SERVED: December 14, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC l"l' 

u DEC IS p 2: 31 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

Respondent 

Case No. 20 14NM090046 

ORDER SETTING NEW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS, 

SETTING DEADLINE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, AND 

GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On November 18, 2016, an Order Reserving the Respondent's Motion for Swnmary 

Judgment, Setting Deadlines, and Adding Agenda to the Telephone Conference ("November 18, 

2016 Order") was filed. 1 A1nong other things, this Order expanded the Telephone Conference 

previously set on Thursday, December 8, 2016 ( 1 :30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. ET) to include various 

matters raised by the parties' summary judgtnent cross-n1otions. (Nov. 18, 2016 Order, 3 ~~ 2-4.) 

On November 22, 2016, the pro se Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed the 

Respondents' [sic] Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment). 

On December 6, 2016, the Respondent filed Respondents [sic] Motion to Compel. 

On December 8, 2016 (1 :30 p.m. ET), the parties convened for a Telephone Conference 

and discussed various matters raised by the parties' swnmary judgment materials, as well as 

other matters pending in the proceeding. 

1 This November 18,2016 Order identifies the prior summary judgment and other motion filings by the parties, 

during the period of October 31, 2016 through November 16, 2016. 
That same day, on December 8, 2016 (2:58p.m. ET), the FAA filed with this Court by 

fax2 

a complete copy (i.e., with all attachments included) of the Complainant's Motion for Partial 

Decision (Summary Judgn1ent) ("Cross-Motion"). 

This Order codifies and supplements the oral nllings issued during the December 8, 2016 

Telephone Conference. Certain matters regarding the pending summary judgement motion are 

also briefly highlighted herein. 

A. FAA's Oral Motion for Supplementation and Continuance 

On November 16, 2016, the FAA filed by fax a courtesy copy of a four ( 4) page 

document titled Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) ("CrossMotion"). The cover sheet to the FAA's faxed n1aterial stated, "The attachments are voluminous, 

so they will be in the U.S. Mail." (Nov. 16, 2016 FAA Fax Cover Sheet). 

On November 21,2016, the FAA filed by U.S. Mail a four (4) page duplicate of its faxed 

Cross-Motion. There were no attachments included in the matiling. Neither the faxed courtesy 

copy of the FAA's Cross-Motion, nor the mailed tiling of the FAA's Cross-Motion, referenced 

any attachments or exhibits within the four-page docun1ent. 

At the beginning of the December 8, 2016 Telephone Conference, the FAA alerted this 

Court and Mr. Curtright that its Cross-Motion actually included approximately 39 pages of 

attachments. However, neither the Court nor Mr. Curtright had received any attachments. The 

FAA orally moved to continue the sun1mary judgment arguments to allow it time to supplement 

its cross-motion materials to include the tnissing attachn1ents. The FAA's oral motion was 

granted over Mr. Curtright's objection. 

B. Complaint and Proposed Civil Penalty 

On or about May 27, 2015, the FAA Hearing Docket filed with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation's Office of Hearings a copy ofthe FAA's unsigned Complaint (dated May 19, 

2 The FAA agreed during the December 8, 2016 Telephone Conference to serve the same materials on Mr. Curtright 

by both U.S. mail and certified mail. 

Page 2 of 8 
2015).3 According to the Complaint, the FAA had sent the Respondent a Letter on or about July 

1, 2014, asking the Respondent to provide its maintenance records for inspection. (Compl. 2-3 § 

II~ 2.) Although the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Letter, he did not immediately 

produce all the requested records. (Con1pl. 3 §II~ 3.) On May 19, 2015, approximately eleven 

(11) months after sending the Letter, the FAA charged the Respondent with a violation of 14 

C.P.R.§ 91.417(c). The FAA's May 19,2015 Con1plaint asserted that the Respondent "failed to 

make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section [14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c)] 

available for inspection" as required. (Compl. 3 § Ill ~ 1.) The FAA requested a civil penalty in 

the amount of$11,000 for the violation, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a) and (d). (Compl. 3 § 

III~ 3.) 

C. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

On October 26, 2016, the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed multiple 

documents, including the Respondents' [sic] Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment 

("Motion").4 In essence, the Respondent sought dismissal as a n1atter of law of the entire 

Complaint, on the grounds that he did produce the documents the FAA had requested. In support 

of his Motion, the Respondent sub1nitted twelve ( 12) Exhibits, identified as Exhibits 1 through 

12. The Respondent also proffered an additional three (3) Reply Exhibits, identified as Reply 

Exhibits 1 through 3. The FAA did not object to the admissibility of any of the Respondent's 

Exhibits. 

3 On November; 17, 2015, the Respondent raised objections to the validity of the unsigned Complaint. (Show Cause 

Stmt. 1.) Seventeen ( 17) days later, on December 4, 20 I 5, the FAA's Response to Show Cause was filed, which 

included a signed version of the May 19, 2015 Complaint. (FAA Resp. I, Attach.) On May 18, 2016 this Court 

found that the FAA's action to file a signed version of its Complaint constituted a prompt corrective action, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure I I (a), since the signed Complaint was tiled prior to the December 15, 2015 

deadline set by the Court for the FAA to tile a Response. (May 18, 2016 Order 7.) Thus, the FAA's Complaint is 

considered to be validly filed with the FAA Hearing Docket and served on the Respondent on May 19, 2015, even 

though it was unsigned at the time of filing and service. (!d.) 

4 On October 26, 2016, the Respondent also filed the following: I) a [Proposed] Order Granting Respondents [sic] 

Motion for Summary Judgment; 2) Respondents [sic] Request for a Ruling on Motion and Memorandum for 

Summary Judgment; and 3) a [Proposed] Order Granting Respondents [sic] Request for a Ruling on Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

Page 3 of 8 
D. Undisputed Material Facts Underlying the Alleged Violation 

During the December 8, 2016 Telephone Conference, the undisputed facts underlying the 

Respondent's motion for summary judgment were briefly reviewed, to help the parties prepare 

for oral argument scheduled on January 25, 2017. Based on the parties' submissions, it appeared 

that there was no genuine dispute as to most (if not all) of the tnaterial facts underlying the 

alleged violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 91.417(c). 

In brief, according to 14 C.P.R.§ 91.417(c), the owner or operator of an aircraft shall 

tnake all n1aintenance records required to be kept hy 14 C.F.R. § 91.417 available for inspection 

by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety 

Board. 

In the instant case, as briefly smnn1arized by this Court during the December 8, 2016 

Conference,5 the parties agreed that Mr. Curtright was at all relevant times the owner of a Piper 

Model PA-18135 civil aircraft, with registration number N949JP ("N949JP"). (Compl. 1 ~ 1; 

Ans. 1 ~ 1.) On July 1, 2014, FAA Inspector Martin Conroy asked Mr. Curtright to provide by 

July 17, 2014 "aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks" ofN949JP (an1ong other documents) 

for the FAA's review. (Compl. 1-2 ~ 2; Ans. 1 ~ 2~ Ex. 7 at 3.) Inspector Conroy's request for 

inspection of Mr. Curtright's aircraft tnaintenance logbooks was part of the FAA's Portland 

Flight Standards District Office official investigation of an aircraft accident involving N949JP. 

(Compl. 1-2 ~ 2; Ans. 1 ~ 2; Ex. 7 at 3.) On July 7, 2014, Inspector Conroy renewed his request. 

asking Mr. Curtright for a date certain to '"inspect the aircraft weight/balance and airframe/engine 

maintenance logbooks." (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7.) That same day, on July 7, 2014, Mr. Curtright told 

Inspector Comoy that the "[r]est of the documents are north in Canada" (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7), and 

Mr. Curtright needed "some tin1e to get them." (Jd.) Approximately, seven (7) weeks later, on 

August 28, 2014, Mr. Curtright advised Inspector Conroy via en1ail that he would not be 

traveling to Canada for the remainder of the year. (Id. at 8.) 

5 The facts proffered in the FAA's Cross-Motion were not discussed during the December 8, 2016 Telephone 

Conference, because none of the FAA's Cross-Motion attachments, which presumably proffered admissible facts, 

had been received by either the Court or Mr. Curtright. As noted earlier, during the December 8, 2016 Telephone 

Conference, the FAA was granted the opportunity to supplement its Cross-Motion and file its fact exhibits, and the 

summary judgment oral argument was reset to January 25, 2017. 

Page 4 of 8 
About one (1) week later, on Septen1ber 9, 2014, Mr. Curtright again inforn1ed the FAA 

that the aircraft and engine logbooks were at his residence in Canada. (Ex. 12 at 1.) 

Approxin1ately eleven (11) months later, on August 13,2015, the parties agreed that Mr. 

Curtright made the reco~ds available to the FAA at Mr. Curtright's place of business in Salen1, 

Oregon, 6 at which time FAA Inspectors Curt Cowley and Terry Juran inspected the aircraft 

maintenance records ofN949JP. (Mot. 5; Ex. 2 at 2.) The following day, on August 14,2015, 

Inspector Cowley reported that Mr. Curtright's "records were well organized and complete, back 

to the birth of the aircraft." (Mot., Ex.5 at 2.) 

E. Disputed Issue- Time for Regulatory Compliance 

According to the record herein, on May 6, 20 15, the FAA issued a Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP"), charging Mr. Curtright with the violation of 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.417(c). (Compl. 1, ~I.). On May 11,2015, Mr. Curtright contested the FNPCP by 

submitting a Request for Hearing. (I d.) On May 19, 2015, the FAA filed its Cotnplaint. On 

August 13, 2 0 15, the FAA inspected Mr. Curtright's aircraft records and found them to be 

satisfactory. 

As noted supra, the FAA does not dispute that Mr. Curtright ultimately produced the 

records for inspection, on or about August 13,2015. Rather, the FAA asserts that the undisputed 

fact timeline, which demonstrates a delay of over one (1) year after the FAA's July 1, 2014 

initial request for production, is per se evidence of the charged records violation. In a recent 

supplemental pleading, the FAA also asserted that the alleged violation of 14 C.F.R. ~ 19.417(c) 

"commenced on or about July 18, 2014."7 (Aug. 23,2016 FAA Statetnent, 1.) 

Mr. Curtright agreed that as of September 4, 2014, the FAA had advised him, via a Letter 

of Investigation ("LOI"), that his failure to produce the requested "aircraft and engine 

maintenance logbooks" ofN949JP could be "contrary to the Federal Aviation Regulations." 

(Mot., Ex. 5 at 1.) The FAA's September 4, 2014 LOI also advised Mr. Curtright that if he 

6 In its Answer, the Respondent asserted that these ''lost" records were ultimately found and "presented'' to the FAA 

one month earlier via email on July 15, 2015. (Ans. I,,[ 2.) The FAA disputed this pa11icular fact assertion. 

7 The "violation date" of July 18,2014 immediately follows the FAA's LOI demand deadline date of July 17,2016. 

Page 5 of 8 
"fail[ ed] to supply the requested information" (Mot., Ex. 7 at 1 ), the FAA would "make 

detern1inations about possible enforcement action" without seeking any further participation 

from Mr. Curtright. (Mot., Ex. 7 at 2.) 

However, in his Motion, Mr. Curtright asserts that the language of 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c) 

does not require owners to store maintenance records on the aircraft, and instead only requires 

that the maintenance records "be produced for inspection in a reasonable amount of tin1e when 

requested by the FAA, NTSB or law enforce1nent." (Mot., 5.) Mr. Curtright explained that some 

of his records, which the FAA had requested in July 2014, had been "lost" for a time. (Ans. 1, 

~~ 1 and 3.) He also emphasized that these "lost" records were ultiinately found and "presented" 

to the FAA. (Ans. 1, ~ 2.) 

Since it is undisputed that Mr. Curtright ultimately produced its aircraft maintenance 

logbooks for FAA inspection on August 13, 2015 (i.e., approximately three (3) n1onths after the 

FAA filed its Complaint), Mr. Curtright asserts that his actions were reasonable and in 

cmnpliance with the regulatory requiren1ents. Thus, as a matter of law, he cannot be found to 

have committed a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). (Mot. 5; Ex. 2.) 

In essence, based on the undisputed facts, the issue in dispute is a legal issue; specifically, 

whether the Respondent made the aircraft and engine logbooks "available for inspection" as 

required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(c), when he provided the logbooks thirteen ( 13) months after the 

FAA investigator requested production of the logbooks. Neither the Respondent nor the FAA 

specifically addressed this narrow legal issue in their materials. 

F. Conclusion 

The parties are reminded that each motion for sutninary judg1nent is reviewed separately. 

Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 1163-64 and 1171 (Th01nson 

Reuters 20 16). In considering each n1otion, the Comi n1ay consider not only the requested relief~ 

but also consider granting judgment on behalf of the non-moving party, and/or provide relief on 

grounds different from what the parties requested. See, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(t)( 1 ); 

and Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., supra at 1197-1198. 

Page 6 of 8 
The parties should be given tin1e to suppletnent their n1aterials with legal authority in 

support of their summary judgtnent positions. During the Decen1ber 8, 2016 Telephone 

Conference, Mr. Curtright orally provided the following authority: In the Matter of General 

Aviation, FAA Order 98-18 (October 8, 1998). The parties were also provided a January 13, 

2017 deadline to file any further legal authority, with the swnmary judgment oral arguments 

continued to January 25, 2017. In addition, during the Decetnber 8, 2016 Telephone Conference, 

certain oral rulings on Mr. Curtright's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss were issued and 

explained. Those rulings are also codified in this Order. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205, 13.218, and Rule 56, and after reviewing all relevant 

caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's oral n1otion, to continue the sumn1ary judgn1ent argun1ents and to allow it to 

supplement its cross-motion 1naterials to include missing attachments, is granted over the 

Respondent's objection. 

2. The Respondent's multiple requests for sumtnary judgment and other relief, contained in 

the Respondent's October 26, 2016 Motion, are reserved. 

3. January 13, 2017 Supplement Deadline: On or before January 13, 2017, the parties 

may file supplemental material, specifically any legal authority and argument, in support 

of their positions regarding the Respondent's Motion for Su1nn1ary Judgment on the 

violation charged under 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). 

4. January 25, 2017 (1:30 p.m.-3:00p.m. ET): Motion Conference. Oral argun1ent will 

be heard on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time) regarding 

both the Respondent's Motion for Su1nn1ary Judgn1ent and the FAA's Cross-Motion. 

Should time permit, final status of discovery as well as potential hearing dates (in the 

event the matters herein are not fully resolved by sun11nary judgment) will also be 

addressed. To access the Court's Conference line, the parties shall dial 888-278-0296 and 

enter code 5851842. 

Page 7 of 8 
5. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the "'actual 

date of violation" in this case is not identified, is denied. 

6. The November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the FAA's complete 

copy of its Enforcement Investigation Report has not been provided to the Respondent_ is 

denied. 

7. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Disn1iss, on the grounds that the FAA 

has not fully explained to the Respondent the basis for its proposed $11,000 civil penalty, 

is denied. 

8. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the 

Respondent provided a majority of its records on or before July 7, 2014, is denied. 

9. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the FAA 

lacks evidence to prove the alleged violation, is denied. 

10. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that he 

produced his aircraft records within a reasonable time, is reserved as part of the pending 

summary judgment proceeding. 

11. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the FAA's 

proposed civil penalty of$11,000 violates the Eighth A1nendment prohibition against 

cruel and unusual punishn1ent, is denied. 

12. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Of1-ice of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachn1ent: Service List 

.ludg 

U.S. 

Page 8 of 8 
Docket No. F AA-20 15-1319 

(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 2W 10008 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dr. Willimn An1es Cwiright, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209-7388 

FAX: 503-485-0812 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Departn1ent of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

8 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 2WIOOO, Washington, 

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