., Cornwall, 

FAA Order No. 92-47 at 7 (July 22, 1992) (Wherever possible, cases should be heard "on the 

merits"). 4 A more detailed discussion of the factors included in a ''good cause" evaluation is 

contained in the November 18, 2015 Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and 

Show Cause, and Ruling on Other·.Relief, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

3 The FAA's calculation of July 14,2015 appears to be in error, since it counts the date of service in its calculation. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date of service is not included in the calculation of time. However, this one 

day calculation error is not material to the decision herein. 

4 A more detailed discussion of the factors included in a "good cause" evaluation is contained in the November 18, 

2015 Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on Other Relief, which is 

adopted by reference herein. 

Page 4 of 13 
II. DISCUSSION 

All pleadings and arguments submitted by both parties were fully considered. However, 

only certain matters will be highlighted in this discussion. 

It appears undisputed that last year, on February 19,2015, the FAA served Mr. Burlum 

with a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ("NPCP"). (Mot., Ex. B, 1.) Shortly thereafter, on March 

17,2015, the Respondent timely served the FAA (i.e., within 30 days of receipt of the NPCP), 

with a written response, denying the allegations and raising affirmative defenses (/d.) 

Thereafter, attempts by the FAA and the Respondent to informally resolve the matter were not 

successful. (Mot., Ex. B, 1-2.) As a result, on May 22, 2015, the FAA issued a Final Notice of t' .. :,: 

Proposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP"). (!d. at 2.) 

On June 1, 2015, the Respondent timely responded to the FNPCP by serving the FAA 

with a Request for Hearing. The FAA then promptly served the Respondent eight days later, on 

June 9, 2015, with a three (3) page Letter and an eight (8) page Complaint. Attached to the 

Complaint was a one ( 1) page Certificate of Service ("Certificate"), identified as page "9" of the 

Complaint. The Certificate included two paragraphs at the top of the page, which stated in part: 

[a] respondent shall file a written answer to the complaint ... or may file a written motion [to 

dismiss] the complaint instead of filing an answer, not later than 30 days after service of the 

complaint." (Compl., 9.) 

The Respondent did not file a timely answer to the Complaint on or before July 15, 2015. 

Shortly thereafter, on July 31, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(t) Proposed Discovery Plan 

was filed. The Discovery Plan filing deadline was October 8, 2015. 

Six weeks later, the FAA filed its Motion. The Respondent did not respond within ten 

days, as required by 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d). Thereafter, neither party took action until the week 

of October 8, 2015, when they unsuccessfully tried to contact each other to conduct a Rule 26(t) 

. 5 meeting. 

5 See October 7, 2015 Agency's Report Regarding Rule 26(t) Meeting of the Parties; and, October 8, 2015 

Respondent's Response 

Page 5 of 13 
On October 8, 2015, the Respondent's owner and lay representative, Mr. Burlum, filed 

two motions6 seeking postponement, citing as grounds his family court case, limited funds, lack 

of counsel, and lack of personal expertise. The Respondent's Motion for a Continuance of the 

Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference was partially granted, 7 while the Respondent's Motion 

for a Stay of Proceedings was reserved. 8 

On November 17, 2015, the parties appeared for the Litigation Scheduling Conference. 

During this Conference, Mr. Burlum orally provided additional information about the multiple 

challenges he had been trying .~o ;f4?ress, which included a contested litigation involving the 

disputed custodial arrangement~.fqr his three (3) year old child. (11117 /15 Tr. 13-15.) Mr. •,,; ,I 

Burlum stated that the family li~ig~tion had been active for approximately one ( 1) year. (I d. at '·, !, ·.·' 

15.) The case was "very adversari~l" and had put his job in jeopardy. (ld. at 14.) During this one 

year period, his company's staff had been "cut in half," management resources had been lost, and 

he was trying to the do the work of "two or three people" to keep his company viable. (/d. at 16.) 

The Court explained the time limitation for filing an answer, as well as the need for the 

Respondent to respond to the FAA's Motion, file an answer to the Complaint, and submit a 

request for a good cause exceptioi);· . 

)·,. 

1•,1 

One day later, on a November 17, 2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to 

Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on Other Relief was filed. 

Subsequently, in his written December 15, 2015 Response, Mr. Burlum, explained that he 

had not intentionally violated the procedural rules. He was inexperienced with the proceedings. 

He was not "a trained legal counsel" and had been "un[a]ware" of the time requirements. 9 (Resp. 

6 On October 8, 2015, the prose Respond~nt filed a Motion to Postpone Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, 

and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(t) Proposed Discovery Plan; and a Response to Agencies [sic] 

Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties ("Motioh"), which included a request that the entire action be postponed (i.e., 

"stayed") until January 15, 2016 or after, in order to give it time to address its family court case, and to obtain 

attorney representation on the FAA civil penalty proceeding ("Motion to Stay"). 

7 See October 14, 2015 Order Continuing the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Deferring the Rule 

26(t) Jointly Proposed Discovery Plan. 

8 See October 19,2015 Order Reserving the Respondent's Motion for a Stay of Proceedings and Grant/Denying 

other Rei ief. 

9 It is undisputed that Mr. Burlum is the Respondent's President and CEO. See, FAA's October 7, 2015 Report 

Regarding Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties. 

Page 6 of 13 
2.) He did not have a "clear understanding of the process." (!d.) Mr. Burlum also asserted that 

he had already "in-fact [sic] respond[ed]" to the FAA's allegations when he had filed a 

"Response" with FAA Attorney Ms. Cheryl Jones on March 17, 2015. (Resp. 1-2.) Mr. Burlum 

pointed out he had also already advised the FAA that he was "engaged in another unrelated legal 

matter" and that the "burden of both matters in litigation at the same time" was an undue burden. 

(Resp. 2.) 

A. Warning Language Provided 

In support of its Motion, th'e FAA argues; in part, that the Respondent's failure to file a 

timely answer is not excusable; ;bee~ use the FAA gave clear warnings to the Respondent about 

its time obligations. 

While it is true that the F A:;A provided two warnings in its communications, it is not 

persuasive that these two warnings were clearly provided. 

For example, the FAA asserts that its June 9, 2015 Letter was a "cover letter" for the 

enclosed Complaint, and as such, clearly gave notice to the Respondent of the time requirements 

for an answer. (Reply, 2.) This is. not persuasive, given that most of the content of the three (3) 

page Letter had nothing to do ~lth the enclosed Complaint or the Respondent's time limits for 

answering. For example, page one (1) of the FAA's June 9, 2015 Letter did not identify the 

Complaint by a reference line, nor does it even mention the Complaint within its opening 

paragraphs. In fact, the Complaint is not mentioned on page one (1) at all. Instead the FAA's 

June 9, 2015 Letter briefly references it as enclosed in the middle of page two (2), with a short 

explanation of the need to file a timely answer. (Mot., Ex. B, 2, ,-r,-r 4-5.) Thereafter, the FAA 

utilizes its Letter to encourage the Respondent to continue to try to work with the FAA to 

informally settle the case, with no 'time limits identified (or distinguished). (Mot., Ex. B, 2.) 

In addition, the FAA's eight (8) page Complaint, signed by the FAA counsel, does not 

carry any warning regarding the need for a timely Answer, or the danger of default for the lack 

of a timely Answer. Instead, a brief warning is inserted on the top of the attached Certificate of 

Service. (Compl., 9.) The FAA briefly argues-unpersuasively-that its' Certificate of Service, 

attached to the Complaint, is "page 9" of the Complaint. (Reply, 2.) It is noteworthy that the 

Page 7 of 13 
FAA did not provide any legal argument or authority for the general proposition that information 

inserted in a Certificate of Service should be deemed to be part of the Complaint itself. It is also 

unclear why the FAA would insert warning language of any kind in its Certificate of Service, 

which purportedly should be utilized solely to certify proper service of the document it 

references. See 14 C.P.R.§ 13.211 (c). In any event, it is not persuasive that information omitted 

from the Complaint, but inserted in a Certificate of Service attachment, gives fair notice to any 

opposing litigant, particularly a prose litigant, regarding possible default consequences. 

B. Lack of Respondent Affidavit .f ··:. 

The FAA argues in part:thatthe Respondent's reasons requesting a good cause finding 

should not be considered, bedtu~;eithey have not been made by affidavit. (Reply, 2.) First, while 

affidavits or declarations are encbuhiged, they are not always required in motion practice. See 14 

C.P.R.§ 13.218 (b) and (d). Second, it must be recognized that Mr. Burlum signed the 

December 15,2015 Response, and had his signature notarized. While the December 15, 2015 

Response does not provide the oath language included in an affidavit or declaration, the 

notarization submission of Mr .. Burl urn, who is a prose party litigant, supports a finding that he 

is specifically averring facts to the best ofhis knowledge and belief. See, 14 C.F.R. § 13.207 (b); 

See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Ste~di Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 419 

(Thomas Reuters, 2016)(a party's prose status is a factor that is weighed in determining the 

reasonableness of the party's a6't1ohs when submitting documents.). 

In addition, it should be no_ted that the FAA's "affidavit" objection appears to follow 

some of the rationale in In the Matter of Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 199804 

.·;!t. 

(March 12, 1998). However, th~ fa~ts in that case are quite different. For example, the '.,·!· 

respondent in that case was repr~sented by counsel when the complaint was served .. (Id. at 4.) '.:1· . 

The respondent had a history of.two prior safety violation cases, and had been represented by the 

same attorney in those prior cases. (!d.) Not insignificantly, in both of those prior safety 

violation cases, the respondent .h(ld failed to file a timely answer, though at the time the answers 

were due, the respondent had been prose. (Id.) In the third safety violation case, the respondent's 

attorney was served with the complaint, and yet failed to file a timely answer. After the attorney 

filed an untimely answer, he so·u.ght to avoid a default finding by inferentially raising an issue of 

••confusion" regarding the validity .of the complaint, the method of service, and when the answer 

Page 8 of 13 
was due. (!d. at 3.) This "confusion" defense was rejected by both the trial Judge and the 

Administrator, in part because the attorney had not filed any declaration in support of his 

"confusion" and also because the record demonstrated that the attorney (and his client) had prior 

experience appearing in FAA civil penalty proceedings, and should have been familiar with the 

complaint service and time requirements for an answer. (!d. at 4.) This type of fact scenario does 

not exist in the case herein. 

C. Respondent's Earlier Response and Actions 

In this case, the prose Respondent asserts that it mistakenly believed that it had already 

answered the Complaint, because it bad provided its "responses" to the FAA's NPCP on March 

1 7, 20 15. It was undisputed thafthe pro se Respondent's March 1 7, 2015 response to the NPCP, 

which was eight (8) pages long, specifically denied most of the NPCP allegations, affirmatively 

identified eighteen defenses (Mot~; Ex. B, 1; Answer, Att.1, 1-7), and requested an informal 

conference, while reserving its right to an administrative hearing in the event that the matter 

could not be resolved informally. (Answer, Att.l, 7.) 

The FAA did not disagree that the Respondent had provided detailed responses to the 

NPCP. It asserted, however, that .. ~?~ Respondent's earlier actions had been misleading, and its 

requests for informal settlemen~ ~i:~cussions had not been genuine. After receipt of the 

Respondent's March 17, 2015 response, the FAA scheduled an informal conference, as 

requested. But the Respondent failed to participate, and did not request any further informal 

settlement discussions. (Reply, 2.) This led to the issuance of the FAA's May 22, 2015 FNPCP. 

(Mot., Ex. B, 1-2.) Upon receipt of the FNPCP, the Respondent promptly filed on June 1, 2015 a 

Request for Hearing ("Request"). Thereafter, on June 9, 2015, the FAA served its Complaint. 

(!d. at 1-2; Cornpl.) 

The fact that the Respondent provided detailed responses to the NPCP is not dispositive, 

since responses to the NPCP are not a substitute for filing a timely Answer after service of the 

Complaint, pursuant to the FAA's ROP. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. It does show, however, that the 

Respondent has been trying to be responsive, and notify the FAA of its position on the case. The 

fact that the Respondent did not participate in the FAA's informal settlement conference in 2015 

Page 9 of 13 
is also not dispositive. It does show, however, that the Respondent has not been fully responsive 

- as ideally it should have been - throughout this proceeding. 

D. Respondent's Lack of Knowledge and Experience 

The FAA also argued in part that the Respondent's good cause explanations offer "no 

facts" and only "vague contentions." (Reply, 2.) The FAA is correct that the Respondent has not 

provided specificity of fact in the same manner that an attorney would have offered. This should 

not be deemed dispositive, however, since prose litigants often lack the skill to submit such 

polished submissions. It also appears clearly demonstrated, by the Respondent's submissions, 

that it is inexperienced in legal matters and is struggling with both the procedural distinctions 

created by its request for a hearin~. before an independent tribunal, as well as how to present 

information. For example, to demonstrate it has been fully responsive in this adjudication, the 

Respondent attached its earlier March 1 7, 2015 response to its December 15, 2015 Answer with 

this bolded comment: "EVEN THOUGH THE FAA ALREADY HAD THIS INFORMATION 

PRVIOSULY [SIC] SERVED TO THEM PRIOR TO THEIR JUNE 9, 2015 COMPLAINT." 

(Ans. 2.) The Respondent then separately reiterated the bulk of its March 17, 2015 response in 

its Answer, but added four (4) additional affirmative defenses. (Ans. 9.) 

As part of its inexperience, the Respondent appears to believe that this Court is part of the 

FAA, and that any materials it provided to the FAA, prior to the filing of the FAA's Complaint, 

are part of the Court's record in this proceeding. The Respondent cites to its internal 

communications with the FAA, prior to the filing of the Complaint, as a demonstration of the 

Respondent's commitment to the proceedings. It is noteworthy that many pro se litigants often 

offer this type of erroneous perception during initial proceedings before this Court. 

Therefore, it must be specifically stated herein, this Court is an independent tribunal. 

When Mr. Burl urn, on behalf of the Respondent, filed its Request in June 20 15, pursuant to 14 

C.F .R. § 13.1 6, he was asking for an independent adjudication of the FAA's allegation that the 

Respondent committed violations of the federal aviation safety regulations. Thus, upon receipt of 

the Respondent's Request in June 2015, the FAA promptly and properly referred Mr. Burlum's 

Request, along with its eight (8) page Complaint and one (I) page Certificate of Service to the 

Office of Hearings ("OH"). 

Page 10 of 13 
While the OH is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT"), it is not a part 

ofthe FAA. Instead, it is part of the U.S. DOT's Office ofthe Secretary. As a result, the OH is 

independent from the FAA. This Court does not have access to the FAA's records. The only 

records before the Court are those that the parties have filed with the OH (and the FAA Hearing 

Docket), once a respondent requests a hearing, and the FAA refers the case to the OH for a 

hearing. 

It should also be noted that hearings conducted by the OHare adversarial, presided over 

by U.S. Administrative Law Judges, and are governed by specific rules of practice. 14 C.F.R. 

Part 13, Subpart G. The proceedings are open to the public, with records filed with the Hearing 

Docket available to the public for review. 

The rules of practice require the FAA to file a formal complaint with the Hearing Docket 

and this Court after receipt of a respondent's request for hearing. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208. The rules 

also require a respondent to file a timely written answer to the complaint with the Hearing 

Docket and this Court, after the complaint has been served. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. The 

respondent's timely answer notifies not only the FAA, but also this Court and members of the 

public (via the FAA's public Hearing Docket), of the respondent's position in the dispute. Once 

the respondent files an answer to the complaint, the parties typically engage in specific 

documentary exchange as directed by the Court, which will help the parties prepare for a 

hearing. 

E. Good Cause Demonstrated 

The FAA argued that the rationale contained In the Matter of Larry's Flying Service, 

Inc., FAA Order No. 199804 (March 12, 1998), which upheld a default finding against a 

respondent, is directly applicable. But as discussed earlier herein, the facts in Larry's Flying 

Service are substantially different, and do not provide the guidance argued by the FAA. 

Instead, a considered review of the record demonstrates good cause for the Respondent's 

failure to file a timely answer on or before July 15,2015. 10 Mr. Burlum has shown, in both his 

10 As noted earlier, the FAA asserted that the final day to file a timely Answer was July 14,2015. However, 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date of service should not be included in the time calculation. Thus, the thirty 

day count, beginning the day after June 9, 2015 (the date of service), coupled with an additional five (5) days for 

Page 11 of 13 
materials and his oral statements on the record, that his failure to file a timely answer was not a 

willful disregard of the rules, or a lack of attention to the proceedings, or an abandonment of 

responsibility. The lack of a timely answer was the result of a combination of factors, including 

(but not limited to) Mr. Burlum's overall legal inexperience, his lack of experience with the 

FAA's rules and proceedings in civil penalty proceedings, Mr. Burlum's mistaken assumptions 

about his responsibilities, his lack of awareness and/or understanding of the two warning notices 

provided by the FAA, and the fact that Mr. Burlum was attempting to juggle running his stressed 

business while engaging in a very difficult, concurrent litigation involving custody of his child. 

In addition, despite the Respondent's failure to participate in the FAA's 2015 informal settlement 

conference, Mr. Burlum has shown that he cares about this matter, and has tried to be active and 

responsible throughout the maj'6rity of these adjudicative proceedings. In this case, the facts 

support finding good cause for Mr. Burlum's untimely answer, accepting the Answer, and 

allowing the Respondent its day in court on the merits of the alleged safety violations. 

Conclusion 

Having reviewing all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, 

regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA presented unrebutted proof that it served the prose Respondent, Extreme 

Energy Solutions, Inc., by certified mail on June 9, 2015 with its Complaint. 

2. The Respondent's written Answer, filed on December 15, 2015, was untimely. 

3. The Respondent has demonstrated good cause for its failure to file a timely answer to the 

Complaint on or before the deadline of July 15, 2015. 

4. The Respondent's untimely written Answer, filed on December 15, 2015, is accepted. 

5. The FAA's September 11, 2015 Motion for Decision is denied. 

service by mail (14 C.F.R. § 13.21l(e)) means that July 15,2015, would have been the last timely day to tile an 

Answer in this case. This one day difference is not material to the discussion and ruling in this Order. 

Page 12 of 13 
6. A separate order will issue shortly, resetting the Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference. 

7. If either party needs clarification or has any questions regarding the procedures contained 

in this Order, contact Mrs. Rachael Brown, Judicial Staff Assistant at the Office of 

Hearings (202.-366-2132). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 13 of 13 
Docket No. FAA-2015-1322 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl00011 

ONE COPY : . ' .. ' " ~ .. 

Mr. Glenn H. Brown 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West ih Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

Mr. Samuel K. Burlum, President/CEO 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

Respondent 

15 0 Main Street 

Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 

FAX: 973-209-4796 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

~ ·' .~· '., 

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

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

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